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.
Larry, thanks for posting your assignment. This is good - you have selecting two seemingly contrasting articles and you are doing your best to analyze the assumptions behind these articles vis-a-vis what you call the conundrum regarding the 'role' of English in the country.
ReplyDeleteIf you choose to revise your assignment and/or to use this as the basis of your final paper, consider:
1. A clarification: Hymes and Carillo do not belong together; their notions of 'pragmatism' would - I think - be fundamentally different from each other. This idea that Hymes is espousing a 'pragmatic' view of language has come up in other blog posts. Could you tell me which part of Hymes' chapter (which pages) you refer to when you talk about his pragmatism?
2. For revision: start by telling us - in your introduction - the relationship between the articles you have selected: Carillo and de Quiros. Are they similar, contradictory; do they build on each other? Tell us in what your grounds for comparison are - you kind of touch on this already in your first paragraph - but tell us why it is worth looking at these two articles in particular.
3. Think about whether de Quiros and Carillo are seemingly different while actually sharing (some) similar assumptions - about language, language policy, history, the role of English - when you dig deeper? I'd like you to think about this more because if you follow their train of thought, while they are coming from very different directions, both de Quiros and Carillo actually end up with a rather similar conclusion: the role of English in the Philippines stays the same. Why do they end up with the same conclusion? Might they share a similar assumption about English or language, more generally?
1. Hymes mentioned speech communities in his article the existence of speech communities. These speech communities further prove that there are more than one language and a “one-size-fits-all” method will not be efficient in tackling issues related to learning. There are many speech communities which mean that a language is not an exclusive possession of a country or a group of people. Each speech community has fashioned for itself a concept or a term that is unique only to that speech community. Hymes points out that membership in a speech community consists of sharing its way of speaking. In order to become an effective teacher, one must be at least familiar with the student’s speech community before embarking on a journey of educating him/her.
Delete2. Two seemingly different articles written on the English language serve as the inspiration for this blog. Jose Carillo, a nationally-awarded writer and corporate communicator, decides to go on a “field trip” to various parts of the metro to see how signs are written in the English language. He focuses on advertisement and notes how the words used in these signs express our grasp of the English language. It is apparent that his stand is to promote English and develop how it is used in various settings. Conrad de Quiros, a radical writer whose articles are fraught with political claims, wrote on the state of education in the Philippines. He laughs off the idea of having Filipino as the sole medium of instruction since he thinks the country is so caught up in anything Western that it would be impossible to detach ourselves from valuing the English language as anything but superior and intellectual. These writers cannot be more different than day and night yet the final analysis would show them arriving at the same conclusion.
3. At first glance, it might seem that de Quiros and Carillo are espousing two different types of belief when it comes to the English language. Carillo is promoting the continuous improvement of English skills so as to avoid the erroneous signs and in effect, seem more polished to those who will be reading them. De Quiros inferred that the reason we are behind on math and sciences is because we focus on English too much. A closer introspection would show that these two are in fact pointedly referring to the same thing: English is a language that will always be used in the academe and whether there are people lobbying for it to take a backseat, so to speak, it is not feasible at this point. There may be a conundrum as to which language needs to be used as the sole medium of instruction but at this point; we can only work on what we have.