Attitude towards Philippine English: A Case of BSU English Teachers

Salome M. Lopez-Escalonaemail: salome_escalona@yahoo.com

Abstract

This study investigated the attitudes of the English teachers of Bukidnon State University on

Philippine English using a survey questionnaire. Findings reveal that the English teachers have positive

attitude towards the Philippine English as a variety of the Standard English. They Agree on the positive

statements and Strongly Disagree on the negative statements about the Philippine English. In the lexical

items and phrasal construction (Filipinisms), the English teacher- respondents accepted most coined

words which have been used and adapted in the Philippines, but did not accept non-standardisms and

idioms/ungrammatical constructions, and were neutral in other items.

Keywords: Philippine English, World Englishes, Filipinisms

1

Introduction

English is definitely a prestigious language. It is looked up to by most, if not all people. It is the

language that everybody would like to use because of the certain reputation a speaker is bestowed once

he/she talks using the said language. During job application, a proficient user of the English language

has a better advantage in getting the job compared to him/her who is not a proficient user of the English

language. In school activities, a student who can speak the language well, is often regarded better,

being asked to be the master of ceremonies in school activities, etc. These are some of the accolades a

good speaker of the English language gets out of his/her ability to use the language well.

English language is considered a powerful language. It is a language where most people, if not

all, can understand and can use. It is even branded as the international language. It is a language spoken

in mass and print media, film, books, magazines or basically throughout the world. Ethnologue

mentions that it is spoken by people in 99 countries, by 414 million speakers. Because of this number

of countries and speakers, it is understood that there would be variations with accent and/ or

pronunciation. As mentioned by Strevens in Mahboob and Dutcher (2014), most of these people do not

speak standard English on a regular basis. In their everyday life, they use dialects and varieties that

reflect their backgrounds and lifestyles choices. Thus, to some degree, while these people speak

English, the English that they use is not the same.

This variation in English is recognized by language authorities. Thus, the birth of 'World

Englishes'. This concept has become a popular concept today. The term 'World Englishes' was

introduced by Indian sociologist Braj Kachru in 1980s to represent the “functional and formal

variations, divergent sociolinguistic contexts, ranges and varieties of English in creativity, and various

types of acculturation in parts of the Western and non-western World” (Martin, 2014). Briefly, Kachru's

Circles of English presents a model to better understand the use of English in different countries. This

is represented by three concentric circles, the inner circle, the outer circle and the expanding circle. The

2

inner circle is the norm-providing. These are the countries where English is the first language, like US,

UK, Australia, etc.; the outer circle is the norm-developing. These are countries where English is not

the native language but have considered English as their second language. This circle includes India,

Pakistan, Malaysia, Philippines, etc.; the expanding circle is norm-dependent. English in this circle is a

foreign language. It is employed for limited purposes only like business purposes. The countries

considered to be part of this circle are China, Japan, Korea, Russia, etc.

In the Philippines, the English variation is called Philippine English by some while Filipino

English by others. In this study, the researcher prefers to use the term Philippine English to avoid the

confusion that could be associated to the term Filipino English with a code-mixing variety of the

Filipino-English language.

Mahboob (2009) remarked that English is not the property of native speakers from the so-called

Inner Circle countries, but is deployed by its users around the world to “reflect and incorporate local

philosophies, idioms and cultures.”

Krachu's circles of English was analyzed by Martin (2014). Her analysis was focused on the

Philippine English as having three circles within the Outer Circle. According to her, in the Philippine

English, there is an Inner Circle of educated, elite Filipinos who have embraced the English language

(whether standard American or Philippine English) and actively promote and protect it; there is also an

Outer Circle of Filipinos who may be aware of Philippine English as a distinct and legitimate variety,

but who are either powerless to support it and/or ambivalent about it promotion; and there is an

Expanding Circle of users of English in the Philippines to whom the language, of whatever variety,

remains a requisite to upward mobility but is largely inaccessible. These three circles co-exists within

the Outer Circle that is the Philippines and the Philippine variety of English. And like Kackru's three

circles model, the demarcations and the distinguishing features between the circles may not be clear-cut

or perfect.

3

The Philippine English as a standard English language has been debated over the years. There

are a lot of researchers and authorities who commended on its system but there are also others who

think of it as an inferior variety of English and therefore is unfit to be accorded the term 'standard'

system.

According to McKaughan (1993), Philippine English has emerged as an autonomous variety of

English with its own self-contained system. This system is a system that is understood by many

Filipinos and have been used by them in different language domains. Bautista and Bolton (2008) added

that since the post-independence era after 1946, Philippine English has become a variety of World

Englishes associated with distinct accent, a localized vocabulary, and even a body of creative writing

by Philippine writers in English.

Moreover, in non-scholarly discourse about English in the Philippines, the status of Philippine

English as legitimate is likewise recognized. Martin (2014) mentioned the case of Rico Hizon, a BBC

News World Anchor who was given an award by Toastmaster International. During his acceptance

speech, he talks about “being proud of his Filipino-English diction.' He said: It is a Pan-Asian diction.

It does not pretend to sound western but both Asians and non-Asians can easily comprehend what is

being said. There are a variety of accents speaking the English language and there is no need for the

Filipino to imitate the American, British or whatever accent just to say it's proper English. We have our

very own, and that is what makes us a cut above the rest. And that's why I am where I am. It's because

of the Filipino English diction.

These are some opinions of language researchers who have accepted and embraced the

legitimacy of Philippine English.

On the other side of the coin, there are others who so not fully agree on the credibility of the

Philippine English as a standard English. Gonzales (1997) for one commented that the foreign standard

(American English) is the one that is legitimate and postulated as an ideal, while the Philippine English

4

is deemed illegitimate although it can be considered in the local standard.

Tupas' (2006) for one, finds that the student-teachers who were the respondents of his study

believed that: (1) Philippine English is not an ideal model in the English language classroom; (2)

Students must be taught standardized English because this too is empowering; (3) Standardized English

should be taught as form, but Philippine English should be used as content; and (4) In teaching

standardized English, code-switching should be used whenever necessary to communicate local

content.

Furthermore, Martin (2014) also found out that in the survey of 185 public school teachers, a

large percentage of teachers reported that their target model of teaching English was American English,

even if most of these teachers considered English to be a Philippine language, and that they spoke

Philippine English. When asked why American English is their target, the teachers gave responses that

reflected a sense of helplessness or powerlessness to offset the elevated status of American English, and

came up with such comments as :(1) American English is the universal language; (2) American English

is universally accepted; (3) It is an international language; (4) it is internationally understood; (5)

American English is most preferred by many companies who have networks in other countries; (6) It is

clearer, more widely-used and a lot of Filipinos go to the US to work; and (7) I want to be a realist.

In addition, Columnist James Soriano (2011) writes in a Manila Bulletin issue: For while

Filipino may be the language of identity, it is the language of the streets. It might have the capacity to

be the language of learning, but it is not the language of the learned. It is neither the language of the

classroom and the laboratory, nor the language of the boardroom, the court room, or the operating

room. It is not the language of the privilege. I may be discontented from my being a Filipino, but with a

tongue of privilege I will always have my connections. So I have my education to thank for making

English my mother tongue.

The attitude about the Philippine English amongst Filipinos is unquestionably interesting. It is

5

even more interesting to know it from English teachers who are using English to teach others. That is

why this study was conducted. It would like to find out how English teachers of Bukidnon State

University find the Philippine English. Such knowledge would help in identifying the acceptability of

the Philippine English among its users.

Statement of the Problem

This study would like to find out the attitude of the English teachers of Bukidnon State

University of the Philippine English. Particularly, it was conducted to seek answers to the following

research problems:

1. What is the general attitude of English teachers toward Philippine English?

2. What is the attitude of the English teachers toward Filipinism?

Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored on concepts about Philippine English and Filipinism.

Filipinos have different attitudes regarding the use of Philippine English. Some are positive

while others are negative. On the positive aspect of the Philippine English, a lot was said regarding it

by language researchers. It is said that words from our own culture is a necessity in developing

Philippine English. This will make English easy for us to learn. Constantino (1982) postulated that

American English led Filipinos into a strange, new world where they start learning languages and new

way of life and became alien to their own traditions. English then should be nativized so that it

becomes a part of the Filipino culture, not a separate borrowed variety from the Americans.

Part of the development of one country is the changes in its attitude toward what is already

practiced. This is also true in how the Philippines regard the English language. While before, people

were so concern about the standard American English, today, modifications are made from American

English to make it suitable for use in the Philippines. The most important is that Philippine English

6

progresses in its development. Borlongan (2011) ardently says Philippine English does follow

American English, undeniably a child of its parent. But like a typical child of any parent, it has a life of

its own, too. One sees traits inherited from the parent but, likewise, it manifests traits resulting from

developmental and contextual dynamics.

Although not called the standard American English, the Philippine English can also identify

which is standard and which is not. They also have what is called as Philippine Standard English. With

regards standard Philippine English, Llamzon's monograph as cited by Bautista (2001) clearly defined

standard Philippine English as the type of English that educated Filipinos speak and which is

acceptable in educated Filipino circles. Speakers of this variety of English could be identified because

their speech is intelligible to native speakers of English.

According to Borlongan and Lim (2012) teachers must point in class how Philippine English

textual patterns may differ from other Englishes and must instruct their students to be aware of how

these differences and variations may be used appropriately. The findings of corpus-based studies of

Philippine English with reference to internal stylistic variation may help in pointing out when

Philippine English discriminates between the uses of the subjunctive mood, for example, and so the

teacher must try to make the most out of this kind of resource. Given this, teachers must likewise rate

submissions without judging those works that make use of Philippine English patterns as inferior.

Bautista (2000) goes further by claiming that Philippine English is not only a legitimate, but an

institutionalized and standardized variety of English, as well. According to her, no one can question the

fact that Philippine English exists, together with such varieties as Indian English, Nigerian English, and

Singaporean English. These are all legitimate varieties of English, albeit new, and they are as legitimate

as the older varieties called British English, Canadian English, and Australian English.

However, Philippine English is also seen negatively by some. Some people oppose to believe on

the positive aspect of the Philippine English. Bautista (2001) mentioned that American English was

7

seen as a basis for English instruction in classrooms and it was an exonormative model in structure and

target phonology. This means that Philippine English has produced a new system of English phonology

which is only used in this country. The consequence is that some Filipinos will find it difficult to

communicate with others who speak a different variety of English.

Even though English can be heard in every part of Filipinos‟ life, politicians, media practitioners

and officials in Department of Education always show their negative concerns about the current state of

English teaching and students‟ English proficiency in the country (Friginal, 2009).

Moreover, Gonzales quoted in Bolton (2000) mentioned that the discrepancy between standards and

attainment results in linguistic schizophrenia: on the one hand, foreign standard (American English) is

considered ideal; on the other hand, a local standard (Philippine English) is accepted as reality. The former

is legitimate and postulated as ideal; the latter is tolerated but still deemed illegitimate.

Filipinism on the other hand, is defined by Dar as mentioned by Bautista (2001) as “Filipino

English peculiarities in the lexicon, expressions and sentence constructions. These are used, understood

and accepted by the speakers of the Filipino English.” Further, he indicated three criteria in the

identification of Filipinisms: 1.) usage in an English-speaking situations; 2.) understandability; and 3.)

congruity with the English language. Also, Llamzon identified four categories of Filipinisms. These are

(1)Spanish loanwords used along with synonyms in foreign language, (2) New terms (e.g. amboy,

import, sugarlandia), (3) Terms with different meanings, and (4) Cultural influences (influence of the

native language and/or influence of material culture).

Bautista (1997) enumerated the processes by which a lexicon develops and gave examples from

Philippine English. These processes include: (1) coinage, by analogical construction, like rallyist,

bedspacer, aircon, bedsheet, (2) abbreviation, like CR (from comfort room “restroom”), (3) by total

innovation, like presidentiable, (4) compounding like face towel (wash cloth), green joke (obscene

joke), and (5) normal expansion processes such as extension or adaptations of meaning, like salvage

(summarily execute).8

Related Studies

This study replicates the study conducted by Bautista where her study was influenced by studies

done by Baumgardner (1995) in Pakistan and Crismore, Ngeow, and Soo in Malaysia (1996). Bautista

has conducted several studies on Philippine English. Her particular study where the present study was

replicated utilized a purposive sample of 86 members of the English Department of the three leading

universities in the Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University and the University

of the Philippines. The respondents were given a series of Likert Scale items, some items negative

towards Philippine English and some positive towards it. They were also asked to judge thirty

Filipinisms for acceptability in spoken discourse.

Bautista (2001) presented a paper that presents the linguistic features of Philippine English

based on the most important studies done on the subject. Her study also summarized three significant

attitude studies done in the areas of phonology, grammar, and Philippine English as a variety and

described how a knowledge and mindfulness of the features of Philippine English can inform English

language teaching in the Philippines.

Bautista's study helped the present study by giving several descriptions of the Philippine variety

of English.

It is also worthwhile to mention Bautista's study conducted in 2000. In her study, she analyzed

150 texts of 2000 words each and noted the deviations from Standard American English (SAE). In the

data, she found numerous instances of deviations in subject-verb agreement, articles, prepositions,

tenses, mass and count nouns, pronoun-antecedent agreement, word order, and comparative

constructions. She also showed the sentences with deviations to a native speaker of English to confirm

whether these seemed to him to be deviations from Standard American English. This study of Bautista

gave so many insights to the present study.

9

Matsuura, et al (1994) conducted a study on Japanese students' attitude towards diverse

Englishes. They found out that Japanese listeners viewed American English more positively than they

viewed the other varieties. They also found that the more the listeners prefers native English varieties,

the more positive their attitudes toward American accent and the more negative their attitudes toward

the nonnative varieties become. This is related to the present study because both studies are concern

about attitude toward diverse Englishes. The difference is on the variety of English studied. While

Matsuura, et al study is on American English and the Japanese variety, the present study is about the

Philippine English variety.

Borlongan (2009) looked at the language used, attitudes, and identity in relation to Philippine

English among young generation Filipinos through a questionnaire survey of a selected group of

students from a Philippine private university. The survey findings reveal that most domains of use and

verbal activities are dominated by English as the language of current usage, and even more domains

and activities are dominated by English as the language of preferred usage. Moreover, he also found

out that English continues to penetrate the Filipino society, as evidence by the dominance of its use in

various domains and activities and even more in intimate contexts such as prayers, home and

expressions of intimate relations. The cited study is related to the present study because it also studied

the attitudes of the Filipinos regarding Philippine English. The difference lie of the domains under

studied. While the present study identified the attitudes of the teachers on the different statements about

Philippine English, Borlongan's study looked into the attitudes of Filipino students about Philippine

English in different domains.

10

Methodology

The Research Design

This research uses the quantitative-descriptive research design to identify the attitude of the

respondents towards the Philippine English. A questionnaire was adapted. Answers were tallied,

described and analyzed.

The Research Locale

This study was conducted at Bukidnon State University.

Bukidnon State University is a state university located in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. The

school was formerly known as Bukidnon State College. It is the only university in the Province of

Bukidnon that carries the name of Bukidnon in its official name. The University has five colleges

offering undergraduate programs and two colleges offering graduate programs: College of Teacher

Education (CTED), College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of Business Administration,

Hospitality and Public Governance (CBAHPG), College of Community Education and Industrial

Technology, College of Nursing, College of Law and the College of Graduate Studies.

Bukidnon State University offers varied programs of academic excellence along with diverse

opportunities. Students can participate in relevant internship in local and international level, field

experiences, community service and leadership development (www. bsc.edu.ph).

The Respondents

The survey questionnaire was responded by 19 English teachers of Bukidnon State University,

Malaybalay City. These teachers are faculty serving in the different colleges of the University. Two of

the respondents finished Doctor of Philosophy, 1 finished Doctor of Education, 7 have finished Master

of Arts in Education major in English Language Teaching and 9 are finishing their MA theses. Of these 11

19 English teachers, 9 are tenured teachers and 10 are part-time instructors.

The Instrument

Data gathered in this study is mainly acquired through a 41-item, 3-part, 5-point Likert scale

questionnaire adapted from Bautista. The first part contains positive statements about the Philippine

English; the second part contains negative statements about the Philippine English; and the third part

contains Philippine English lexical words or items and phrasal construction (Filipinisms).

Statistical Treatment of the Data

In order to determine the perceptions of the respondents about Philippine English and some

Filipinism words, the answers were tallied and given their equivalent percentage. The standard

Deviation was also computed.

Findings

This part of the paper discusses the findings of the research resulting from the questionnaire.

Problem 1: What is the general attitude of English teachers toward Philippine English?

Tables 1-6 show the attitude of the teachers regarding the positive statements of the Philippine

English.

12

Table 1. “It is to be expected that there will be regional differences in pronunciation and vocabulary in Philippine English.”

___________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total

Disagree Agree___________________________________________________________________________________

Number 3 0 0 4 12 19Percentage 16% 0% 0% 21.0% 63% 100%___________________________________________________________________________________

Results show that respondents strongly agree to the given statement. Teachers believe that it is

normal that there would be regional differences in pronunciation and vocabulary in Philippine English

as compared to the Standard American English. As Strevens in Mahboob and Dutcher (2014) mentions,

most of these people in other countries do not speak standard English on a regular basis. In their

everyday life, they use dialects and varieties that reflect their backgrounds and lifestyles choices. Thus,

to some degree, while these people speak English, the Englishes that the speak is not the same.

Table 2. “Using words from our own culture is a necessity in developing Philippine English.”__________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total

Disagree Agree___________________________________________________________________________________

Number 2 1 2 9 5 19Percentage 10.50% 5.20% 10.50% 47.30% 26.5% 100%___________________________________________________________________________________

In this statement, the respondents still show positive attitude. Fourteen respondents agree on the

statement (9 agree, 5 strongly agree). This means that most of the respondents believed that for the

Philippine English to develop, the Filipinos have to use words true of the Philippines and the Filipino

culture. As pointed out by Constantino (1982), American English led Filipinos into a strange, new

world where they started learning languages and new way of life and became alien to their own

13

traditions. Therefore, English should be nativized so that it becomes a part of the Filipino culture, not a

separate borrowed variety from the Americans.

Table 3. “It is natural to have different varieties of English like Australian English, Singaporean English, Philippine English.”

___________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total

Disagree Agree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 2 0 0 4 13 19Percentage 10.50% 0% 0% 21.00% 68.50% 100%___________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3 shows that most of the respondents strongly agree that it is but natural to have different

varieties of the English language. Just as Bautista (2000) claimed, Philippine English is not only a

legitimate, but an institutionalized and standardized, variety of English, as well. She further added that

no one can question the fact that Philippine English exists, together with such varieties as Indian

English, Nigerian English, and Singaporean English. These are all legitimate varieties of English, albeit

new, and they are as legitimate as the older varieties called British English, Canadian English, and

Australian English

Table 4. “Filipinos have the right to modify American English to make it suitable for use in the Philippines.

___________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total

Disagree Agree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 1 3 6 8 1 19Percentage 5.20% 16% 31.5% 42.10% 5.20% 100%___________________________________________________________________________________

Results show that the respondents again Agree to the statement that Filipinos have the right to

modify American English so that it would suit for use in the Philippines. Borlongan (2011) cited that

actually, Philippine English does follow American English, undeniably a child of its parent. But like a

14

typical child of any parent, it has a life of its own, too. One sees traits inherited from the parent but,

likewise, it manifests traits resulting from developmental and contextual dynamics.

Table 5. “ The variety of English that should be used in the Philippine newspaper should be educated Philippine English.”

___________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total

Disagree Agree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 2 0 4 10 3 19Percentage 10.50% 0% 21% 52.50% 16% 100%___________________________________________________________________________________

In the table above, it is clear that more than 50% of the respondents agree to the positive

statement about the Philippine English that print media like newspaper should only be using the

educated Philippine variety of English. This is because newspapers are circulated everywhere in the

country and could be read by a lot of people. Because it can likely be read by many people, newspapers

should therefore be careful and should use only the standard Philippine English and not those invented

only by just anybody.

Table 6. “The variety of English that should be used on Philippine radio and television should be educated Philippine Education.”

_________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total

Disagree Agree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 2 0 3 11 3 19Percentage 10.50% 0% 16% 57.50% 16% 100%___________________________________________________________________________________

The table above shows that more than half of the respondents agree to the said positive

statement regarding the Philippine English. Just like the print media, the broadcast media should also

15

be careful and watchful of using the standard Philippine variety of English. The following of this

broadcast media is huge that they should be responsible in making sure they will only give out to the

audience what is standard. By standard Philippine English, Llamzon's monograph as cited by Bautista

(2001) clearly defined the variety as the type of English that educated Filipinos speak and which is

acceptable in educated Filipino circles. Speakers of this variety of English could be identified because

their speech is intelligible to native speakers of English.

The over-all attitude of the respondents on the positive statements of the Philippine English is

presented in Table 7.

16

Table 7.

Respondents' Attitude of the Positive Statements about the Philippine English

Statements SD DA N A SA Mean Standard Deviation

QD

1. It is to be expected that there will be regional differences in pronunciation and vocabulary in Philippine English.”

3 0 0 4 12 3.8 4.4 SA

2. Using words from our own culture is a necessity in developing Philippine English

2 1 2 9 5 3.8 2.9 A

3. “It is natural to have different varieties of English like Australian English, Singaporean English, Philippine English.

2 0 0 4 13 3.8 4.8 SA

4. “Filipinos have the right to modify American English to make it suitable for use in the Philippines.

1 3 6 8 1 3.8 2.78 A

5.The variety of English that should be used in the Philippine newspaper should be educated Philippine English.”

2 0 4 10 3 3.8 3.37 A

6. “The variety of English that should be used on Philippine radio and television should be educated Philippine Education.”

2 0 3 11 3 3.8 3.76 A

Scale: Qualifying Statement Qualifying Description4.21-5.00 Strongly agree The teacher has a highly positive attitude on the positive

statement of the Philippine English3.41-4.20 Agree The teacher has positive attitude on the positive

statement of the Philippine English2.61-3.40 Neutral The teacher an impartial attitude on the positive

statement of the Philippine English1.81-2.60 Disagree The teacher has negative attitude on the positive

statement of the Philippine English1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree The teacher has a highly negative attitude on the positive

statement of the Philippine EnglishIt can be gleaned in table 7 that the teacher-respondents Agree to most of the positive statements

17

about the Philippine English; also they Strongly Agree to the two statements given. This means that

they support the Philippine English as one variety of the Standard English.

On the negative statements about the Philippine English, the respondents answers and attitude

are shown in tables 8-13.

Table 8.

“Philippine English is actually mistakes made by people who speak poor English.”_________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree Disagree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 0 2 1 7 9 19Percentage 0% 10.50% 5.20% 37.0% 47.30% 100%

The table above shows the attitude of the respondents with the given negative statement about

Philippine English. It shows an overall result of Strongly disagree. This means that the English teachers

of Bukidnon State University do not agree that Philippine English is actually mistakes by people who

speak poor English.

Table 9.

“If we speak Philippine English, we will not be respected by other speakers of English.”_________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree Disagree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 1 1 1 4 12 19Percentage 5.20% 5.20% 5.20% 21.0% 63.40% 100%

Table 9 presents the result of the given negative statement about the Philippine English. It

shows that overall, the respondents strongly disagree that if we speak Philippine English, we will not be

respected by other speakers of English. In fact, Rico Hizon, a BBC News World when giving his

acceptance speech after given an award by Toastmaster International, mentions about “being proud of

18

his Filipino-English diction.' He said: It is a Pan-Asian diction. It does not pretend to sound western

but both Asians and non-Asians can easily comprehend what is being said. There are a variety of

accents speaking the English language and there is no need for the Filipino to imitate the American,

British or whatever accent just to say it's proper English. We have our very own, and that is what

makes us a cut above the rest. And that's why I am where I am. It's because of the Filipino English

diction.

Table 10.

“If we use Philippine English, people from other countries will think we are uneducated.”________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree Disagree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 0 2 1 4 12 19Percentage 0% 10.5% 5.20% 21% 63.3% 100%

The table above shows the attitude of the respondents of the given negative statement about the

Philippine English. In general, they strongly disagree with the statement that if we use Philippine

English, people from other countries will think we are uneducated. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of

Filipinos who are working abroad and are leaders or heads of their respective offices. A big factor for

this one is the Filipinos ability to use the English language. In fact, an article by TOEFL posted in the

internet In 2010, the Philippines gain a new title as the number 1 in BPO country in the world

surpassing India.

Table 11.

19

“Foreigners do not understand us if we talk to them in Philippine English.”________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree Disagree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 0 0 1 11 7 19Percentage 0% 0% 5.20% 57.5% 37. 0% 100%

Table 11 shows the attitude of the respondents of the given negative statement regarding the

Philippine English. Results show that the English teachers of Bukidnon State University strongly

disagree to the perception that foreigners do not understand Filipinos if they talk to them using

Philippine English.

Table 12. “Spoken Philippine English will be internationally accepted only if it does not show traces of regional (ethnic) pronunciation.”___________________________________________________________________________________Respondents Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree Disagree___________________________________________________________________________________Number 0 1 3 9 6 19Percentage 0% 5.20% 16% 47.3% 31.50% 100%

Finally, table 12 shows the attitude of the respondents regarding the given negative statement

about Philippine English. The results show that in general, the respondents disagree that the spoken

English will be internationally accepted only if it does not show traces of regional (ethnic)

pronunciation. Right now, the world has accepted the fact that there is a Standard English but along this

are other kinds of Englishes spoken by people in these different countries. These kinds of Englishes

may not be the standard but these countries have accepted the varieties of English as also legitimate. As

what Kachru (2006) mentioned that the concept world Englishes, then, emphasizes the pluricentricity

of the language and its cross-cultural reincarnations. This conceptualization about the functions and

multi-identities of English, therefore, has become a loaded weapon for those who view the spread of

20

the language exclusively in terms of the celebration of the Judeo-Christian mantras of the language—

the view that the “global,” “international,” and “world” presence of the language is essentially a victory

of what is perceived as a monocultural Western medium, and that the language is the English-using

West’s weapon in the clash of civilizations. That view does not represent the current global state of the

language or the multiple identities English has created across cultures.

Table 13 shows the over-all attitude of the respondents towards the negative statement about the

Philippine English.

Table 13.Respondents' Attitude of the Negative Statements about the Philippine English

Statements SA A N DA SD M Standard Deviation

QD

1.“Philippine English is actually mistakes made by people who speak poor English.”

0 2 1 7 9 3.8 3.5 DA

2. “If we speak Philippine English, we will not be respected by other speakers of English.”

1 1 1 4 12 3.8 4.2 SD

3.“If we use Philippine English, people from other countries will think we are uneducated.”

0 2 1 4 12 3.8 4.3 SD

4.“Foreigners do not understand us if we talk to them in Philippine English.”

0 0 1 11 7 3.8 4.4 SD

5. “Spoken Philippine English will be internationally accepted only if it does not show traces of regional (ethnic) pronunciation.”

0 1 3 9 6 3.8 3.3 D

Scale: Qualifying Statement Qualifying Description21

4.21-5.00 Strongly Disagree The teacher has a highly negative attitude on the negative statement of the Philippine English

3.41-4.20 Disagree The teacher has negative attitude on the negative statement of the Philippine English

2.61-3.40 Neutral The teacher has an impartial attitude on the negative statement of the Philippine English

1.81-2.60 Agree The teacher has positive attitude on the negative statement of the Philippine English

1.00-1.80 Strongly Agree The teacher has a highly positive attitude on the negative statement of the Philippine English

It can be seen in the overall result that the English teachers of Bukidnon State University has

negative attitude about the negative statements regarding the Philippine English. They Strongly

Disagree on 3 items and Disagree on 2 items. This means that the teachers have high regard of

Philippine English that they do not agree on any of the negative statements.

Research Problem 2: What is the attitude of the English teachers toward Filipinism?

Table 14 shows the attitude of the respondents towards the individual lexical items and phrasal

expressions known as Filipinisms. These words and phrases are specific and/or typical only of the

Philippines.

Table 14. Teachers acceptability of Filipinisms in the Spoken Condition

Statements HU UA N A HA SD QD1. Fill up a form (AE fill in or fill out a form)

15.80% 15.80% 10.50% 52.70% 5.20% 3.56 A

2. Watch your steps (AE watch your step)

10.50% 15.80% 10.50% 63.20% 0.00% 4.60 HA

3. I can’t afford “afford” as transitive verb)

5.20% 15.80% 15.80% 63.20% 0.00% 3.8 A

4. In the family way (AE pregnant)

5.20% 26.30% 31.60% 36.90% 0.00% 2.7 N

5. a research (research)

10.50% 10.50% 21.00% 47.50% 10.50% 2.7 N

22

6. open/close the light (AE turn on/off)

26.50%36.80% 10.50% 21.00% 5.20% 2.1 UA

7. It was so traffic (AE “traffic” as an adjective)

15.80% 36.80% 26.40% 21.00% 0.00% 2.3 UA

8. Result to (AE result in)

15.80% 15.80% 21.00% 47.40% 0.00% 2.9 N

9. Cope up with (AE cope with)

21.00% 15.80% 26.40% 36.80% 0.00% 2.3 UA

10. taken cared of (AE taken care of)

21.00% 36.80% 15.80% 26.40% 0.00% 2.3 UA

11. based from (AE based on)

15.80% 15.80% 21.00% 37.40% 0.00% 2.9 N

12. Equipments (AE equipment)

21.00% 37.00% 5.20% 31.60% 5.20% 2.4 UA

13. Comfort room (AE restroom)

5.20% 0.00% 5.20% 68.60% 21.00% 4.7 HA

14. Green joke (AE dirty joke)

5.20% 0.00% 15.80% 58.00% 21.00% 3.8 A

15. Aircon (AE air conditioning unit)

5.20% 5.20% 15.80% 58.00% 15.80% 4.1 A

16. CR (AE comfort room)

5.20% 10.50% 5.20% 63.30% 15.80% 4.2 A

17. Face towel (AE wash cloth)

5.20% 0.00% 5.20% 68.60% 21.00% 4.7 HA

18. toilet humor (jokes referring to excretory functions, etc.)

5.20% 5.20% 21.00% 63.40% 5.20% 4.26 HA

19. lechon (borrowing from Tagalog for roast suckling pig)

5.20% 5.20% 0.00% 63.20% 26.40% 4.44 HA

20. bedsheet (AE sheet)

5.20% 5.20% 5.20% 68.60% 15.80% 4.66 HA

21. I’ll go ahead (asking permission to leave ahead of the others)

5.20% 10.50% 21.00% 52.80% 10.50% 3.65 A

22. Bedspacer (someone who rents a bed for a fixed period of time)

5.20% 5.20% 15.80% 58.00% 15.80% 4.1 A

23. Dormmate 5.20% 5.20% 15.80% 58.00% 15.80% 4.1 A

23

(another person living in the same dormitory)24.Presidentiable (possible or actual presidential candidate)

5.20% 10.50% 15.80% 52.60% 15.80% 3.18 N

25. Salvage (to execute summarily)

0.00% 32.00% 21.00% 36.50% 10.50% 2.56 UA

26. Studentry (term for students taken collectively)

5.20% 5.20% 15.80% 57.90% 15.80% 3.32 N

27. Rallyist (one who participates in a political rally)

5.20% 5.20% 10.50% 57.90% 21.20% 3.76 A

28. Burgis (borrowing from Tagalog taken from bourgeois, not- poor)

0.00% 15.80% 47.30% 26.40% 10.50% 3.05 N

29. Hold your line ( AE hold the line)

5.20% 10.50% 15.90% 57.90% 10.50% 3.65 A

30. For a while (asking the caller to wait a while)

5.20% 5.20% 10.50% 52.60% 26.50% 3.42 A

Scale: Qualifying Statement Qualifying Description4.21-5.00 Highly Acceptable The teacher fully accepts Filipinisms3.41-4.20 Acceptable The teacher moderately accepts Filipinisms2.61-3.40 Neutral The teacher accepts some Filipinisms1.81-2.60 Unacceptable The teacher accepts only few Filipinisms1.00-1.80 Highly Unacceptable The teacher does not at all accept Filipinisms

As seen in table 14, the teachers have almost dispersed acceptability of Filipinism. However, it

is worth noting that many of them Accept it; 11 lexical items were rated Acceptable and 6 items Highly

Accepted.

The lexical items and phrases rated as Acceptable are : Fill up a form (AE fill in/ fill out a

form), I can't afford (where “afford” is used as a transitive verb), Green joke (AE dirty joke), Aircon

(AE Air conditioning unit), CR (AE comfort room), I'll go ahead (asking permission to leave ahead of

the others), Bedspacer (someone who rents a bed for a fixed period of time), Dormmate (another

24

person living in the same dormitory), Rallyist ( one who participates in a political rally), Hold your line

(AE hold the line), and For a while (asking the caller to wait a while).

On the other hand, the lexical items and phrases considered by the respondents as Highly

Acceptable are the following: Watch your steps (AE Watch your step), Comfort room (AE Restroom),

Face Towel (AE wash cloth), Toilet humor (jokes referring to excretory functions, etc.), Lechon

(borrowing from the Tagalog for roast suckling pig), and Bedsheet ( AE Sheet).

It is worth mentioning that most of these words and phrases accepted and highly accepted by

the respondents are coined words which are already adapted in Philippine English.

The table also shows that other lexical items and phrases were held Unacceptable by the

respondents. This means that the respondents believe that these certain items should not be considered

and used in spoken modes. These are the following items : Open/close the light (AE turn on/off), It was

so traffic (AE “traffic” as an adjective), Cope up with (AE cope with), Taken cared of (AE taken care

of), Equipments (AE Equipment), and Salvage (to execute summarily).

It can be observed that most of the phrases which use prepositions wrongly and non-standard

terms were unacceptable by the English teachers. Although they had positive attitude with the

Philippine variety of English, they were strict with incorrect and non-standard terms.

Lastly, there were items that were rated by the respondents as Neutral. This means that the

teacher-respondents have an impartial judgment about these items. They feel that these words might be

acceptable but at the same time, these can not just be acceptable. These words and phrases are the

following: In the family way (AE pregnant), A research (research), Result to (AE result in), Based from

(AE based on), Presidentiable (possible or actual presidential candidate), Studentry (term for students

taken collectively), and Burgis (borrowing from Tagalog; taken from bourgeois—not poor).

25

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this research, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Generally, the English teachers of Bukidnon State University have positive attitude

toward the Philippine English as a variety of the Standard English. They Agree on the

positive statements and Strongly Disagree on the negative statements about the

Philippine English.

2. The English teachers of Bukidnon State University accepted most coined words which

have been used and adapted in the Philippines, however, they are strict with non-

standardisms and idioms/grammatical constructions that they have not accepted them.

There were also coined words which were evaluated as Neutral by the respondents.

Recommendations

Even if the survey yielded interesting results, it could still be improved following the given

recommendations:

1. The present study has small sample size. Maybe a larger sample, at least comparable to

Bautista's study can be done, covering other schools and other group of respondents.

2. Other forms of survey, perhaps an interview or focus group discussion, be made to the same

respondents to validate the answers they have given to the survey questionnaire.

3. Other aspects of the Philippine English as a variety of English could be studied. Findings

would reveal many things about our own variety of English.

4. Teachers, especially English teachers, make it a point to require their students to use the

Standard English especially in writing. Although the Philippine English is an accepted variety of the

English language, some of the Filipinisms are ungrammatical.

26

References

Bautista, M. L. S. (2000a). Defining Standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features. Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Bautista, M. L. S. (2000c). Studies of Philippine English in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, volume 31.

Bautista, Maria Lourdes S. (ed.). 2011. Studies of Philippine English: Exploring the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English. Manila: Anvil Publishing.

Bautista, M.L.S. (2001a). Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading Philippine Universities toward Philippine English, Asian Englishes, Volume 4.

Bautista, Maria Lourdes, S., & Kingsley Bolton (eds.). 2008. Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives.Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Baumgardner, R.J. (1995). Pakistani English: Acceptability and the norm, World Englishes, 14 (2).

Bình, T. H. (2011). A Brief Description of Philippine English.

Bolton, Kingsley (2011). The study of Philippine English: The contribution of corpus linguisitics. In Maria Lourdes S. Bautista (ed.), Studies of Philippine English: Exploring the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English, xi–xiv. Manila: Anvil Publishing.

Borlongan, A. (2009). A Survey on Language Use, Attitudes and Identity in Relation to Philippine English among Young Generation Filipinos: An Initial Sample From a Private University. Philippine ESL Journal, Volume 3

Borlongan, A. (2011). The preparation and writing of a grammar of the verb in Philippine English and the teaching of the English verb system in Philippine schools. Philippine ESL Journal 7(1).120–122

Constantino, L. R. (1982). The miseducation of the Filipino. Quezon City, Philippines : Foundation for Nationalist Studies.

Crismore, A. Ngeow, K. Y-H and Soo, K-S. (1996). Attitudes towards Englishes in Malaysia. World Englishes, volume 15.

Friginal, E. (2009). The language of outsourced call centers: a corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins

Gonzales, A, and Bautista, M.L.S. (1986). Language Surveys in the Philippines (1966-1984). Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University Press.

Hizon, Rico. 2011. Being proud of our own Filipino-English diction. http://globalnation.inquirer.net/viewpoints/ viewpoints/view/20110512-336121/Being-proud-of-

27

our-own-Filipino-English-diction (1 November, 2011)

Kachru, Braj B. (2006) World Englishes and culture wars. In The handbook of World! Englishes. Edited by Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson.. UK: ! Blackwell Publishing, pp. 446-471.

McKaughan, Howard P., (1993). Towards a standard Philippine English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 24, 52.

Mahboob, A. (2009). English as an Islamic language: A case study of Pakistani English. WorldEnglishes, 28(2), 175–189.

Mahboob, A. (2014). Englishes in a Multilingual Context , Multilingual Education. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4_1, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Mahboob, A. and Dutcher, L. (2014). Dynamic Approach to Language Teaching—A Model , Multilingual Education 10, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4_8, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Martin, Isabel Pefianco. (2010) Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in ! the Philippines. In Kirkpatrick, Andy. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of World! Englishes. UK: Routledge.

Martin, I. (2014). Philippine English Revisited. World Englishes, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 50–59, 2014.

Soriano, James. 2011. Language, learning, identity, privilege. Manila Bulletin Online. http://www.mb.com.ph/ articles/331851/language-learning-identity-privilege (1 November, 2011).

Tupas, T. Ruanni. 2006. Standard Englishes: Pedagogical paradigms and their conditions of (im)possibility. In T. Ruanni Tupas & Mario Saraceni (eds.), English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, 169–185. London: Continuum.

28