Reclaiming the local in LPP: Homework

Reclaiming the local in LPP

Larry Javier Ambion

          “Better Amadeo for Victory!” These words comprise the slogan of Amadeo, Cavite. Written in bold letters on the newly-erected town plaza gym, this slogan is also written in all of the town’s documents such as office papers, application forms, veteran members’ papers, among others. Located 1.5 kilometers away from Tagaytay and known for its farming industry, Amadeo has been nicknamed the “Coffee Capital of the Philippines”. Coffee is the town’s main source of income aside from pineapples and bananas. The new town mayor has decided to capitalize on the coffee capital identity by putting items that are representative of coffee in various strategic locations. Approaching the town, one will see a large concrete structure of a kettle, coffee beans, and a cup of coffee. The same structure can also be found in the town center. In line with its coffee theme, the town mayor also thought of launching a yearly event called “Pahimis Festival” in order to attract tourists and investors alike. Incidentally, this mayor is also the proponent of the problematic signage. Considering syntax and semantics, Amadeo’s motto is as baffling as it is incorrect.

         Better is a word known for its adjectival and adverbial properties. When something is considered “better”, it is perceived to be greater in excellence or quality. Rarely is “better” used as a verb unless it is preceded by “to”, which in that case, would mean “improve”. Did the writer of this motto mean the locals should improve Amadeo so they may gain victory or did it simply assume that a town which is greater in excellence would be more capable of achieving victory?  Victory is also a problematic tern since victory is a noun that denotes winning a battle. If these words were written during the days of Katipunan, then the usage of victory will be very understandable but it is hardly applicable to modern times. Perhaps success or prosperity would have been better choices.

          At this point, I do not think that the town’s current slogan incites levels of pride among the locals thereby negating the reason why slogans are conceptualized in the first place, to reflect a location or organization’s motto and to inspire the people. It is said that the new town mayor was pressured to think of a slogan to pick up the town from reported anomalies. Aside from the slogan, he was also the one who thought of placing coffee-related structures in many parts of the town. He is very much keen on placing Amadeo on the map and to give it a more industrialized image. As an Amadeo local who has seen the town’s progress from a small farming patch to a potentially busy municipality, it is common for towns to take on mottos which are geared towards development and popularity. In Gavin Shatkin’s article (2005), he cites how capital cities are symbolic of a nation’s aspirations. A city’s physical development is inspired by its political functions. This theory may also be applied to small towns and their desire to be recognized as a main player in the nation’s economy. Amadeo is such a town. The town’s slogan and its symbolic coffee structures are indicative of Amadeo’s local government’s wish to be recognized for something more than its farming industry. As a town itself, it is “good enough” considering its burgeoning agricultural popularity with coffee and non-coffee drinkers alike. For this reason alone, it is also starting to attract investors who want a share of the agriculture’s ROI. For Amadeo’s local government, however, “good enough” is not good enough and good ought to be better. Perhaps “better” is linked with “more popular” or “more investors”, hence the word “better” in the slogan can be taken as modifier and as a verb (albeit as a verb, it remains used in a non-standard way). Perhaps the reason behind the slogan being included in every document that has something to do with the town is to include its inhabitants in fulfilling the local government’s aspiration. A “better” Amadeo can only be achieved through the collective efforts of the locals and “victory” is dependent on how creatively they will take on the challenge to “better”. Going back to the discussion on the standard meaning of victory, it is somewhat safe to assume that victory is used in the slogan because the locals (or more accurately, the mayor) feel that the town is still struggling to get to where the leaders believe it is supposed to be headed. There might be no opponents but the town has to contend with the usual challenges to become more developed and well-renowned.  It is still worthy to take note of the fact that the slogan is still confusing and needs to be tweaked in order to appeal to Amadeo’s residents and be practised by them.

Reference

Shatkin, G. (2005/2006). Colonial capital, modernist capital, global capital: The changing political

symbolism of urban space in Metro Manila, the Philippines. Pacific Affairs, 78, 4, 577-600.

Reclaiming the local in LPP: A reflection

Reclaiming the local in LPP

A Reflection

Larry Javier Ambion

A discussion on language is bound not to touch only semantics and syntax, but culture and people (its speakers) as well. With globalization a recurring theme nowadays, the focus and challenge is to find a way to bridge different cultures and break down barriers preventing people of different backgrounds from communicating with each other.  Though globalization seems to be a practice picked up in the past decade, some proponents argue that it has long existed under different names. The writer of “Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice” is such a writer. He links colonization with countries’ attempts at globalization. As an inhabitant of a country that has been colonized by three different countries, this concept is acceptable for me. Concentrating on the Western colonizers, it is apparent that Spain and USA’s attempts to lay claim to the Philippines are part of their vision to become bigger countries. Though they have been ousted from the country, their legacies still linger. Until now, we are a predominantly Catholic nation (Spain’s contribution), and we use English heavily in business and even day-to-day correspondence (what we got from the Americans). The heavy use of English is considered both an advantage and disadvantage. It is deemed an advantage because we use it as an easier way to communicate with people from different nations. Many view it as a means to keep up with globalization, thus bridging the gap between many cultures. Ironically, this advantage is also a disadvantage in itself. Some allege that the focus on English language lessens the importance of Filipino and other dialects and in effect, dilutes the Filipino culture as well. Canagarajah (2005) contends that cultures are always in a state of becoming and that is very apparent with our country. We are considered a melting pot of different cultures and this can be positive, as long as there is no danger of the Filipino culture or language being extinct. As an English professor, I will be bold enough to assert that the continuous teaching of English to students does not endanger our own language, if done the proper way. The proper way I am pertaining to is steering clear from an authoritarian manner of instructing and factoring in the dialect that they grew up with. This is in line with the article’s claim that globalization is paradoxically paying attention to smaller locations and individuals. One cannot build a speech community without actual individuals. There is no reason to be disrespectful of their cultural heritage or native tongue since it can actually be a springboard for discussions on the English language. The native language should not be considered an adversary that needs to be eradicated; rather it should be treated as an instrument that will complement the English language.

English may be valued as a language for global relationships yet to facilitate global communication, one must understand the other. This means promoting a symbiotic relationship between English and native dialects. To do this, one must first strip his or her mind from the notion speaking in English as a way of turning back on one’s mother tongue. I apply this to patriotic students who insist that Filipino should be the only language used inside the classroom. I remind them that learning another language is not treachery to one’s own land; it is a method to enhance one’s knowledge which will make them more productive citizens. Besides, the Filipino language is far from being pure; many languages have contributed words to it. In the same respect, Canagarajah (2005) notes that local knowledge “has already been tampered” with. Duality should be encouraged in order to facilitate smooth communication between different cultures.

Reference

Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In S.

Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3-24). Mahwah,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Critical approaches to LPP: newspaper articles

Critical approaches to LPP: Homework

Larry Javier Ambion                                                                          Dr. Beatriz Lorente

ELL 312                                                                                                 April 22, 2012

Second Homework

Back in 2011, a writer for the Manila Bulletin was under fire for writing an article underscoring the importance of the English language. In his article, James Soriano mentioned that English is “the language of the learned” and Filipino is used to communicate with the help and the street vendors. The article elicited various emotions from the readers. Many sent irate letters to Manila Bulletin, asking how they could publish such a thing during “Buwan ng Wika”. There were some who defended Soriano, saying the article was done in sarcasm and only showed how Filipinos take pride in using a foreign language. The article was taken down from the website, but it stirred the embers of many a Filipino and debates ensued with the bone of contention being “Do we really equate fluency in English with being educated and rich?” Two opinion writers shed light on the issue, each with respectable arguments.

          Jose Carillo (2005) of the Manila Times examined the different signage in Metro Manila and commented on the errors of said signs. Though ignored by many, Carillo asserts that these are considered mistakes because they are non-standard and violate semantics.  For example, a sign that reads “Special memories only deserve special care” is problematic since it is unclear whether the word “only” modifies “special memories” or “deserve special care”. The solution in this case is to rephrase it with “Special memories deserve only the most special care.” Carillo (2005) went on to enumerate other examples, each with critique on what makes the sign incorrect and a suggestion on how to rectify it. His overall theme was that the signs in English are worded enough which shows that as an English-speaking country, we remain strong in our grasp of the language but we must still remain vigilant with our usage because we are prone to committing errors in syntax and semantics. Similar to Hymes’ study (1996), Carillo (2005) points out that though one can take the pragmatic route when speaking or writing in any language that is different from the native tongue, it is still better to consider various speech communities since understanding a statement will depend on how a person has been accustomed to using a word or expression, whether his usage is correct or not.

While Carillo (2005) underscored the importance of continuous learning of the English language, Conrado de Quiros (2009) does the opposite. He attributes “the fetish with the English language” to colonialism and claims that the Philippines cannot do away with the bilingual policy because it will take too much work. He is a believer though, that if the country had chosen to use Filipino as the sole medium of instruction, our levels in competency with Math and Science would be at a much higher level, similar to that of our neighbouring countries.

          The two writers reflect the constant struggle that is present in society – the conundrum regarding how fluency in English should be treated, a value in itself or a cultural white elephant that hurts more than it helps. On the one hand, English has opened many employment opportunities for Filipinos as the country remains one of the top places to go to for outsourcing business processes. This phenomenon alone prods some politicians and educators to suggest that English should be the medium of instruction in schools. Under this school of thought are two segments: one that presupposes we are already doing a splendid job using English and should continue the practice, and another one that maintains we could do a better job and should increase the measures we are taking to master English. Both assumptions are easy targets for people who believe that this thinking is the product of Western, specifically American, hegemony. It is specifically because of this hegemony that the debate on the English language cannot be confined to academics because it is interspersed with history and culture as well. This is also why the “other camp” (probably the one where de Quiros belongs to) considers overthrowing the English language as a very radical move that is almost impossible to do given the nation’s appreciation of and adherence to the language. As with Toffelson’s article (1991, 2006), the Filipinos see English as a way out of poverty and to “minimize” its importance by promoting the Filipino language over it will require an overhaul of the country’s educational system and the Filipinos’ collective consciousness.

References

Carillo, J. A. (2005). The state of our English: signages. Manila Times. Vol.106, no.111, p. A5.

Carillo, J. A. (2005). The state of our English: signages- 3. Manila Times. Vol.106, no.124, p. A4.

De Quiros, C. (2009). Knave’s English. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Vol. 24, no. 37, p. A10.

Hymes, D.H. (1996). Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among

speakers. The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Soriano, J. (2011). Bashing Filipino language. Manila Bulletin.

Tollefson, James W. (1991).  Revolutionary language policy. Planning language, planning

inequality. Harlow: Longman. Chapter 6, pp. 136-166.

Critical approaches to LPP: A reflection

Larry Javier Ambion                                                                              Dr. Beatriz Lorente

ELL 312                                                                                                     April 22, 2012

First Homework: A Reflection

Identifying the problem is the very first step towards its resolution. Denying the existence of a problem serves no purpose. The papers written on Language by Hymes (1996) and Tollefson (1991, 2006) have only cemented the fact that there exists in the Philippines a pervading problem that has plagued not only the educational system but the country’s culture as well.

A majority of Filipinos believe that one who is fluent in the English language is one who will go places. This could be because his/her parents are well-off, he/she was able to study in a prestigious school, he/she is intelligent, or all of the above. Speaking English fluently has become synonymous with success and wealth; the more fluent you are, the higher your intelligence and position in society seem to be. This is a notion that started since the American occupation; anything Western is considered better than what we have been accustomed to. This is also a notion that has not been without support from the government. To date, the Constitution recognizes the importance of the English language as a medium of instruction, having been unable mandate Filipino as the only language used for teaching. As an English professor, I should not complain since the high premium placed by Filipinos on the English language is my source of income. As a Filipino, however, I have to agree that there is struggle that has long existed between two of the most commonly-used languages in the country. Reading the materials by Hymes (1996) and Tollefson (1991, 2006) has helped me understand further my own experience with language as one who teaches it. There were several ideas that struck me while reading. First is the pragmatic quality of language. So many rules are made on how to write, how to speak, and how a word is used yet the reality is that language depends a lot on how it is solely used. This is why teachers such as myself, have to go about understanding each student’s background and the class’ collective history since there are times that non-standardized words or practices make way into their speeches. It is in being pragmatic that I also understand another key point that rose in the readings: “speech communities cannot be equated with common language”. Just because every person inside the class is speaking English does not mean they are all “speaking the same language”. One person’s usage of a certain word may be different from another person’s. Like the use of the word flash drive among IT students and for the other students not taking IT program they call it USB, both are considered correct but the latter is more correct as far as information technology field is concerned. Again, a person’s background has to be taken into consideration. Social structure may also be factored in at this point.

As it is now, there is a power play between two parties, those who remain steadfast in their belief that English is the language of the educated and those who argue against these, firmly asserting that the mother tongue should be the standard language. Oftentimes, the English speakers are seen as gaining the upper hand when plotting the struggle against a Marxist framework. In the readings though, those who fight for the mother tongue are the ones deemed exerting power over the English learners and instructors. Whichever way it goes, it is already apparent that hegemony has taken hold over the members of the two factions and a radical method of education as well as delving into the culture are the only means to achieve a semblance of resolution in this ongoing conflict. That is why my work as an English teacher is more complex and goes beyond traditional lesson-planning.

References

Hymes, D.H. (1996). Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among

speakers. The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Tollefson, James W. (1991).  Revolutionary language policy. Planning language, planning

inequality. Harlow: Longman. Chapter 6, pp. 136-166.Daedalus

Tollefson, James W. (2006). Critical Theory in Language Policy. Oxford: Blackwells, pp.42-59.