A Strong Partner for Sustainable Development

 
 
Module
in
ELT102

Language Programs and Policies in

Multilingual Societies 
 
 
 
  
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Bachelor of Secondary Education
-Major-
 
 
 
 Module No. 1

Laying the Groundwork: Definitions, Theories, and Concept

1st Semester 2020-2021

MANUEL L. BUCADJR.
INSTRUCTOR I

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)
 Western Philippines University

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 1
Pretest 2
Lesson Presentation 3
Discussion 7

Post test
References

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally language planning research has focused on the actions of governments

and similar macro-level institutions. Language planning as an academic discipline began in
the context of nation-state formation following the end of colonialism (see for example
Ferguson, 1962; Fishman, Ferguson, & Das Gupta, 1968; Pool, 1972; Rubin & Jernudd, 1971).
The chief concerns were related to issues of creating national unity and developing and
maintaining effective communication within emerging nations (Mansour, 1993; Ricento,
2003). Such a focus privileges the consideration of national level actions and the
intervention of official bodies in the language questions facing a society. In this context and
in that era, local issues of language planning were seen as secondary to the overall process of
planning, or to ones that raised unwanted problems and competition for the national
language. Initially, such issues often have been ignored (e.g., local language development in
Indonesia – Nababan, 1991), or suppressed (Tai’yü, Hakka and aboriginal languages in
Taiwan – Sandel, 2003; Tsao, 1998) if considered at all. One of the reasons for the
marginalisation of micro-level language planning within the context of language planning
research has been definitional. Most definitions of language planning presuppose ‘deliberate
planning by an organized body enjoying either legal or moral authority, such as a
government agency, commission, or academy’ (Nahir, 1998: 351). Such legal or moral
authority has regularly been located within macro-level institutions created and/or
sanctioned by nation-states. This view of language planning locates research within a theory
of power which sees the top-down exercise of power (or domination) as the relevant
construct for understanding decision-making about languages. Such a view of power in
language planning is however problematic as a delimiting agent for constituting the focus of
language planning research. It is problematic for a number of reasons.

Module 1

Learning Outcomes
At the completion of this module 1, the students should have:

1. Comprehensively define why do we have to study language and community and

the Role of National Language

2. Critically compared the Language Continuum to Linguistic Mosaic: European

Language Communities from the Feudal Period to the Age of Nationalism;

3. Language Planning in State Nations and Nation States;

4. Nation Building in the Wake of Colonialism: Old Concepts in New Setting.

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 Instruction to the Users

This module on Technology for Teaching and Learning I will help enhance the knowledge
about the very definition, theories and concepts on technology in/for education, its
innovation and the fundamentals of using technology for learning and teaching.

This course in the curriculum is equally substantial in Professional Education since

predictably the world is slowly changing the phase of adopting technologically design
methodologies, materials, and pedagogies inside the education sectors. Learners will be
provided with a foundation for the theories and concepts of different technologies which
caters the teaching and learning processes.

The module includes discussions considered as inputs about the topic. Enhancement
activities and exercises are also provided for profound understanding of the topics.
User is expected to read the discussion carefully and to perform the activities and exercises
suggested. With the use of other references for additional information and ideas; books,
encyclopaedias as well as the internet would be very valuable for further knowledge.

Reminders in using this module:

1. Keep this material neat and intact.

2. Answer the pretest first to measure what you know and what to be learned
about the topic discussed in this module.
3. Accomplish the activities and exercises as aids and reinforcement for better
understanding of the lessons.
4. Answer the post-test to evaluate your learning.
5. Do not take pictures in any parts of this module nor post it to social media
platforms.
6. Value this module for your own learning by heartily and honestly answering
and doing the exercises and activities. Time and effort were spent in the
preparation in order that learning will still continue amidst this Covid-19
pandemic.
7. Observe health protocols: wear mask, sanitize and maintain physical
distancing.

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 Hi! I’m Blue Bee, your WPU Mascot.

Welcome to Western Philippines University!

Shape your dreams with quality learning experience.

STAY SAFE AND HEALTHY!

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

Course Learning Outcomes

On completing this course students will:

1. Analyze Language – in - Education Policy Evolution

2. Begin to notice how language is used and how it varies across the array of contexts in
which we engage daily.

3. Understand the theoretical underpinnings of Linguistic Anthropology.               

4. Understand different perspectives on context, including identities, social institutions,

cultural values and their relationships with language.

5. Confidently engage with the technical discourse and metalanguage within the field of
Sociolinguistics.

6. Make the clear link between the use of language and the context of that use.
Link theory to the practical reality of language variation in the community.

7. Articulate why and how some varieties of language are more highly valued than
others.

8. Generate, collate and analyse samples of authentic language use.

9. Undertake small-scale research or output, with a focus on language variation in the

community. Engage productively and respectfully with their peers.

1-5 Weeks

. What is language?

There are, however, perhaps two preliminary areas of enquiry to engage with before
moving to the main concerns of the book. The first is to ask ‘what is language?’ One school of
thought sees language as a cultural construct. Edward Sapir (1921: 7) described it as a ‘purely
human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means
of a system of voluntarily produced symbols’. The words and utterances we use refer to
common experience. In this interpretation we share knowledge about facts, ideas and events
and fit them into a pattern of knowledge about the world which is replicated to some extent
by each member of our group. The language of the group expresses its social and cultural
reality, and, indeed, forms it as well. This was the central idea in the work of Sapir and his
pupil, Benjamin Whorf, and has been termed linguistic determinism. In its strong form, the
belief that we are imprisoned in our language is discredited. The learning of foreign
languages, the elaboration of new terms and translation all contradict the idea that our
thought processes are bounded by our mother tongue. However, in its weak form the Sapir–
Whorf hypothesis is more widely accepted. It seems reasonable to intuit that we are more

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

likely to perceive, process, discriminate and remember in the ways that our language makes
readily available.

Why are there so many languages?

One of the empirical grounds for concluding that individual languages are social constructs
is the wealth of languages that exist in the world. Some put the figure as high as 6809
(Ethnologue 2000). Moreover, many languages existed in the past that no longer exist today.
This brings us to our second question. If language is the prime means by which human
beings became social animals, what is the origin of the extreme and profligate diversity of
human languages? George Steiner wonders: Why does homo sapiens whose digestive tract
has evolved and functions in the same complicated ways the world over, whose biochemical
fabric and genetic potential are, orthodox science assures us, essentially common, the
delicate runnels of whose cortex are wholly akin in all peoples and at every stage of social
evolution – why does this unified though individually unique mammalian species not use
one common language? (Steiner 1998: 52)

The idea that language can be a tool for inclusion and exclusion is central to this module.
Language builds human societies, solidarity and cooperation but it also plays a crucial role in
the distribution of power and resources within a society and among societies. In non-
democratic societies it serves to mark class and caste acquired through non-linguistic means;
in democratic societies it is power itself, since authority in a democracy derives ultimately in
a leader’s ability to persuade the electorate to accord that authority.

Identity and communication

Steiner was focusing on the communicative purpose of language in his essay; Laycock was
emphasising the role language plays in group identity. These two functions of language can
be complementary. With their ability to communicate, human beings can build communities,
which then provide, among other things, a powerful source of identity for their members. If
the group with which one needs to communicate is also the group to which one belongs then
there is no conflict and these two functions can work symbiotically. This may be the case in
small traditional communities which are self-sufficient, do not seek to break their isolation
and have no contact imposed by the wider world. It may be the case among those who feel
patriotic allegiance to their nation state, speak the national language and do not need to
move out of national circles for any of the key activities in their lives.

Reflection Activity – Research the identified languages in Palawan categorized and identify
what language is dominantly used and what belongs to the minority. What do you think are
the reasons why you come up with your data?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________.

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 MAJOR LANGUAGES OF THE PHILIPPINES

 Major Languages of Philippines is from another website

The Philippines has 8 major dialects. Listed in the figure from top to bottom: Bikol,
Cebuano, Hiligaynon (Ilonggo), Ilocano, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, Tagalog, and Waray.
The language being taught all over the Philippines is Tagalog and English.
The Cebuano dialect originated in Cebu, which is in the Visayas. However, it spread to
neighboring islands and in the northern and eastern parts of Mindanao. This was probably
facilitated by the American and Spanish policies to christianize Mindanao. Meanwhile, the
Tagalog and Bikol dialect (Bikolandia) boundaries seem to remain predominantly they were
centuries ago. This map only shows the dialect majority in each region. Actually,
southeastern Mindanao is populated with Ilocano, Tagalog, and other dialects, but Cebuano
has become the dominant dialect in that area..  The Ilocano dialect has spread out from its
origin in the western coast (Ilocandia), which was also probably facilitated by Spanish and
American policies. Other information on the philippines is in:   Extensive information about
the Philippines and  The Philippine Regions

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

Ever since it displaced India as the leading premiere call center destination, the Philippines
has been venturing into other areas of outsourcing to further cement its position in the
global offshoring industry. Among the niches that the country aims to penetrate further is
the multilingual customer support call center sector, a local segment that is budding to be
the most lucrative in Asia.

It’s the country’s convenient geographic location that has been attracting foreign businesses
to set up a central headquarters instead of distributing operations across multiple locations
in the Asia-Pacific. But more than that, what makes the Philippines an ideal site for offshore
multilingual call center operations is the availability of highly skilled agents who are fluent in
foreign languages that most outsourcers demand.

Bilingual education
The Filipino workforce owes much of its language proficiency to the government-mandated
bilingual education that all of its citizens must undertake from their early school years, up to
the tertiary level where foreign language education is required in some courses. Another
factor is that the country’s official language, Tagalog, originates from Spanish and Bahasa,
which makes it easy for Filipinos to immerse themselves in those foreign tongues.

Cultural diversity
According to the 2010 census, the Philippines is home to approximately 30,000 Americans
and 29,000 Chinese Nationals, as well as to several other nationalities residing in the nation.
The Japanese, Indians, and Canadians also make up a large portion of the foreign population
living among Filipinos. For this, finding native speakers to attend to same-language
customers is less of a challenge in the Philippines than in its less diverse neighbors.

International exposure
A growing trend in the Philippine call center scene is the hiring of former overseas Filipino
workers (OFWs) as foreign language specialists. Repatriated OFWs make use of their gained
foreign language fluency by working as voice representatives for the customers from the
countries they used to serve. These former OFWs’ lingual and cultural exposure gives them
an edge over native-speakers, making them equally preferred candidates by most call center
outsourcing firms.

Multilingual call centers are indeed rising to be one of the strongest sectors of the local
outsourcing industry. Given that the Philippines is a melting pot of various nationalities,
cultures, and languages, the multilingual voice service segment is not likely far from
becoming another major growth driver of the Philippine economy.

The development of LPLP as a discipline

As a subject of academic enquiry LPLP appeared first in the age of nationalism.

Language planning was an integral part of nation building and, in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, intellectuals in the United States, France, Germany, Italy and to a
lesser extent Britain produced a rich literature on the subject. The work of the Germans,
Herder and Fichte, was particularly influential in the elaboration of the role of language in
ethnic nationalism. Renan in France convincingly reconciled language and the theories of
civic nationalism. The ideas of German Romantic nationalism and the theories of French

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

Republicanism inspired a ferment of interest among those who aspired to the status of
independent nations. Language was at the heart of nationalism.

After the Second World War, LPLP established itself in the universities as a
recognised subject of academic enquiry. The language needs of the new ‘nations’ founded in
the wake of decolonisation brought about renewed interest in the philosophy and strategies
of nation building. The concept of ‘one language, one people, one state’ was, of course,
particularly problematic in the postcolonial world.

New disciplines: Feminist studies, Black studies, Cultural studies, Development

studies, appeared on the curriculum. Within the established disciplines, there was a critical
analysis of approaches, which led to change. In LPLP, the focus on the linguistic dimension
of modernisation and nation building was eclipsed, and many researchers and scholars
turned their attention to the social, economic and political effects of language contact,
concentrating particularly on issues of advantage/disadvantage, status and access. In
accordance with the mood of the times, there was a fundamental review of the terms of the
discipline. Many were seen to be ideologically laden. In many ways the questioning of
assumptions was helpful, and concepts such as bilingualism, multilingualism and diglossia
were made more useful through thorough discussion.

What is language policy?

Most would agree that language policy and language planning are closely related but
different activities. Some argue that language planning subsumes language policy (Kaplan
and Baldauf 1997) while others argue that language policy subsumes language planning
(Schiffman 1996). For the title of this book, the term language policy is adopted for two
reasons: (1) terminological simplicity, and (2) within accepted definitions of language
planning, there is an assumption that some agent(s) makes a plan intended to influence
language forms or functions, yet, there are many examples of language policy that are not
intentional and/or not planned.

Quote 1.1 Kaplan and Baldauf The exercise of language planning leads to, or is
directed by, the promulgation of a language policy by government (or other authoritative
body or person). A language policy is a body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices
intended to achieve the planned language change in the societies, group or system. (Kaplan
and Baldauf 1997: xi)

Kaplan and Baldauf portray language policy as a set of laws or regulations or rules
enacted by an authoritative body (like a government) as part of a language plan. Certainly,
what Kaplan and Baldauf describe here is language policy but other activities can be
considered language policy as well. Language policies do not need to be enacted by an
authoritative body – they can emerge from a bottom-up movement or grassroots
organization – and not all language policies are intentional or carefully planned.

Quote 1.2 Harold F. Schiffman [L]anguage policy is primarily a social construct. It

may consist of various elements of an explicit nature – juridical, judicial, administrative,
constitutional and/or legal language may be extant in some jurisdictions, but whether or not
a polity has such explicit text, policy as a cultural construct rests primarily on other
conceptual elements – belief systems, attitudes, myths – the whole complex that we are
referring to as linguistic culture, which is the sum totality of ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes,

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

prejudices, religious strictures, and all the other cultural ‘baggage’ that speakers bring to
their dealings with language from their background. (Schiffman 1996: 276)

Schiffman’s primary argument is that language policy is grounded in linguistic

culture and examining one without the other is “probably futile, if not simply trivial”
(Schiffman 1996: 5). Captured within this definition are both explicit policies enacted by a
polity but also policy as a cultural construct, which relies on the implicit language beliefs,
attitudes, and ideologies within a speech community. He further argues that, too often,
elements within the linguistic culture (language use, attitudes, etc.) are portrayed as an
outcome of language policy “when it is clear that they are elements underlying the policy.
That is, conclusions are drawn about supposedly causal relationships between language and
policy that seem to me totally turned around” (Schiffman 1996: 3). The point about causal
relationships is important and careful language policy research should not make causative
claims about policy creator intentions, policy language, and policy outcomes without clear
evidence. We should not a priori attribute language and educational practices to policy since
they could have arisen without, or in spite of, any policy support.

Quote 1.3 Bernard Spolsky A useful first step is to distinguish between the three
components of the language policy of a speech community: (1) its language practices – the
habitual pattern of selecting among the varieties that make up its linguistic repertoire; (2) its
language beliefs or ideology – the beliefs about language and language use; and (3) any
specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention,
planning, or management. (Spolsky 2004: 5 [numbering mine])

Spolsky (2004) distinguishes between three components of what he calls the

language policy of a speech community (Quote 1.3). Each of the tripartite set of components
is explained in detail in the first chapter of Spolsky’s book. The third part of the definition
references traditional conceptualizations of intentional language planning and policy
development (language management, in Spolsky’s terms, 2009) and is contrasted with the
first two components – practices and beliefs – which are not necessarily planned or
intentional.

Quote 1.4 Teresa McCarty I have characterized language policy as a complex

sociocultural process [and as] modes of human interaction, negotiation, and production
mediated by relations of power. The ‘policy’ in these processes resides in their language-
regulating power; that is, the ways in which they express normative claims about legitimate
and illegitimate language forms and uses, thereby governing language statuses and uses.
(McCarty 2011b: 8).

McCarty offers a unique definition based on a sociocultural approach, also described

as New Language Policy Studies (McCarty, Collins, and Hopson 2011), and views language
policy not simply as “top-down” or “bottom-up” but multi-layered and, similarly to
Schiffman and Spolsky, while she recognizes official government texts as potential language
policies, she is more interested in how language policy is produced in human interaction and
negotiation. Policies regulate language use and are evident in the “everyday ideologically
saturated language- regulating mechanisms that construct social hierarchies” (McCarty et al.
2011: 339). This definition also includes an important critical perspective, portraying policies
as mechanisms that produce power asymmetries. A critical conceptualization of policy is at
the fore of Tollefson’s (1991) definition, which positions “language policy” within critical
theory:

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 Quote 1.5 James. W. Tollefson [L]anguage planning-policy means the
institutionalization of language as a basis for distinctions among social groups (classes). That
is, language policy is one mechanism for locating language within social structure so that
language determines who has access to political power and economic resources. Language
policy is one mechanism by which dominant groups establish hegemony in language use.
(Tollefson 1991: 16)

Tollefson (1991) implemented an invaluable critical conceptualization into language

planning and policy research that has proven to be very influential. His approach is
influenced by critical theory and draws on the work of Habermas (e.g. 1973), Giddens (e.g.
1971), and Foucault (e.g. 1979), among others. As his definition makes clear, Tollefson views
language policy as a mechanism of power, which institutionalizes language hierarchies that
privilege dominant groups/languages and denies equal access to political power and
economic resources. A later re-formulation (2013b: 27) emphasizes how language polices
create systems of inequality but also how they resist such inequality. His critical language
policy (CLP) approach is taken up in a number of places in this book, but particularly in 2.3.

Concept 1.1 Language policy defined A language policy is a policy mechanism that impacts
the structure, function, use, or acquisition of language and includes:

1. Official regulations – often enacted in the form of written documents, intended to effect
some change in the form, function, use, or acquisition of language – which can influence
economic, political, and educational opportunity;

2. Unofficial, covert, de facto, and implicit mechanisms, connected to language beliefs and
practices, that have regulating power over language use and interaction within communities,
workplaces, and schools;

3. Not just products but processes – “policy” as a verb, not a noun – that are driven by a
diversity of language policy agents across multiple layers of policy creation, interpretation,
appropriation, and instantiation;

4. Policy texts and discourses across multiple contexts and layers of policy activity, which are
influenced by the ideologies and discourses unique to that context.

Table 1.1 Language policy types

Genesis –

 Top-down Macro-level policy developed by some governing or authoritative body or

person.
 Bottom-up Micro-level or grassroots generated policy for and by the community that
it impacts.

Means and goals

 Overt Overtly expressed in written or spoken policy texts

 Covert Intentionally concealed at the macro-level (collusive) or at the micro-level
(subversive)

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

Documentation

 Explicit Officially documented in written or spoken policy texts

 Implicit Occurring without or in spite of official policy texts

In law and in practice

 De jure Policy “in law”; officially documented in writing

 De facto Policy “in practice”; refers to both locally produced policies that arise
without or in spite of de jure policies and local language practices that differ from de
jure policies; de facto practices can reflect (or not) de facto policies

Language Policies in the Philippines

       The Language provision in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines which
are embodied in Article XIV, Sec. 6 and 7 provide the legal basis for the various language
policies that are being implemented in the country.

       The ratification of the above-mentioned constitution resolved the issue on what the
national language is, since the 1935 and 1973 Philippine Charters were not clear about this.

The provision are as follows:

1. Section 6.  The national language of the Philippines is Filipino.  As it evolves, it shall be
further
developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

2. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines
are
Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

The Philippine Bilingual Education Policy (BEP)

       Consistent with the 1987 constitutional mandate and a declared policy of the National
Board of Education (NBE) on bilingualism in the schools (NBE Resolution No. 73-7, s.1973)
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) promulgated its language policy.

       The policy was first implemented in 1974 when DECS issued Dept. Order No. 25, s. 1974
titled, “Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education.”

       Bilingual education in the Philippines is defined operationally as the separate use of

Filipino and English as the media of instruction in specific subject areas.  As embodied in the
DECS Order No. 25, Pilipino (changed to Filipino in 1987) shall be used as medium of
instruction in social studies/social sciences, music, arts, physical education, home
economics, practical arts and character education.  English, on the other hand is allocated to
science, mathematics and technology subjects.  The same subject allocation is provided in
the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education which is disseminated through Department Order
No. 52, s. 1987.

The policy is as follows:

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

The policy on Bilingual Education aims at the achievement of competence in both Filipino
and English at the national level, through the teaching of both languages and their use as
media of instruction at all levels.  The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary languages
in Grades I and II.  The aspiration of the Filipino nation is to have its citizens possess skills in
Filipino to enable them to perform their functions and duties in order to meet the needs of
the country in the community of nations.

The goals of the Bilingual Education Policy shall be:

1. enhanced learning through two languages to achieve quality education as called for by the
1987
Constitution;

2. the propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy;

3. the development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity;

4. the cultivation and elaboration of Filipino as a language of scholarly discourse, that is to

say its
continuing intellectualization; and

the maintenance of English as an international language for the Philippines and as a non-
exclusive language of science and technology.

Filipino and English shall be used as media of instruction, the use allocated to specific
subjects in the curriculum as indicated in the Department Order No. 25, s. 1974.

The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary media of instruction and as initial language
for literacy, where needed.

Filipino and English shall be taught as language subjects in all levels to achieve the goals of
bilingual competence.

Since competence in the use of both Filipino and English is one of the goals of the Bilingual
Education Policy, continuing improvement in the teaching of both languages, their use as
media of instruction and the specification of their functions in Philippine schooling  shall be
the responsibility of the whole educational system.

Tertiary level institutions shall lead in the continuing intellectualization of Filipino.  The
program of intellectualization, however, shall also be pursued in both the elementary and
secondary levels.

The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall cooperate with the National
Language Commission which according to the 1987 Constitution, shall be tasked with the
further development and enrichment of Filipino.

The Department of Education Culture and Sports shall  provide the means by which the
language policy can be implemented with the cooperation of government and non-
government organizations.

The Department shall program funds for implementing the Policy, in such areas as materials
production, in-service training, compensatory and enrichment program for non-Tagalogs,
development of a suitable and standardized Filipino for classroom use and the development
of appropriate evaluative instruments.

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

       Guidelines for the implementation of the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education are
specified in the DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987.  Among these are the need to intellectualize
Filipino and the concrete steps suggested towards its realization.

Executive Order No. 335

       On August 25, 1988, then President Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order No. 335
enjoining all departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government to
take such steps as are necessary for the purpose of using the Filipino language in official
transactions, communications, and correspondence.  The order was issued on the belief that
the use of Filipino in official transactions, communications and correspondence in
government offices will result to a greater understanding and appreciation of government
programs, projects and activities throughout the country, thereby serving as an instrument
of unity and peace for national progress.

       All departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government are

enjoined to do the following:

1. Take steps to enhance the use of Filipino in official communications, transactions and
correspondence in their respective offices, whether national or local;

2. Assign one or more personnel, as maybe necessary, in every office to take charge of
communications and correspondence written in Filipino;

3. Translate into Filipino names of offices, buildings, public edifices, and signboards of all
offices,
divisions or its instrumentalities, and if so desired, imprint below in smaller letters the
English
text;

Filipinize the “Oath of Office” for government officials and personnel;

Make as part of the training programs for personnel development in each office the
proficiency in the use of Filipino in official communications and correspondence.

       The Commission on the Filipino Language, formerly Institute of Philippine/National

Language, is ordered to formulate and implement programs and projects for the full and
effective implementation of the objectives expressed in the Executive Order.

The Language Policy of the Commission on Higher Education

       In 1994, Republic Act No. 7722, creating the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
was signed.  This Act which is know as the “Higher Education Act of 1994” provides that the
CHED shall be independent and separate from the DECS and attached to the Office of the
President for administrative purposes only.  Its coverage shall be both public and private
institutions of higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary
educational institutions, public and private.

       One of the first steps undertaken by CHED was to update the General Education
Curriculum (GEC) of tertiary courses leading to an initial bachelor’s degree covering four (4)
curriculum years.  This was done to make the curriculum more responsive to the demands of
the next millenium.

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

       The requirements of the new GEC are embodied in the CHED Memorandum Order
(CMO) No. 59, s. 1996. Listed under miscellaneous of this CMO is its language policy which
is as follows:

       In consonance with the Bilingual Education Policy underlined  in DECS Order No. 52,
Series of 1987, the following are the guidelines vis-a-vis medium of instruction, to wit:

1. Language courses, whether Filipino or English, should be taught in that language.

2. At the discretion of the HEI, Literature subjects may be taught in Filipino, English or any
other
language as long as there are enough instructional materials for the same and both students
and
instructors/professors are competent in the language.

Courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences should preferably be taught in Filipino.

Example Language policies,

Language policies especially when they have been used as an instrument of oppression, can
be a very salient feature of life but even when we are not aware of them, language policies can
nonetheless have a powerful influence. For example, the structure and language of this book
is influenced by a number of language policies. First, it is guided by rhetorical conventions
common to many academic discourse communities and, while these conventions or policies
may not always be explicit, they are strictly enforced by editors and reviewers of academic
publications. As well, the language itself is a product of multiple historical language planning
and policy processes that have influenced the form of the English language, a few of which
are reviewed here.

A brief history of English language policies

The history of the English language tends to be described with three historical periods – Old
English, Middle English, and Modern English – and during each period, radical changes
occurred. Many of these changes can be classified using the language planning frameworks
developed by scholars such as Haugen (1966, 1983), Ferguson (1968), and Kloss (1968) –
and subsequently integrated into an overarching framework (see Table 5.1 on pages 122–
123) by Hornberger (2006) – who use the term corpus planning to describe those language
planning “efforts related to the adequacy of the form or structure of languages/literacies”
(Hornberger 2006a: 28).

The Norman Conquest of England in 1066 engendered dramatic changes in the English
language that would eventually influence Middle and Modern English. During the Norman
Conquest, Norman French was implemented as the language of the state – in parliament and
the courts – and was considered the superior variety, while English was marginalized and
used primarily for oral communication. Heath and Mandabach (1983) describe the
relationship between English and French during this time as competitive, because it was not
clear whether the language of the people or the language of the state would triumph. English
made a strong comeback in official domains in 1258 when Henry III issued a proclamation
that was first composed in French and then, in order to directly address the people, was
issued in Old English. This is one of the oldest written documents in English and it serves as

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

an important language policy because it officially recognized Old English in the domain of
government (Ellis 1863).

Language contact is the term used to describe the phenomenon of languages coming into
contact with one another and in the field of sociolinguistics it has traditionally been used to
describe the macro-linguistic contact between large numbers of speakers – whole societies or
nations. The word contact makes it seem harmless enough but contact has often occurred
because of conquest and colonization, which leads to the spread of languages of power and
the concomitant destruction of less powerful languages.

When languages come into contact they invariably have some effect on each other and
contact between French and English during the Norman Conquest was no different –
English was forever changed. French was the only language used in the legal system until
1362 and it was still used in legal proceedings until 1650 when Parliament passed an act
stating that English would henceforth occupy this domain. Many of the words associated
with the law are still in use today: attorney, judge, sue, and court, for example (all borrowed
from Anglo-French). Of the thousands of words borrowed from French, some of the most
commonly used are fairly “obviously French” like entrée or quiche but others less so, like
government, jury, religion – and even the word used to describe the governing body of
England, parliament, is borrowed from Anglo-French. A few centuries later, Noah Webster
made his own mark on the English language when he published A Compendious Dictionary
of the English Language, the first attempt at a representation of English spoken in the U.S.,
and later An American Dictionary of the English Language. variety of English because of the
spelling of words like /dəfεns/ as “defense” (not “defence”) and /rumər/ as “rumor” and not
“rumour.” These spelling conventions are the direct result of Webster, who preferred such
spellings.

The history of the English

Language is a history of language planning and policies, the unique amalgamation of which
has created the language we use today. Yet, far from being historical relics, these language
policies are ubiquitous in the modern era and continue to be appropriated and enforced by
prescriptive grammarians, ESL teachers, advice columnists, call center supervisors, and
word processing programs (like Microsoft Word). Writing grammar books and dictionaries is
top-down language planning, in the sense that it is concocted by some (sometimes self-
appointed) authority, with implementation intended for the masses. For example, the Oxford
English Dictionary has explicitly portrayed the “standard” variety of a language as the “best”
variety; this can be seen in the 1933 definition of standard, which describes it as the term
“applied to the variety of the speech of a country which, by reason of its cultural status and
currency, is held to represent the best form of that speech. Standard English: that form of the
English language which is spoken (with modifications individual, or local), by the generality
of the cultured people of Great Britain.” However, the impact of these top-down policies
relies on the beliefs and actions of many different agents across many different LPP contexts.
For example, language arts teachers who choose to enforce Lowth’s rule about double
negatives in their classrooms appropriate that language policy for their own purposes. As
well, they may justify the policy using Lowth’s logic or invoke their own, perhaps noting that
the use of double negatives can hinder a job hunt or a college interview. In this way the
teacher has recontextualized (see Concept 5.14) Lowth’s language policy, a process whereby
texts are interpreted and appropriated in new ways depending on the agents and setting

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

(Wodak 2000). But the teacher’s actions might be, in part, influenced by the school district
curriculum, or a higher education course, or supervisors, and thus, the impact of any
particular language policy – even a so-called “top-down” policy – relies on the varied
interpretations and appropriations across multiple contexts and layers of language planning
and policy activity.

Indigenous languages and policy

Planned language change was a central part of the Norman Conquest – French replaced
English in many domains, including the government and the courts. However, the resulting
change to the English language was not “planned” per se, even if Anglo-French was forced
into certain domains. On the other hand, the language planning of colonizers has often been
very intentional and colonial language policies have forever changed the linguistic ecology of
the world. Consider this evidence: The number of languages in the world has been cut in half
over the past 500 years (Nettle and Romaine 2000) and of the 6500 or so languages left in
the world today, linguists estimate that at least half are at risk of extinction within the next
100 years (Romaine 2006). Approximately 95% of those 6500 languages are spoken by less
than 5% of the world’s population and most of the 5% are indigenous languages and speakers
(Hornberger 2008b). Krauss (1992) categorizes languages as moribund (no longer being
learned by children), endangered (are currently being learned by children • • What is
language policy? 17 but, if the present conditions continue, this will change), and safe (more
than 100,000 speakers). He calculates: Of the 6500 or so languages in the world, there are
currently about 600 safe languages in the world, meaning that more than 90% of the world’s
languages are either endangered or moribund and Krauss predicts that these will become
extinct in the next century. The most destructive of the “safe” languages is English as it has
replaced 90% of the languages it has come into contact with in what is now called the
English-speaking world. 90% of the 250 aboriginal languages spoken in Australia are
moribund and very near extinction. It should be noted, too, that Krauss wrote this almost
two decades ago and one wonders about the state of some of the languages he then reported
on, such as Iowa, Mandan, and Coeur d’ Alene, each at that time with 5, 6, and 20 speakers,
respectively

While these numbers are only a snapshot, they give us a sense of the intense decline of
linguistic diversity around the world, much of which was engendered by colonial language
policies that eradicated or endangered the languages and cultures of Indigenous peoples.
Whether it was thought that acquisition of the colonial language and concomitant
eradication of the indigenous languages would inspire better citizenship, better observance
of Christianity, or prevent uprisings, colonial language policies around the world were
consistently restrictive (Chimbutane 2011; see discussion in this volume, section 3.2). For
example, in 1887, the United States Commissioner of Indian Affairs, J.D.C. Atkins, who was
a strong advocate of replacing Indigenous languages with English, released a report on how
to deal with U.S. Indian languages:

Colonial language policies have been destructive to the world’s linguistic diversity. For
example, out of the more than 300 Indigenous languages that were spoken in what is now
called the United States, only 175 remain, with only 20 of those still being acquired by
children as a first language (McCarty 2009). However, despite the top-down efforts to
eradicate Indigenous languages in the U.S. and throughout the world, there have been
important grassroots or bottom-up efforts to save and revitalize them, a process Fishman

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

(1991) refers to as reversing language shift (see 2.5.1). Research that focuses on bottom-up
language policy and planning efforts to promote Indigenous languages in schools and society
include: Navajo (McCarty 2002), Quechua and Quichua (Hornberger 1988; King 2001),
Ma¯ori (May and Hill 2005), Ñähñu (Pedraza 1997), and Sámi (Hirvonen 2008). Edited
volumes that examine Indigenous language policy and education include Indigenous
Literacies in the Americas (Hornberger 1997a) and Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages?
(Hornberger 2008a). The Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa
(PRAESA) (see 6.3.1) promotes the inclusion of African languages in schools and publishes
on their language planning and policy work (see http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/
praesa/OCCPapers.htm).

How would you call the food above, categorize its name in its global, national/regional,
creole/pidgin and Idiolects: Also select five countries in the world and do the same
categorization.

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 1. Research the identified languages/dialects in Palawan categorized and identify what
language/s is/are dominantly used and what belong/s to the minority. 

Languages/dialects name

Origins

Population

Geographical location

1. State three reasons why you come up with your data? 

2. Would you change or maintain the current status of languages/dialects usage in Palawan,
justify your answer.

References:

 LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY Series Editors: Professor Richard B. Baldauf

Jr., University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and Professor Robert B. Kaplan,
University of Southern California, USA
 Language Policy and Language Planning From Nationalism to Globalisation Sue
Wright
 LANGUAGE POLICY AND MODERNITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand
 Language Policy David Cassels Johnson Washington State University, USA
 Robert Kirkpatrick Editor English Language Education Policy in Asia
 Maarja Siiner • Francis M. Hult Tanja Kupisch Editors Language Policy and
Language Acquisition Planning
 https://www.csun.edu/~lan56728/majorlanguages.htm
 https://www.openaccessbpo.com/blog/why-the-philippines-is-the-ideal-location-
for-multilingual-customer-support/

Congratulations for completing this module!

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 Student’s Information

Name:
Program:
Year and Section:
Contact No.:
E-mail address:
Facebook Account:
Messenger Account:

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)

 Vision 2020
WPU: the leading knowledge center for sustainable
development of West Philippines and beyond.

Mission
WPU commits to develop quality human resource and green
technologies for a dynamic economy and sustainable
development through relevant instruction,
research and extension services.

Core Values (3CT)

Culture of Excellence
Commitment
Creativity
Teamwork

WPU-QSF-ACAD-82A Rev. 00 (09.15.20)