Home
international
 Philippines
Kapampangan2
languages
nationalism
|
| Nationalism: Its Effect on Languages |
 |
| by Ronald Llanos |
| The folly about this ultranationalism is that, it forces us Cebuanos and other ethnolinguistic groups to dichotomize. When we talk about nationalism, we are forced to yield our original identities in favor of a forced ascription to Tagalog-Filipino national identity. Like wheat buckling in the wind, we have to bow to it. That is not the case with Tagalogs. By default, they feel their original identity is harmoniously integral with the national identity. With the nationalist message steeped in the milieu of their particular language and culture, nationalist feelings are especially evocative to Tagalogs who are proud to easily find common ground with it. No law gives them the obligation to learn another Philippine language. This is a sore point in our life as a nation because it forces us, Cebuanos and other ethnolinguistic groups to be forcibly ascribed an official national identity (without our consent), while the government does not show any sensitivity to the issue of ethnic pride and language equality.
Certainly, the national language is always an emotive issue especially when one disses another's favored invented language. But the deeper issue comes with the differences in perpectives, vision, and of course, ethnic pride. (Or, would Tagalistas say we should graciously concede to the Tagalog-Filipino "national language" ? )
Tagalogs, or for that matter, Tagalistas don't realize that the imposition of Tagalog-Filipino is seen by us non-Tagalogs us a rather intrusive, divisive and alienating law. They want to define Tagalog-Filipino as a language of unity in their own doctrinal terms while trivializing our varying linguistic and cultural groups. Even Jesse Rubrico, a linguist and a supporter of the Tagalog-Filipino national language, acknowledges in her website that the promotion of a national language will wither the other existing languages. Linguists state that the withering of a language will happen slowly over a period of time. Someone in DILA was dying to know,
"Defend endangered languages against what?"
We should defend our languages, whether they are endangered or not, against marginalization. How are our languages marginalized by the single language policy?
By crowding our public schools and universities with scholarship in Filipino, thus creating an artificial demand for Filipino-Tagalog publications. Browse through the shelves of a bookstore and you will find a whole lot of publications in Tagalog-Filipino while there is minimal in other languages. So, we'll just say that there is no demand for publications in other languages? Farther, shall we say that government policy does not have a hand on this?
By encouraging utility for Filipino-Tagalog in government like Estrada's controversial EO 335.
We should allow our languages to be taught in schools, so people will see its importance as a vehicle of the native culture. Issues of ethnic pride, issues of differing collective visions linger as our varying languages are subjected to steady pressure from a single language policy. Now, because of a difference in perpectives, I would favor the use of loaded words such as "endangered." Because, depending on who you are addressing it to, the choice or delivery of words can be measured in terms of its power to attach people to the cause. If that spin is quite uneasy for you, then we'll leave it as it is. We have the option of using loaded words. We will use it to our advantage. (This reminds me of Estrada's use of the word "rebellion" when Cebuanos opposed EO 335. Now, was there rebellion at all? Of course not, Cebuanos were legitimately remonstrating against EO 335.)
There were never any laws passed to protect as well as ensure the development and propagation of languages other than Tagalog. Or laws that will encourage its utility in schools and government. Or laws that address the issue of ethnic pride and language equality. And in a sense, too, once we have that, it will provide the enabling factor so that regional viewpoints will become strong guidance for policy makers in molding the national perspective. The current dispensation does not allow for that to happen. It only allows for one, and that is the Tagalog-Filipino paradigm.
Worse, this paradigm of a unitary Tagalog-Filipino nation has somehow percolated into the young minds of Filipinos because of aggressive government promotion in schools. And the reason? As one DILA member says,
"It's unreal *not* because of our present language policy, but because the
government has barely enough funds to pay enough teachers, publish enough
textbooks in *whatever language*. So when forced to prioritize, the DepEd
(formerly DECS) has no choice but to concentrate in developing
instructional materials in Filipino, to save on costs. Regional DepEd
agencies here do undertake initiatives to develop instructional materials
in Ilocano, but admittedly again, lack enough funds to sustain and expand
them."
Wait a minute, are we always going to be out of funds so the DepEd will be forced to prioritize, and therefore has the strong reason to publish instructional materials only in Filipino? The answer is on you,sir if this is going to be a permanent situation or not. If its not going to be permanent, then fine. But if this is permanent, then look how deceptively framed we are. I know that IF it is the intention of the DepEd to develop instructional materials in other languages, then they should provide funds for that. At this point, it would be a matter if they really wanted to implement it or not. But how far are these intructional materials planned to go? Until Grade 2? That is another question.
The linguistic situation we're in seriously calls for a corrective action. That is why I believe in Danny Martinez's concept of varying nations because it will allow us unbridled support and encouragement for our languages and true identities. Because we were never given a full chance that the law does to Tagalog-Filipino to propagate and develop our own language and culture.
I am one of those who believe that a national life can not be centrally directed. I am one of those who believe that a national language, namely at this instance, Tagalog-Filipino, can not in any way cement the fragmentation in the Philippines. While it may be that most Filipinos can speak Tagalog, and therefore it is seen as a unifying language by most, it bears stressing that it is easy to judge from a distance. Looking farther, it does not address the issue of tribalism that lie deep within, it does not address the forced acquiesence that many ethnolinguistic groups have to go through, and largely it does not address the issue of ethnic pride and language equality, as if there was none. By a lop-sided law, Filipinos are commanded to show patriotism by showing love for the Tagalog-Filipino national language. But patriotism is a voluntary act, or would Tagalistas say they could twist our arms???
RONALD LLANOS
Cebu City
|
|