Lua, Pammakawan, Kararag
Surnadan
Pannakalasat
Iti dawel ti taaw, iti rabii kas iti aldaw,
iti rungsot ti nalinak a panagdaliasat,
dita ti peggad: agkaribuso kas dumteng
a tribunada, ti angin kas kapegges
ti pulso a mapugsat ket iti langit a gumawgawa
agsayasay ti likido a buteng, iti lapayag
kas iti agong, buteg ken ling-et ken lua
isu amin a nagan dagiti santo a babassit
ken ti Dios nga agmalmalanga:
Walogasutkami nga agararaw
iti katengngaan dagiti tabbaaw
ti kriminal a dalluyon ket marunawkami
amin kadagiti pangngadua ti salbabida
nga iti arinebneb ket babantot ti barukong.
Kasanokami nga agriaw, kasanokami nga agibit
agpakaasi dumawat iti amin a madawat
iti danum a tanem dagiti arapaap
a di met
Telling His Ordeal
Panangpaumel Kadagiti IL
Ti Panangpaumel Kadagiti Indihenoso a Lengguahe Ket Mangrakrak iti Nainsabasabali a Panagpampanunot ken iti Namaris a Diversidad
Gloria D. Baguingan, Ph.D., Nueva Vizcaya State University
Inyulog iti Ilokano ni Aurelio S. Agcaoili, Ph.D, Universidad ti Hawai`i iti Manoa
Namunganay ti utang-a-naimbag a nakemko kadagiti Ilokano 50 a tawenen ti napalabas. Dagiti immuna a manursuromi kadagiti kabambantayan ket dagiti di nagamak, komited, ken dedikado a manursuro nga Ilokano. Kinalay-atta dagiti makaaliaw a bambantay, nagnagnada iti tallo nga aldaw, ken situtured a nilikiabda dagiti amarilio-verde-kayumanggi nga alinta a kimmapet kadagiti kudilda. Mabalin a pinapatay koma pay isuda dagiti nagkakauna nga appomi, dagidi agpugpugot iti ulo, ngem binigbigda ti natakneng a panggep dagiti sangaili. Ita, yebkasko ti panagyamanko kadagitoy a manursuro a nangidedikar kadagiti biagda ken nagan-anus a nangibaklay kadagiti adu a rigat tapno iti kasta ket maipaayanda iti edukasion dagiti tattao kadagiti kabambantayan.
Nakasuratakon iti serye dagiti libro iti preschool ken grade I ken instruksional a material para iti First Language Component- Bridging Program (FLC-BP) a mangar-aramat iti Ilokano. Dagitoy a libro ket shell books a mangiruangan iti nasapa nga ubing iti maysa a modo ti panagpampanunot, maysa a wagas ti panagrason, serioso a panagis-isip, ken pannakilangen iti bukod a bagi gapu ta mangited iti nasaysayud a pamuspusan para iti maysa nga ubing tapno makasursuro nga agbasa ken agsurat, ken tapno maawatanna no ania ti kayat a sawen ti pannakabael nga agbasa iti bukod a lengguahe, ken kalpasanna, iti maikadua ken maikatlo a lengguahe. Iti sabali a bangir, ti panangisuratko kadagitoy a libro iti Ilokano tapno mausar iti kurikulum ket maysa a pananggandat a mangpreservar iti lengguahe nga Ilokano bilang linggua frangka iti Amianan, wenno Makin-amianan a Filipinas. Kasta met a panangitedko daytoy iti pammigbig kadagiti immuna a manursuromi nga Ilokano, partikular nga inaganak ni Mrs. Alejandra Guiang Kenept iti Asingan, Pangasinan, 88 itan ken nasalun-at pay, ken makipagindeg kadagiti tattao a sinerbianna a sipupudno. Isuna ti kalaingan kadagiti manursuromi iti ilimi a Natonin.
Kadagitoy nga aldaw ken panawen, kadarrato a mangmangngegantayon ti maipapan iti agdadata a pasamak a mairamantayo iti global a komunidad. Daytoy a kumperensia ket agparparang nga evidensia a maikanatad daytoy a termino gapu ta addatayo amin ditoy ken naggaputayo kadagiti sabasabali a lugar, kultura, ken lengguahe. Ngem masapul a bigbigentayo a datayo ti ‘edukado nga elit’ a sanay iti internasional a lengguahe. Ket dayta a realisasion ti mangitunda kadatayo iti maysa nga ammo nga adu pay laeng dagiti tattao iti aglawlaw ti lubong ti di kameng ti ‘edukado nga elit’ ken saan a sanay iti maysa a mayoria a lengguahe iti lubong. Bassit wenno awan ketdi ti ammoda maipanggep iti panagbiag iti panawen ti informasion ket awan ti kabaelanda a makigamulo iti makunkuna a global a komunidad iti wagas nga addaan kaibatoganna.
Timmaudak iti kasta a lokal a komunidad iti Kordiliera, nainkannawidan nga am-ammo a kas makatribu a gimong; agsasaoak iti Balangao ken Madukayong, dagiti lengguahe nga aw-awagan daytoy a kumperensia a kas “Lenglengguahe Dagiti Indihenoso a Tattao (IT)”. No anian man ti awagda kadami, wenno no anian man ti awagda kadagiti lengguahemi, ti importante ket addaankami iti pannakaawag. Kontentoakon iti dayta gapu ta dagiti kumperensia a kas kadaytoy ket mangikankano kadagiti importante nga isyu dagiti komunidad a kas iti komunidadko, komkomunidad a kumom ken pudno a sibibiag iti intero a Filipinas. Isu ngarud a ti pakaseknan a gapu ti panagtataripnongtayo itatta iti daytoy a kumperensia ket isu ti pannakasalvar dagiti sabsabali pay a lengguahe manipud iti pannakaikompromisadoda. No awan ti kakastoy a panagtignay manipud iti daytoy a grupo, adu dagiti agtultuloy a mapaulimek ken matay. Ti pannakapaumel dagitoy a lengguahe ket mangrakrak ti nainsabasabali a panagpampanunot ken etniko nga autentisidad kadagiti ispiker gapu ta patayenna ti namaris a diversidad dagiti lengguahe iti pagilian.
Ti responsibilad iti gasat a naibaklay iti kaaduan iti Filipinas kas panangiyebkas ti maysa kadagiti senadortayo, ni Ople, ket awan sabali no ti trilinggualismo! Ti maysa a Filipino ket saan laeng a ti lengguahe ti ina ti pagsasaona no di ket masapulna ti pannakasanay iti nasional a lengguahe, ti Filipino, ken ti maysa nga internasional a lengguahe, Ingles. Para iti Kordiliera, maysa a rehion nga edukasional, ti maysa nga adalan ket masapulna ti mangnayon iti maysa pay a lengguahe, Ilokano, ti linggua frangka. Iti isu met laeng kabaliktadna, adda evidensia a dagiti bilinggual wenno trilingual nga ispiker ket nalalaingda a negosiador, a nasayaat ti pannakitrabahoda kadagiti tattao nga addaan iti sabasabali a kultural a sirkunstansia ken sabasabali wenno managpartuat nga agpampanunot.
Ti fundamental a suposision ti bilinggual a plano ti aksion a mangus-usar iti dua a lengguahe iti instruksion ket ti panagbalin a nasaririt ti adalan iti dua a lengguahe. Ipagpagarup dagiti manursuro a dagiti alisto a makasursuro ket nalalaing ket dagiti naginad ket limitado ti intelektual a kapasidadda. Nupay kasta, ti kinaginad ti pannakasursuro, ket mabalin a maigapu iti kinakurang dagiti oportunidad tapno mapraktis dagiti aktividad ti panagsao, panagbasa, ken panagsurat kadagiti sabali a lengguahe gapu ta ti pagtaengan ken komunidad ket di met makaidiaya kadagitoy a posibilidad kenkuana.
Maipagpagarup pay a la ket ta maikkan iti pagpilian ti adalan, Filipino ken Ingles, al-alisto ti pannakasursuro iti Filipino gapu ta maipagarup a daytoy ti lengguahe ti komunikasion iti kaaduan kadagiti kondision ti aglawlaw ti ubing nga agad-adal. Nupay kasta, iti Kordiliera, a ti Ingles ket pagsasao iti eskuelaan, iti simbaan, ken no dadduma, iti tiendaan, ti adalan ken al-alisto a masanay iti Ingles ngem iti Filipino gapu ta ti Filipino ket manmano a maus-usar. Mabalin a panunoten a ti maysa nga ubing iti Kordiliera ken mangrugi iti panagbasa a di pay nakangngeg iti lengguahe a Filipino. Mabalin a daytoy ti gapuna a dagiti manursuro iti Kordiliera ket dida unay agessem a mangisuro iti Filipino. Ken daytoy met ti gapuna no apay a no dagiti dadduma a lengguahe ket saan a mapaumel, awaten dagiti Kordilierano ti lengguahe nga Ilokano; daytoy ti linggua frangkada.
Dagiti Indihenoso a Lengguahe ken Etnik nga Autentisidad
Ti frase nga ‘indihenoso a lengguahe’ ket mangipekpeksa kadagiti nagduduma a kuestion. Ania ti kayatna a sawen? Ti pinakaheneral a kaibatoganna kas inladawan ni Reid (2008), ket mabalin a “maysa a lengguahe a nativo wenno nakaiyanakan iti pagilian a pakaus-usaranna a kas pagsasao.” Ngem dayta kadi laeng ti kayattayo a sawen no aramatentayo daytoy a frase? Iti kaaduanna, maipapan ti frase kadagiti minoridad a lengguahe iti lubong, ken addaan iti agsangasanga nga implikasionna. Dagiti nakalemmeng a kaibatogan ket mairaman ditoy dagiti idea a kas koma a dagiti ispiker ket addaan iti nababa nga ekonomik ken pulitikal nga istado ken kadawyanna ket dinisadventahe dagitoy dagiti di panagpapada iti topograpia, kultura, ken edukasion. Dagiti ispiker dagiti indihenoso a lengguahe ket kaaduanna ken kadaywanna ket nakurapay, nakurang iti panagdur-as a grupo a di agtagikua kadagiti sirkunstansia, kabaelan, ken kasanayan dagiti dominante a grupo ti lengguahe, isu’t gapuna a dagitoy ket nayadayoda manipud iti paggapuan ti bileg ken istado nga ig-iggeman dagiti grupo a mayoria nga agsasao kadagiti lengguahe a mayoria.
Iti Filipinas, dagiti ispiker kadagiti minoria a lengguahe agingga iti saan pay a nabayag ket inaw-awaganda iti indihenoso a grupo dagiti tattao. No ibagbagatayo ti maipapan kadagiti IT, masapul a bigbigentayo a naglagalaga dagiti disadventahe a lingguistik, kultural, sikolohikal, ken sosiolohikal isu nga ibagatayo a dagitoy nga IT ket inferior. Iti kasta, apay a ditay tallikudan dagitoy?
Ita, malagipko ti maysa nga insidente a napasamak iti nabayagen a panawen, maysa nga insidente a mainaig kadagiti indihenoso a lengguahe ken etnik nga autentisidad.
Iti maysa a nalamiis a rabii iti Malcolm Square, Baguio City, idi 1962, nangangay dagiti estudiante iti kabambantay iti maysa a rali. Maysaak idi a sophomore nga estudiante iti Saint Louis University. Ti isyu iti dayta a rali ket, “Filipino kadi dagiti Igorot?” Ti termino nga ‘Igorot’ ket nausar a mainaig kadagiti tattao iti kabambantayan: dagiti Bontok, Kalinga-Apayao, Ibaloi, Ifugao, ken Kankanaey. Ti kangruaan a nagsarita iti rali ket ti pimmusayen nga Alfredo Lamen, maysa a diputado manipud iti Mt. Province. Nagtaud ti riri manipud iti imbaga ti maysa a Filipino statesman a nagkuna a “Di Filipino dagiti Igorot”. Naimaldit daytoy kadagiti aginaldaw a pagiwarnak. Daytoy nga insawang ti statesman ti nagpungtotan ti diputado kasta met dagiti estudiante. Iti diskursona iti rali, kinuna ni Lamen, “Ti laeng paggidiatanmi ken Mr. Statesman ket ti panangusarna iti kurbatana iti ngato idinto nga iti baba kaniak”, a ti kayatna a sawen ket ti baag ti Igorot ti kurbatana. Sipupungtot, innayonna, “Sinno ti nasaysayaat nga ispesimen ti Filipino? Siak wenno ni Mr. Statesman?”, nga inkoro nga insungbat dagiti estudiante, “Sika.” Natayag ti diputadomi, arimpudawen, ken maysa a nataer ti itsurana nga Igorot a Filipino. Ngem ti pudno nga isyu ket ti identidadmi. No saankami a Filipino, awan ngarud etnik nga autentisidadmi a kas Igorot wenno maikonkonsiderarkami kadi laeng a kas grupgrupo a minoria? Maragsakanak a mangibaga nga iti sumuno nga aldaw dimmawat ti statesman iti dispensar babaen kadagiti warnakan. Ti dakesna, siak ken dagiti dadduma pay ket di nakalipat iti dayta nga insawangna a nangkuestionar iti istadomi iti pagilian a pagtaenganmi.
No dadduma, nasamsamay ti lengguahe a parabigbig iti identidad dagiti tattao ngem ti fisikal a langlangada. Ti lengguahe ti maysa a tao ket mayoria a komponent ti personal nga identidadna. Maysa nga insidente nga imbaga kaniak ti maysa a pagayam ti mangipasimudaag iti daytoy a tipo ti identifikasion. Ni Mr. Vicente Delizo ket nakalugan idi iti maysa a tren iti maysa a panagbiahena iti maysa a biblioteka iti Estados Unidos ti Amerika. Nakitugaw iti maysa a fisikal a kaarngi ti maysa a Filipino. Magagaran a makaammo iti kinaasinnona, dinamagna, “Filipino ka kadi?”, nga usarna ti Filipino a nasional a lengguahe. Insungbat ti lalaki, “Haan, Ilokanoak.” Ti tao a kinasao ni Mr. Delizo ket mas inidentifikarna ti kinaasinnona iti lengguahe a pakairamanna ngem ti istado ti kinamakipagili wenno citizenshipna. Ilokano met, naragsakan ni Mr. Delizo a nakadiskubre a katugawna ti kapadana met laeng nga Ilokano.
Adda nakalemmeng a mensahe iti saan a pannakapromulgar dagiti lengguahe malaksid iti Filipino ken Ingles. Ti Filipino nga addan turay ket masansan nga ispiker iti Filipino a lengguahe wenno Ingles. Dagiti tattao nga addaan iti kabassitan a turay ken istatiur ket dagiti mannalon, dianitor, servidor, ken paradalus a di makaammo nga agsao iti Ingles; mabalin nga agsasaoda kadagiti napaumel a lengguahe. Ti lengguahe ti formal a komunikasion ket Ingles ket ti lengguahe dagiti agserservi kadakuada ket mabalin nga Ilokano, Balangao, wenno Bontok. Ngarud, ti lengguahe a masapul a masursuro tapno maaddaan iti turay ket ti lengguahe dagiti naturturay, ti lengguahe ti prestihio. Ti lengguahe a masapul a lipaten ket ti lengguahe dagiti ignoramus, dagiti illiterado, ti lengguahe ti istigma ken bain. Ket dayta a lengguahe ket mabalin a ti lengguahe iti inam!
Ti komunikasion iti kaunnaan a lengguahe (KL) ket panggepna nga agbalin a naimbugasan, autentiko, ken pertinente iti kasapulan ti adalan nga ubing; saan a di natural, saan a nakaro ti pannakakontrolna ken saan a dagdagullit, kas iti wagas a pannakaisuro ti Ingles. No ti KL ti mausar a medium ti instruksion, ti kontent ti kurikulum ti agbalin a fokus para iti lengguahe. Ti panagadal iti maikadua a lengguahe, Ingles, babaen kadagiti instruksional a material nga aggiddan a mangar-aramat iti dua a lengguahe ket agbalin nga insidental ken di is-isipen unay, kapada ti wagas a pannakasursuro iti KL. Mayaplikar ti pannakaigunamgunam iti panangawat iti Ingles ken ti pannakatagikua iti agamang ti vokabulario.
Naduktalan ni Cummins (1975, 1977) dagiti kognitivo a benefisio a mabalin a mapasamak no dagiti kasanayan iti maikadua a lengguahe ti ubing nga adalan ket agarup kapada dagiti kasanayanna iti KL. Ti panangusar iti KL ti ubing ket palakaenna ti pannakaalana kadagiti kasanayan iti panagbasa, lengguahe, numerasi, lohikal a panagpampanunot, ken kasanayan iti panagis-isip. No dagitoy a kasanayan ket maala iti KL, nadaras a maiyakar dagitoy iti maikadua a lengguahe.
Silulukat a saritaan ti maipapan iti kultura iti eskuelaan; nupay kasta, ti lengguahe dayta nga ispesifiko a kultura ket saan a masupsuportaran. Maisursuro dagiti kultura kadagiti lengguahe nga iprespreskibir ti Departamento ti Edukasion. Ti resultana, adda panagsina ti kultura ken lengguahe a saan koma a kasta. Ti kultura dagiti tao ket adda a naigamer iti lengguahe. Isu a masapul ti pannakaikabit iti kurikulum ti lengguahe tapno mapreservar ti kaduana a kultura. Ti panangkultivar iti KL iti eskualaan ket gagangay a padur-asenna dagiti nasional ken internasional a lengguahe ti prestihio.
Gapu ta ti KL, ti lengguahe ti ina, ti primario a vehikulo para iti pannakapadur-as ti anag ti ‘kinaasinno’ iti sosio-kultural a komunidad, ket no ti lengguahe ket mapaumel ken matay, adda banag iti kinaasinno a matay.
Lengguahe ken Kognision, Nainsabasabli ken Kritikal a Panagpampanunot
Adu dagiti iskolar, partikular dagiti edukador ken lingguist, ti agsursurat iti relasion ti lengguahe ken kognision. Kas pagarigan, imbaga ni Smith (1985) ti maipanggep iti no kasano a konkonseptualisaren ti tao ti lubongna, nga ar-aregluenna segun iti maysa a sistema. Ti ammotayo maipapan iti lubong, kunana, ket nailaga iti organisado ken konsistent nga internal a modelo iti lubong, a naipasdek kas resulta ti padas ken nainaraman iti lohikal a konektado a pakabuklan.
Ti konseptualisasion ti lubong ti maysa a tao ket mangrugi iti balay ken uray no mapanen iti eskuelaan, ti isipna ket addaanen iti pannakalabanglabang kadagiti konsepto a nasursurona iti aglawlaw ti pagtaengan. Iti biag a nataengan, dagiti padasna ket kankanayon nga nakareferensiada iti daytoy nasapa a modelona iti lubong, a nayebkas babaen iti KL.
Nayonna, kuna ni Smith a ti adda iti isiptayo ket ti “maysa a teoria no ania ti langa ti lubong,” ket daytoy a teoria ti pagibasaran iti amin a persepsion ken pannakaawat iti lubong. Dayta a teoria ket mangar-aramat iti pagtaengan ken iti lengguahe a kas punto ti referensia.
Ar-aramaten ni Davis (1999) ti termino nga ‘iskema’ iti panangiyaplikarna iti konsepto iti persepsion iti lengguahe. Bubbuklen ti iskema dagiti babassit a ladawan dagiti asosasion a formarentayo iti panunottayo no makangngegtayo wenno makabasatayo iti maysa a balikas wenno maysa a sentens. Kas pagarigan, adda iskema ti maysa a Balangao maipanggep iti kayo nga addaan iti puon a solido, sangsanga, bulbulong, sabsabong, ken bungbunga. Iti panangiyaplikar iti teoria ti iskema, siak, kas Balangao, ket diak maawatan no apay a dagiti ispiker iti Ingles ket awaganda ti niog a kayo idinto nga awanan daytoy ti solido a puon.
Padarasen ti lengguahe ti proseso ti panagpampanunot babaen ti panangkissayna iti rekisito ti insegida a panaglagip ken palugodanna ti pananglagip iti napalabas a perspektivo a padpadas. Ti implikasion daytoy ket ti lengguahe ket addaan iti mayoria a papel iti pananglagip ken afektaranna ti panagisayangkat kadagiti aramid a kognitivo iti kanito a matignay daytoy iti maysa a balikas, obheto, wenno tao.
Masursuro ti ubing ti asosasion ti lengguahe ken ti referensial a lubong babaen ti pannakiinteraksionna iti grupona, familiana, ken kabaddungalanna. Maysa pay, umuna a masursurona ti mangregular kadagiti instinct ken impulsesna manipud iti grupo a pakipulpulapolanna. Iti proseso ti sosialisasion, ti sistema ti panangted-pateg ti pakauna ti regulasion iti bukod a bagi ken panagkontrol iti biagna a nataengan. Isingsingasing dagiti sikolohista a ti lengguahe ket kasapulan iti panagdur-as iti panunot, ket gapu ta ti lengguahe ti mangiverbalisa iti konsepto nga imet-imettayo iti utektayo, di kadi ta ti KL ti masinunuo a pagidulinan iti sistema ti panangited-pateg nga agbanag a pagsagatan iti kritikal a panagpampanunot para kadagiti amin a sistema ti panangited-pateg a maiyam-ammo, partikular kadagiti maiyam-ammo iti sabali a pagsasao?
No akseptarentayo ti kinaagdadata ti maysa a banag a ti lengguahe ket addaan iti papel iti panagdur-as iti metakognision ken iti panagdur-as dagiti nangatngato a mental a function, rumbeng laeng nga akseptarentayo met ti maysa a banag nga iti laeng pannakasanay a nasayaat iti maysa a lengguahe a ti isip ket mabaelanna ti nangato a level, sabasabali ken kritikal a panagpampanunot, ken panangkontrol iti isip. Kasapulan ti nangato a level iti kompetens iti maikadua a lengguahe tapno maartapan wenno masandian ti kritikal ken nainsabasabali a kasanayan ti panagis-isip a napadur-as iti umuna a lengguahe iti kontexto ti taeng ken ti komunidad.
No ti KL ket mapaulimek ken matay kalpasan ti naunday a panagulimek, ania ti mabalin nga aramiden dagiti ispiker iti lengguahe tapno marangtayanda ti teoriada maipapan iti lubong ken dagiti kritikal ken sabasabali a kasanayanda iti panagpampanunot iti sabali a lengguahe? Paggaamotayo nga iti medisina, adu dagiti sistema ti panangsuporta iti biag tapno mamantener ti biag dagiti tao iti unos ti panagpapaimbagda manipud iti nakain-inaka a sakit. Ti saludsodko kadakayo ket daytoy: Adda kadi dagiti sistema ti panangsuportatayo iti biag a naisangrat kadagiti kritikal ken sabasabali a kasanayan iti panagpampanunot kadagiti ispiker dagiti lengguahetayo a napaumel ken matmatayen? Siak a mismo ket mamatiak nga adda ket ibagak kadakayo ti maipanggep iti maysa a posible a sistema iti maud-udi a parte daytoy a papel; maawagan daytoy iti First Language Component- Bridging Program wenno FLC-BP.
Ti Hardin ti Lengguahe: Panagplano iti Lengguahe
Nangusar ni Ofelia Garcia (1992) iti maysa a nabileg nga analohia tapno mailadawanna ti panagplano iti lengguahe. Ti analohia iti hardin ti lengguahe ket mangrugi iti idea a no agbiahetayo kadagiti pagpagilian ti lubong ket makitatayo kadagiti bengbengkag, kadagiti hardin iti isu met laeng nga isu a maysa a maris a sabong, nagkaron a naglaad ken makapulkok daytoy a lubong! No maysa laeng a maris ti sabong ti makita iti sibubukel a lubong, maysa nga awanan iti nainsabasabali a sukog, maris, ken kaatiddong, namak payen a makasennaay ken makapulkok daytoy a lubong.
Ti naimbag a gasattayo ket ti kaadda iti naruay a sabasabali a sabsabong iti intero a lubong, sabsabong iti amin a sukog, kolor, kaatiddog, textura, amin a possible a maris. Ti maysa a hardin a napno kadagiti nadumaduma a marismarisan a sabsabong ket padayagenna ti pintas ti hardin ken pabaknangenna ti visual ken estetiko a padastayo.
Ti isu met laeng nga argumento ket mabalin a mausar ti analohia ti hardin ti lengguahe iti lubong. No adda laeng maymaysa a lengguahe iti hardin, naal-alisto a taripatuen ken maneherin. No maymaysa laeng ti lengguahe nga adda iti lubong, anian a kinaawan pintas ken kinaawan interesantena no kuan. Nagasattayo ta iti Filipinas addaantayo iti hardin ti lengguahe nga addaan iti 162 a kita ken maris. Ti hardin ti lengguahe iti Filipinas ket mamagbalin iti pagilian a nabakbaknang, nain-interesante, ken namarmaris.
Nupay kasta, ti diversidad ti lengguahe ket mamagbalin iti lengguahe a di mairusuatrusuat. Adda dagiti sabsabong ken mulmula a naparpardas ti panagaduda. Dagiti hardin ti lengguahe ti Filipino ken Ingles ket isuda ti nadutdutokan isu a kasta unay ti panagwarasda. Ti Filipino ket kasta unayen ti panangpadisina iti Ilokano, ti linggua frangka iti Rehion 2 ken Administrative a Rehion ti Kordiliera. No hardin ti lengguahe ket mabaybay-an, maysa nga species ti sabong (Filipino) ti agdomina ket dagiti babassit a lengguahe dagiti IT (I-wak, Gaddang) ket di bumurong a mapukaw. Isu’t gapuna a dagitoy a lengguahe ket makasapul iti pannakataripo ken proteksion.
Ti nainrestriktuan a lingguistik a sirkunstansia a mangpanpanuynoy iti panagdomina dagiti dadduma a lengguahe ket rumbeng laeng a di mapalugodan ket naken a maaramid ti naannad a panagplano iti lengguahe. No kayat ti maysa a hardinero ti mangpartuat iti napintas a hardin, masapulna ti naannad a panagplano ken agtultuloy a panagtaripato ken proteksion. No dadduma, masapul ti panangaramat kadagiti radikal nga aksion tapno mapreservar ken maprotektaran ti hardin. Maysa kadagitoy nga aksion a maisingsingasing ket ti House Bill 3719 a natituluan iti “An Act Establishing a Multi-Lingual Education and Literacy Program” nga impila ni Kong. Magtanggol T. Gunigundo iti Valenzuela.
Ti panagkitakit iti panagplano para iti pannakamantenir ti lengguahe ken ti panagwarasna ket mangim-imbitar iti pannakatay ti lengguahe. Ti pannakapreservar ti multikolor a hardin ti lengguahe ket mangdawdawat iti optimismo kadagiti ispiker, optimismo a mangibagbaga a mabalinan a maaramid daytoy ket ti wagas ti panangsierto iti daytoy ket ti pannakidangadang kadagiti agar-aramid iti plano a gannuat tapno iti kasta ket dagiti lengguahe ket mailugarda iti kurikulum, uray no dagitoy ket mausarda laeng a kas rangrangtay tapno makaballasiw iti prestihio a lengguahe, Ingles ken Filipino. Masapul ti panagbalintayo nga optimistiko iti panagungar-manen a saan ketdi a mangnamnama iti pannakaperdi kas rinugianen ti aktitud a panangpaumel kadagitoy a lengguahe.
Ti observasion iti daytoy a pagilian iti panagaramat iti analohia ti sabong ket ti ‘diak makiramraman’ nga aktitud dagiti amin a maseknan. Masapul dagiti hardinero tapno agmula, agsibug, agabuno, ken agsandi kadagiti tukit dagiti nagduduma a lengguahe ti IT iti hardin ti lengguahe tapno masierto ti pannakapabaknang ti hardin ti lengguahe ti pagilian. Idinto ta adda dagiti hardinero (dagiti manursuro) a mangtartaripato iti hardin ti lengguahe, adda dagiti enhiniero ti ladawan ti nakaparsuaan (dagiti pulitiko, dagiti agar-aramid iti polisia) a mangplanplano ken mangkitkitikit iti pakabuklan a sukog ti hardin a lengguahe.
Masansan, ti panirigan maipanggep iti ladawan ti nakaparsuaan ti lengguahe ket ti mangtingiting iti hardin ti lengguahe a kas maysa laeng a parte ti nawadwada panangkontrol iti aglawlaw ti lengguahe. Ti dominante a grupo ti poder a mangdetdermina kadagiti sosio-ekonomiko ken kultural nga aglawlaw ket mabalinda a makita a ti lengguahe ket maysa laeng nga elemento ti pakabuklan a disensio ti ladawan ti nakaparsuaan.
Dagiti inhiniero ti lengguahe iti pagiliantayo ket mabalin a maseknanda laeng kadagiti mayoria a sabsabong a lengguahe, ken mabalin a maseknanda iti pannakaprotektar kadagitoy naisangsangayan a sabsabong a lengguahe a kas nangina ken saan a kasapulan, ket gandatda laeng ti pannakaistandardisar dagitoy a sabasabali a kita ti lengguahe.
Ti namnamak ket ti panagtungrarong dagiti enhiniero ti lengguahe a mangprotektar kadagitoy a lengguahe dagiti IT babaen ti panangiduronda iti pannakapadur-as dagitoy a kagiddan dagiti mayoria a sabsabong a lengguahe iti las-ud ti bilinggual nga edukasion. Dagiti enhiniero ti ladawan ti nakaparsuaan ket ikarigatanda ti mangmantenir kadagiti sabasabali a lengguahe ket ti kayatna a sawen daytoy ket dagiti paraplano iti lengguahe ket nasken ti panangtaripato ken panangilalada kadagiti sabali a lengguahe malaksid iti Filipino ken Ingles. Rumbeng laeng a dagitoy a lengguahe ket makaawat iti espesial nga istatus kadagiti rehion ti lugar-pusoda kas iti Ilokano iti Ilokandia, Ibaloi iti Benguet, ken Cebuano iti Cebu.
Ti Situasion ti Filipinas: Maysa nga Ababa a Kaso a Panagadal
Ti Filipinas ket maysa a nasayaat nga ehemplo ti nabaknang a diversidad ti lengguahe. Adda walo a mayoria a lengguahe a maus-usar iti 162 nga indihenoso a lengguahe a maus-usar a pagsasao iti pagilian, kas inlista ni Grimes; 9 kadagitoy a lengguahe ti us-usaren dagiti maysa a million weno ad-adu pay nga ispiker, 29 ti addaan iti di agkurkurang a 100 a ribu nga ispiker, ken 96 ti addaan iti di nakurkurang a 10 a ribu nga ispiker. Dagiti dua a lengguahek ket mairaman iti kategoria ti 96 nga us-usaren ti agarup 10 a ribu nga ispiker. (Quackenbush, 1998).
Iti papelna nga ‘Other Philippine Languages in the Third Millennium,’ inaramat ni Quackenbush ti klasifikasion ni Fergusson iti 5 a mayoria a tipo ti lengguahe: istandardisado, vernakular, pidgin, creoles, ken klasikal. Iti Filipinas, ti istandardisado ket ti Ingles ken Filipino, ti immun-una bilang nasional a lengguahe, ti naud-udi bilang internasional a lengguahe. Dagiti bukodko a lengguahe, Balangao ken Madukayong, ket klaro a klasifikado a vernakular.
Ti sistema nga edukasional ket agwerwerret iti bilinggual a polisia a mangar-aramat iti dua nga istandarisado a lengguahe, ti Filipino ken Ingles, kas media ti instruksion. Adda fundamental a suposision a ti agad-adal ket agbalin a nalaing kadagiti dua a lengguahe. Ipagpagarup dagiti manursuro a dagiti napardas a makasursuro ket nalalaing ket dagiti naginad a makasursuro ket addaanda iti mas limitado nga intelektual a kapasidad.
Ti naginad a pannakasursuro ket mabalin a maigapu iti kinakisang dagiti oportunidad tapno mapraktis dagiti aktividad ti panagsao, panagdengngeg, panagbasa, ken panagsurat iti kadagitoy dua a lengguahe gapu ta ti pagtaengan ken komunidad ket dida makabael a mangidiaya kadagiti ubbing nga adalan kadagitoy nga oportunidad kadagiti komunidad a pakaar-aramatan dagitoy a minoridad a lengguahe.
Ti polisia nga edukasional ket nangipabus-oy iti pannakaaramat kadagiti lengguahe malaksid iti Filipino ken Ingles a kas pangtulong a pamuspusan iti instruksion. Nupay kasta, dagiti nagduduma a rakrakurak a polisia ket nagar-aramatda kadagiti agsabasabali a termino para kadagiti lengguahe a mapalubosan a kas pangtulong a lengguahe. Sumagmamano kadagitoy a termino ket vernakular, rehional, lokal, ken ti kaudian, linggua frangka.
Idi 1999-2001, impalubos ti Departamento ti Edukasion (DepEd) babaen iti maysa a memorandum, ti pannakausar ti linggua frangka kadagiti umuna a grado ti pagadalan, nayon dagiti medium ti instruksion, Ingles ken Filipino. Depende no sinno ti agin-interpret iti memorandum, iti R-02, ti linggua frangka ket mabalin a maaramat. Dayta a memorandum ket nagservi laeng kadagidi a tawen. Saan unay a sierto no mabalin a mausar dagiti sabali pay a rehional wenno lokal a lengguahe iti area kas iti I-wak, Kalanguya, Itawis, ken Ivatan. Ti kuestion agingga ita ket no ania ti patingga ti pannakausar iti lokal a vernakular.
Gapu ta ti pannakasursuro ket natural a mapasaran dagiti ubbing babaen iti KL ken kultura, gandat ti mangitantandudo iti FLC-BP ti panangaramat iti daytoy nga oportunidad tapno masanay dagiti ubbing a makasursuro ken makapagrason. Mamatitayo a ti panangisuro iti dua a lengguahe a di ammo ti ubing ket paralisaenna ti panagdur-as ti kasanayanna iti panagpampanunot. Ti di panangikankano iti lengguahe ken kulturana ket mangrakrak iti sierto a rangtayna iti lubong ti pannakasursuro.
Ti Filipino, ti nasional a lengguahe, ti maikatlo a lengguahe kadagiti estudiante nga agsasao kadagiti vernakular a lengguahe. Ti maikadua a lengguahe ket ti linggua frangka ken ti maikapat ket ti Ingles. Ti naipreskribir a medium ti instruksion ket Filipino ken Ingles. Ti ideal a wagas ket ti panangaramat iti KL a kaduaen dagiti instruksional a material. Nupay kasta, iti kaawan dagiti libro iti KL, ti nasamay a sandi ket ti panangaramat iti linggua frangka a mabuyogan kadagiti instruksional a material a saan ketdi a panagusar iti Filipino ken Ingles. Manmano laeng kadagiti estudiante ti mabenefisiaran iti panagaramat iti maikatlo wenno maikapat a lengguahe a kas medium ti instruksion kadagiti umuna a tawen ti panagadal. Ngarud, nainsiriban para kadatayo ti mangbigbig a ti ubing ket nadaras a makasursuro laeng iti umuna a tawen ti eskuelaan no ti agdama a level ti ammo ken kasanayanna iti kaunnaan wenno linggua frangkana ket makonsiderar.
Ti pannakaisuro iti panagbasa ken panagsurat ket nagbalinen a topiko iti saan unay a nabayag, topiko a dakkel ti pakaseknanna kadatayo amin iti Filipinas, a pakairamanan ti Departmento ti Edukasion ken ti Commission on Higher Education. Maulit-ulit a maigunamgunam a ti edukasion a basiko ti wagas tapno maragpattayo ti edukasion nga addaan kalidad. Dagiti edukador a makipaggamgamulo iti tignayan para iti reforma a kurikular ket maamirisda a fundasional ti pannakaisuro ti efektivo a panagbasa tapno maragpattayo ti edukasion a dekalidad ken ti panagdur-as kadagiti mainaig a lugar ti pannakasursuro. Maseknan ti CHED iti pannakaprodius kadagiti manursuro a kompetent iti panagdeliverda iti ammo ken kasanayan kadagiti adalan. Ti pakaseknak ket ti banag a mabalin a ditay sangsanguen ti agdadata a kinapudno a dagiti estudiante ket di kaano man makadevelop iti nasayaat a komprehension ken kadagiti kritikal a kasanayan ti panagpanunot no isurotayo kadakua dagiti kasanayan a pangdekod kadagiti lengguahe a dida pay nasursuro.
Adda dagiti lingguist ken am-ammo nga edukador, kas iti pimmusayen a Dr. Bonifacio Sibayan ken Bro. Andrew Gonzalez, nga immanamong a ti KL, ti lengguahe ti ina, ket isu ti rumbeng a medium ti instruksion kadagiti umuna a tawen ti panagadal ti maysa nga ubbing; nupay kasta, adu dagiti serioso a problema kadaytoy ideal a senario. Ti dua kadagiti kangrunaan a problema ket finansial ken edukasion dagiti manursuro. Imposible ti panagisagana ken panagimaldit kadagiti instruksional a material para iti 162 a lengguahe. Nayonna, dagiti manursuro iti nasapa nga edukasion ket makasapul iti ispesial a panagsanay tapno agbalinda a manursuro iti lengguahe. Kasla nakaam-amak ken di malasatan dagiti pagel.
Kadakami a nakigamulon iti pannakadevelop ti FLC-BP, addaankami itan kadagiti sumagmamano a sungbat iti grass roots a level ken iti level a rehional. Ti addang ti grass roots level ket maipapan kadagiti manursuro nga agin-indeg kadagiti lokal a komunidad iti intero a Filipinas ken agsasao ken mangisursuro kadagiti ubbing nga agsasao kadagiti indihenoso a lengguahe, dagiti vernakular, e.g. Ifugao. Addaantayo itan kadagiti libro iti dua a mayor a lengguahe, Filipino ken Ilokano, ken dua nga indihenoso a lengguahe, Tuwali ken Ayangan para kadagiti preschool, kindergarten, ken grade I. Iti laksid ti kaadda dagitoy a libro, masapul pay laeng dagiti manursuro ti pananggutigot ken panangsuporta dagiti lokal nga administrador ken nangatngato a level ti personel ti DepEd tapno mausarda dagitoy.
Kongklusion ken Rekomendasion
Kas kongklusion, kayatko koma ti agsubli iti orihinal a topikok—ti Pannakapaumel Dagiti Indihenoso a Lengguahe Ket Mangrakrak iti Nainsababali a Panagpampanunot ken Namaris a Diversidad. Ania ti pakainaigan ti kaso ti panagadal iti Filipinas ken ti First Language Component-Bridging Program iti daytoy a topiko?
Mamatiak nga iti kadaklan a parte, dagiti indihenoso a tattao a, babaen kadagiti bukodda a kultura ken lengguahe ket mangbukbukel kadagiti nagkakappeng a grupo ket agregget met iti panagkakappeng ken panagkaykaysa iti dakdakkel nga iskala—iti uneg ti kadaklan a mayoria ti gimong, ti dominante a lengguahe ken kultura. Dagiti panggep ti development ti nasional a lengguahe, Filipino, ket ti pannakadevelop iti panagkaykaysa kadagiti amin nga umili. Ngem tapno maaramid a husto ti kastoy, nasken nga adda pannakabigbig a ti respeto ket kasapulan a maipakita para iti diversidad dagiti lengguahe ken kulturatayo, ken sumagmamano a pamuspusan ket maited iti pannakarangtay iti ammo ken kasanayan a maala kadagiti nasional ken internasional a lengguahe babaen iti kasanayan a maala kadagiti kaunnaan a lengguahe ken kultura.
Kayatko koma nga isingasing iti daytoy a grupo ti Nakem a ti FLC-BP ket maysa kadagiti wagas tapno maiyusuat ti kastoy. Kayatko koma nga isingasing a sumagmamano a parte ti programa ti mabalin nga agservi a kas modelo para iti sistema ti suporta ti biag para kadagiti ispiker dagiti matmatayen a lengguahe tapno ti etnik nga autentisidadda ken ti kasanayanda a kritikal ken pang-isip ket saan a matay kasakbayan ti pannakabigbig ken pannakayallatiw dagitoy.
Ti sirmatak kadagiti IT ket ti pannakatagikuatayo iti istatus ti maysa a diversifikado ngem napagkammayet a nasion a dagiti umilina ket addaan iti natan-ok nga orihinalidad, ken kinamanagpartuat gapu ta sinuportaran ken sinalvartayo dagiti indihenoso a lengguahetayo, ket iti kasta prineservartayo dagiti millennia nga ammo ken kasanayan nga inurnong dagiti ispiker kadagiti amin a lengguahetayo iti pagilian.
Dagiti Referensia
Acuña, Jasmin Espiritu (ed.). 1994. The Language Issue in Education. Congressional Oversight Committee on Education. Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila and Quezon City.
1993. Towards A New Paradigm for Science and Mathematics Education: Integration of Cultural Heritage, Philippine Psychology and Filipino as Medium of Instruction. Curriculum Journal, Vol. No. 2 Education Forum.
Baguingan, Gloria D. 1999. First Language Component Bridging Program: A Breakthrough for Second Language Competency, Paper Presented at the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, AILA Tokyo, Published in CD-ROM, 2000.
1996. The First Language Component Bridging Program. Saint Louis Research Journal, Vol. XXVII, No. 1.
1986. The Larapun (Mass Killing) Incident and Its Impact on Madukayong Society. Saint Louis Research Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 2.
1977. Some Observation on Madukayong Phonemes. Saint Louis Research Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 3-4.
1983. On Ilokano Linguistic Interaction.Saint Louis Research Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 1-2.
Barnwell, Catherine. 1980. Introduction to Semantics and Translation. (SIL).
Baker, C. 1996 (1sy ed., 1993). Foundation of Bilingual Education. Cleveland, England: Multilingual Matters.
Bernardo, Allan B.D. with Sto. Domingo Mariano R. and Pena Edith Liane (eds). 1995. Cognitive Consequences of Literacy: Studies on Thinking in Five Filipino Communities.
Cummins, J. 1996. Negotiating Identities: Educating for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario, California Association for Bilingual Association.
Davis, Patricia M. 1991. Cognitive and Learning: A Review of the Literature with Reference to Ethnolinguistic Minorities. Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Davis, Patricia M. 1991. Lecture, “Towards a Model for Second Language Acquisition, Nueva Vizcaya State Institute of Technology Training.”
Davis, Patricia M. 1999. Indigenization of the Curriculum: First Language Bridging Programs-Why and How: Paper Presented at Baguio City Bilingual Education Symposium.
Dekker, Diane E. 1999. Leaving Home-My Language or Yours? Paper presented to the Centennial Congress on Bilingualism, Manila.
Dekker, Greg. 1999. Bridge Over Troubled Waters. Paper presented to the Centennial Congress on Bilingualism, Manila.
Elias and Ingram. Cultural Components of Reading. Singapore:
REIC.
Gonzalez, Andrew, FSC and Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.). 1997. Language Planning. Linguistic Society of the Philippines and Language Study Center, Philippine Normal College.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1972. Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communications, U.S.A Halt, Phenehart and Winston, Inc.,
Hohulin, Lou E. 1993. The First Language Component Bridging Educational Program, Philippine Journal of Linguistics.
Hohulin, Richard. 1982. “A Quest for Dynamic Equivalence in Translation.” Ten Papers in Translation, Moss, Richard ed. SEAMEO Language Center, Singapore, No. 21.
Khoo, Maureen, Lee, June and Lim, Audrey. 1995. Literacy and Biliteracy in Asia: Problems and Issues in the Next Decade. National Book Development Council of Singapore and Society for Reading and Literacy (Singapore).
Larson, M.L. and Davis, P.M. (eds.). 1982. Bilingual Education: An Experience in Peruvian Amazonia. Washington, D.C. Center for Applied Linguistics and Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Peguin Book, Ltd.
Leton, Donald A. Conditioning, Comprehension and Memory in Reading Development, Paper Presented at the Asian Conference on Reading. Manila, Philippines.
Megarry, Jacquetta, Nisbet, Stanley and Hoyle, Eric.1981. World Yearbook of Education of Education of 1981: Education of Minorities, London/Nichole Pub. Co., New York.
Miramontes, Ofelia B. et all. 1997. Restructuring Schools for Linguistic Diversity: Linking Decision Making to Effective Programs. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York and London.
Ople, Blas. May 8, 1994. Manila Bulletin: An Address to the Linguistics Society of the Philippines
Padilla, Carlos M. Congressman of the Lone District of Nueva Vizcaya. This statement was given in his address at 1996 Summer Open House of Instructional Materials, Graduate School, NVSIT, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines.
Pacasio, Emy M. (ed). 1977. The Filipino Bilingual Studies on Philippine Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Quezon City.
Quackenbush, Stephen J. 1998. “Other” Philippine Languages in the Third Millennium, Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Reid, Lawrence A. 2008. “Who are the Indigenous? Origins and Transformation” Paper read at the 1st International Conference on Cordillera Studies. UP, Baguio City.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. 1994. Philippine Language Problems. Congressional Oversight Committee on Education. Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.
Smith, Frank 1985. A Metaphor for Literacy: Creating Worlds or Shunting Information? Literacy, Language and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
West, Ann. 1998. First Language Components In the World of Multilingualism: The Benefits of Bilingual Education, A global Perspective. Paper Presented at Innovation in Basic Education: The First Language Component Bridging Approach. Joint Seminar of DECS-Nueva Vizcaya and SIL.
Prinsesa a Di Prinsesa
Kenka Padre Li Yang,
Nanipud idi Viernes ti rugi ti kalbario dagiti kailian.
Sika iti Sydney wenno Melbourne ket buyaem
ti ames dagiti pasamak. Siak ditoy Manila a no
agsaplit ti panawen ket latigoda met iti bakrang
kas iti panunot. Dagiti didigra ket saan a pagayaten
ti manangipateg a Dios: dusaenna kadi dagiti kapada
a no agdawat iti limos ket kas iti Lazarus
a ti maisakmol laeng iti agdama ti metro ti pannubbot?
Idi Mayo ken Hunio ken Hulio ket kaduata dagiti tripulante,
kas iti naayat a kapitan ti baroko nga MV Prinsesa,
sika iti panangideklara iti sagrado a bagi
iti sagrado a dara manipud iti agdadata nga ostia
agdadata nga arak ti ubas a nalabaga
siak iti dawatmo nga innak panagsermon
manipud iti Ebanghelio ti panaglayag
tapno mabirokan ti basi iti agpaspasukmon.
Kasano a malipatak dagitoy: agapon ti init
a mapantayo iti pantalan, kadua ti madre
nga uray ti anangsabna ket araraw ti panagpakawan?
Talaga met a naparukma dagiti ili nga am-ammom
dagiti ili nga am-ammok
dagiti pasamak a kabinnulig dagiti estoria iti agmatuon:
awan daytoy ita iti babaetmi
adda kadagiti ungto ti tangatang ti ipus
ti bagyo a nangibuarit iti balay ti namnamami.
Ita a bigat ket nangngegak ti timek ti nakalasat,
isunan sa ketdi daydi naayat nga aggitara
agpunas ti lamisaan sakbay ti misa
agipakni kadagiti gargaret para iti sumuno a kassaba?
Ita a matimudko ti natinggaw a panagdawat iti bendision
a kabulon ti manamnama a panagibtur kadagiti allon
ken pannakairanud iti taraon
idiaya tikapitan nga itan ket din matunton.
Diak masbaalan ti riknak, Padre Li Yang.
Kasano a malipatan dagitoy iti tengnga dagiti layus
iti laksid dagiti pilapila a mapan gumatang iti bagas
tapno laeng maaresto ti bisin
tapno laeng ti aliaw ti ipapatay ket iti karsel a mapupok
saan nga iti danum a manglemmes ti riaw
dagiti ubbing nga arub-uben ti dalluyon.
Basaek ti pagiwarnak. Butbutngennak dagiti numero:
pitogasut, padre, pitogasut kadagiti makassabaan
ti maitabon iti sementerio a danum.
No agsirnaut ti panawen, agsubliakto iti pier.
Agipaanudakto iti kararag iti nalinak a baybay
a mangbirok kadagiti sikkuder nga agpaypayapay.
A Solver Agcaoili
Marikina, Filipinas
Hunio 24/08
Critical Perspectives on Ilokano and Amianan Studies
Critical Perspectives on Ilokano and Amianan Studies, Final Version
Aurelio S. Agcaoili, University of Hawai`i at Manoa
*First presented as a conference paper, 2nd Nakem International Conference, MMSU Batac, May 25-28, 2007.
The paper proposes perspectives and paradigms through which Ilokano and Amianan Studies (IAS) could be drawn up as a mode of knowledge critically reflecting the varying experiences of the peoples of Ilocos and Northwestern Luzon, this latter place made up of various linguistic and cultural experiences but shares Ilokano as its lingua franca in public life and in governance. Arguing from the framework that a real, genuine, and liberating studies on the Philippines cannot come from a hegemonic position provided in a two-tiered way by the “Englishization” and “Tagalogization” of Philippine national and communal experience, the paper sets to put together some arguments for the urgency of Ilokano and Amianan studies as an antidote to the systemic erasures effected by a ‘centrist’ nationalism, neocolonization, and globalization. These forces have stifled the growth of creativity from the various cultures and languages of the Philippines. Various perspectives—philosophical, cultural, linguistic, and epistemological—will be used to generate the argument needed to advance the claim that studies about the Philippines cannot afford to be a totalizing political exercise in the name of the Philippine nation and Philippine nationalism without at the same time scrutinizing the linguistic, epistemic, and cultural effects of such a totalizing exercise.
Philippine Studies as a Radical Perspective
There are several ways by which we can look at Philippine Studies (PS) as a paradigm of knowledge, with the concept of paradigm here used following the Kuhnian second sense of paradigm “as shared examples” (1970: 187) or “exemplary past achievements” (1970: 175). What we have here is that even with Blumentritt’s ethnolinguistic excursus and that of Jose Rizal, we can only have some sort of “Pilipinolohiya” (“Pilipino + lohiya”) that was aimed, at best, to look at the universe of Filipinos as colonial exhibits against oppression; or colonial trophies, with the stress on the “barbarism” and “savagery” of a people as in the St. Louis Fair of 1904 in Missouri complete with villages and peoples imported from the conquered Philippine Islands (cf. two films, “Savage Acts” and “Bontoc Eulogy”); or that idea of the search for origin, some kind of a genealogy to spite the colonizers’ aim of ‘civilizing’ us, as in the claim of Rizal that the people of the Philippines come from the Malay race (Azurin 1995: 9). Such slanted aims of Philippine Studies as a mode of knowledge, and as understood in the past, do not warrant a new model of Philippine Studies that we are trying to evolve today. With the University of the Philippines on the forefront for its conceptualization during the turbulent 60’s and 70’s and graduating many of the current scholars who can readily show the change in the cognitive frame being used in those two models of Philippine Studies, we now have a perspective of Philippine Studies that is both critical and committed—critical of the modes of producing and reproducing knowledge about the Philippines and committed as well to the production of a dynamic and continuing because always-exploratory knowledge of Philippine society, its people, its cultures, its languages, its politics, and its economic life.
The stress on the exploratory, tentative, and open-ended nature of knowledge resulting from this view of Philippine Studies is required by the admission of the interpretive nature of all human knowledge, with the recognition and admission at the same time of the mediating power of human language in all these forms of human knowledge.
For the interpretive view of human knowledge grounds itself with the urgent and expedient need to acknowledge that human knowledge, in all historical times, has always been marked by a certain historical ‘situatedness,’ by the requisites of time and place, by the requisites of actors and actions commingling and coming into a human enterprise but always understood, however tentatively, by the prevailing mode of human communication we call human language, thus, the human language that is a dialect, the language that is used in its ‘everydayness.’ Because it is the everyday language—the dialect—that speaks us, that speaks to us, that speaks with us, and to whom do we also speak about, speak to, speak with, and speak from. Our everyday understanding of the world is thus always-already a result of, and made possible by, this everyday language—thus, in fine, there is no everyday language opening up a world to everyday knowledge that is final, complete, immutable, incorruptible, unpolluted, and pure.
All these factors, when considered with intellectual integrity, helps us realize that Philippine Studies is not about essentialism and about absolutes, but about the desire—the rugso and the derrep—to get to have both a theoretical and practical basis of understanding the world, the self, and human experiences. The ground of the revolutionary is the need and the desire to keep on renewing our understanding of the world, with the renewal mandated by surprises and terrors of change, but always measured by our ability to come to terms with the constancy of that change, always on the ready to confront it, resist it, rework it, subdue it, or accept it. To understand the evolutionary frame in which Philippine Studies has gone through for the last 150 years or so, we can speak of a heuristics here, a broad segmentation defined by the requirements of social change: (a) a pre-revolutionary, pre-liberating model and (b) a liberating model.
In 1974, the University of the Philippines approved what it called the Doctor of Philosophy in Philippine Studies, a multidisciplinary graduate program, with the principal objective of “train(ing) students who are able to look at Philippine problems from a multidisciplinary point of view in response to the need of the Philippines for scholars trained along multidisciplinary lines (Bautista 1991: 24).”
From a formal perspective, the visionary direction taken by the UP at that crucial time in the 70’s indicates the maturation of the same radical and revolutionary ideas the 60’s fermented among the ranks of those who had the courage to say that there was something wrong with the country and that something had to be done. While this concerned the country, we must understand that this new way finds its roots and connection with the earlier revolutionary struggles of our people that included, among others, the need to break the colonial ties that bounded it with the colonizer, and, with the neo-colonizers.
IAS draws its energy and élan from this same revolutionary and radical tradition. The sporadic revolts from the Ilocos is not one among and of the Ilokanos alone, this we see clearly in William Henry Scott’s Ilocano Responses to American Aggression, 1900-1901 (1986) and in Resistance and Revolution in the Cordillera edited by Delfin Tolentino Jr. (1994) particularly Scott’s “Igorot Responses to American Aims: 1576-1986” and “Bontoc Uprising of 1881” and Fay Dumagat’s “The Role of Itneg (Tinggian) in 1896 Revolution.”
Here in these accounts and many others are historical, ideological, and liberating relationships among the various cultural communities and indigenous peoples of Amianan, who, bound by both the wind direction and by a culture they share with the earlier Y’ami/Ami/Yami peoples and enriched by Hindu, Buddhist, and Arabic culture they have come into an encounter with. Where then do we draw this concept of IAS in the context of the evolutionary developments of Philippine Studies, with its clearer and clearer direction towards knowledge that is liberating, with the idea of liberation from the very notion of what, in Ilokano, ‘wayawaya’ is all about?
The stress on the concept of wayawaya here is accidental and is traceable more to the acknowledgement of Ilokano as a lingua franca in these parts, with the idea of lingua franca tentatively removed from the colonizing intents of dominant languages. For the making of Ilokano as a lingua franca in Amianan is not a result of a legislative or an executive act, and if at all there is manipulation somewhere, these manipulations are not clearly intended but came in as a result of the exchange and diffusion of the varied ethos and languages, including the dynamic of commerce among the indigenous peoples in the Amianan.
For clearly, the Ilokanos are not better off economically from the other indigenous peoples in Amianan, with the people’s resources far more diminished than the IPs in these parts, which was why one of the main reasons for out-migration is clearly the Ilokanos’ need to clear a new land in order to survive, coax it to fertility and then own it, and then build a semblance of the community they have left behind, by, among others, naming that new land with the name of the community they left behind, thus, a ‘Kavintaran’ is not far off as a community somewhere in Nueva Vizcaya.
IAS, as a tentative formula for that knowledge that is evolving among the various peoples of the Amianan, is both a composite knowledge, and as knowledge that can find its way into rightful and ethical distinction between Ilokano Studies and Amianan Studies, with the latter able to (as in the case of Cordillera Studies), and in fact, branching into other forms of area and cultural studies. It is possible therefore to imagine, and to draw up—and ethically we ought to do so--‘Isabela Studies’, ‘Cagayan Valley Studies’, ‘Ivatan Studies’, all separate from Ilokano Studies, in a tentative way, but not separable from a bigger and broader view of ‘Amianan Studies’, with Amianan Studies part and parcel of Philippine Studies, when such a view is seen in a radical and critical way.
The problem with Philippine Studies, so far, is its Manila-centric view of everything about the Philippines, and with the emphasis on everything Philippine in terms of the construction of nation and nationalism, which that subtext that is never acknowledged but is giving shape and form to discourses about the Philippines: the core of such a discourse has been a sensibility based on an attitude and disposition of Tagalogism. Tagalogism, as it is, is a formulation of Philippine knowledge based on the experiences of the center of politics, economics, and culture, veritably, a Manila-view, privileged and entitled by all the social structures that are basically Tagalog in framework, orientation, and world view. This whole-scale Tagalogization of the Filipino mind, with the renaming of the national language into Filipino from Pilipino—which was from Tagalog—and giving it army and a navy and all forms of mass media exposure has preempted a broad view of Philippine knowledge—or knowledge about the Philippines—that is grounded on the reality of multiculturalism and multilingualism and on the ideal of cultural pluralism. The systemic exclusion of other forms—and other systems of knowledge of Filipinos who do not share the Tagalog language and culture—in the public sphere has rendered these knowledge systems and forms as virtually invisible and illegitimate, and has deprived them of the prestige that they deserve. Academic scholarships that have something to do with Philippine Studies remain fundamentally either English-mediated or Tagalog=P/Filipino elaborated, for the scholars and academic and power holders, and not for the masses. The only participation of the masses in such forms of knowledge is the one that makes them a spectacle on noontime television shows, with their multitude of miseries as exhibits, and the multipliable mercies of the elites and commerce men and their allies as neocolonial remedies.
The Philosophical Roots of Ilokano and Amianan Studies
There could be two strokes by which we can attempt to understand ‘knowledge’—or those things that we need to know and that we ought to know. These two strokes—one, a knowledge of the world as physical and material, and two, the knowledge of human beings, their society, and their relationships including their relationship to their universe—ground two huge approaches to the kind of understanding that we wish to relate with IAS. Gadamer (1970) suggests the intricate connection between ‘truth’ and ‘method’, with method somehow yielding, predictably, the kind of truth that we can expect. The relevance of this view of a heuristics of human knowledge that is two-pronged, depending on which method that knowledge follows, is that we are initially freed from the anxiety created by the absolutist claim to human knowledge and its truth by a philosophical attitude that holds that only science—and science here is meant the laboratory model of science—can tell us what the truth is all about because only science can show us the way to arriving at that ‘convenient’ because certain truth at the end through that elaborate technique of repeatability and predictability innate in its method.
There is a problem in this certitude of contemporary science, as it leaves behind one aspect that it does not recognize: that even in the laying down of a hypothesis—in the formulation of a ‘scientific’ problem, for example, there is already that built-in prejudice which may not be recognized as such by the one pursuing scientific knowledge. The recognition or non-recognition of the prejudice does not erase that built-in prejudice but becomes a haunting presence demanding recognition as part of the honesty and integrity of every ‘scientific’ work. The shanghaiing of contemporary science of the original notion of what science was from its epistemic roots is instructive: it tells us of the history of anxiety in the evolution of what could be deemed ‘certain’ human knowledge, what with a history of experimentation and argumentation among practicing scientists from the ancients until today. ‘Science’ coming from ‘scire’—to know—has been lost at the service of technique of repetition and prediction and precision.
The cleavage between what ‘science’ could be, as drawn from the model of physics, for instance, and from that lesser form of a ‘science’ in interpreting human societies, has lasted for a long time, gradually leading to more specialized forms of human knowledge that have their own forms of language, jargon, and even tactic. One way to heal this rift—and the seeming conflict and contradiction—is suggested by Gadamer when he proposed to view two models by which we look at what knowledge is by looking at what, in fact, are we looking. When knowledge is concerned with the physical universe, or the sciences of nature, Gadamer calls this the naturwissenschaften, or studies about nature or the physical universe. On the other hand, when knowledge is concerned with the other ‘nature’—human nature—(such as those of human beings and their societies and cultures and histories) he calls this the geisteswissenschaften, or knowledge of the spirit. This formulation, while not exactly novel, as this can be traced back to the notion of knowledge as ‘science’ as formulated by the Aristotelian school of thought and elaborated by the Thomists during the medieval period with their view of the ‘branches of knowledge’ depending on their object of inquiry, suggests to us the chasm existing between the material universe as an object of inquiry and the universe of the spirit.
We can learn from this distinction—and IAS has much to draw from it.
The broad view for IAS is to be able to explore the ways by which knowledge can be integrated again, put back to its productive form in order to instruct the people to trust again what they have got by realizing that what they have got is as legitimate as someone else’s claim about the world and about human societies. For instance, while there is that fundamental divide between botany and the Yogad language, an understanding of the ethno-botany of the Yogad people is always-already mediated by their very own language and not someone else’s. Thus the mediated power of the languages of the Amianan peoples cannot be overlooked nor can they be underestimated. This brings us to be impossibility of holding on to the logic of accepting hook-line-and-sinker the view that the only legitimate and prestigious way to understand an experience about the Philippines is via the mediation of national language which is nothing but the equation Tagalog=P/Filipino. The naturalization of the equation Tagalog=P/Filipino via the legal process that has more dimensions for exclusion than inclusion, and has catapulted the experience of the center of power at the expense of the experience of those far from that center is one intellectual poverty Philippine Studies must be ready to recognize, admit and not deny, and remedy in an effort to relate national knowledge with social justice.
What do these things imply and how to they all relate to the issue of IAS as a body of knowledge?
Simply put: the Ilocos is not separate from the larger terrain of the Amianan, both as a physical and geographic reality and more so, as a psychological territory of diffused experiences and a long memory of cultural and economic relationship. This simply means that the broader framework for Amianan Studies includes studies about the Ilocos, about the BIBAAK peoples (a term used more as a cultural organization in Honolulu and in San Diego: Benguet, Ifugao, Bontoc, Apayao, Abra, Kalinga), and about the peoples of Amianan that out-migrated or have gone to other places and evolved their own communities in these new lands they have settled in. In the end, the IAS is not simply about a local area of studies, but an area of studies that is beyond an area itself but includes those that speak to these and about these peoples and hoping that these peoples will in turn speak to and about IAS.
To evolve an IAS whose subject matter is clear—one that can faithfully speak to and about the peoples in the Amianan—is a challenge. Whether to separate Ilocos/Ilokano Studies from Amianan Studies is an intellectual exercise whose relevance at this time, is moot and academic. Some speculate of a continuum by dropping the conjunction ‘and’ and putting instead what they call a continuum marker, the dash (-), but all these acts of language policing, in the interest of ‘style’, are an attempt to obscure the ethical need to (a) critique the current mode of Philippine Studies and (b) invite/encourage the drawing up of other modes of studies on the Philippines by investing upon the vast possibilities of the languages and cultures of the excluded cultural groups of the country, the cultural groups that have not been served the ends of cultural and linguistic justice for a long time.
IAS and the Question of Cultural Pluralism
But to demand from the Amianan peoples the same sensitivity and sensibility does not come in conversely, as this comes with some epistemic duties based on, largely, the ability to get into epistemic metanoia—a change in consciousness—about what a liberating and critical and committed knowledge is all about.
For today, the records are coming in clearer: that so few of our peoples in Amianan have the courage to own up their cultures and languages, with the Ilokano people the number one of those who have the lack of wisdom to deny their Ilokanoness. The empirical data are coming in handy, and the accounting of our community activities can only come logically.
How many of the Ilokanos, for instance, have the courage to own up their language?
The answer to this is a kind of a chasm, a divide and rule thing, a consequence of the new mode of colonization all non-Tagalog peoples are going through at this time. The cyber forms of protests of this condition of exclusion are many, and the reflections of those excluded reveal how much has the national project to entitle one language at the exclusion of other languages has created so much cultural and linguistic inferiority among the people outside the center of power.
The challenge comes from the report of academics, from the ranks of public school teachers who say that their pupils and students no longer take pride in their being Ilokanos. Mabainda nga agilokano—they would be embarrassed to speak Ilokano—the teachers would say. This is a concrete report, as factual as one can get. We extend this same report to all the language and culture groups in Amianan—and we can include here the report of the migrant experiences of the peoples of Amianan abroad—and the results are fairly the same. And here, we include the teachers as well: mabainda met nga agilokano (they are also ashamed to speak Ilokano).
But a real problem comes in when we ask teachers how many of them—these teachers who are making the report—have had the boldness and daring to own up their Ilokanoness.
Indeed, how many of our teachers can speak our Ilokano language with flair and elegance, the educated and formal sophistication that demands a continuous reflection of the vast possibilities of the Ilokano language? How many of our teachers can ever speak the Ilokano language with pride, and with a full acknowledgement of the terrors and surprises the Ilokano language offers?
How many of the teachers in our ranks, can speak with pride, of the literary history of our people?
How many of the teachers can be seen reading Ilokano magazines without feeling insecure, ashamed, embarrassed, and inferior?
How many can speak with confidence and expertise, what our Ilokano writers writing in Ilokano, Tagalog, English, Spanish and many other languages are writing?
How many know Leona Florentino and her sorrows, her daring and her artistic way of owning up her own brand of feminism? How many know Ursula Villanueva? How many know Antonio Rubio? How many know Juan San Pedro Hidalgo Jr.?
How many know many of our hypervaluated writers writing not in Ilokano but in Tagalog and in English, and in a more remote past, in Spanish?
How many know of the Basi Revolt and its translation into a series of paintings, in panels, and displayed, in bad condition, at the Burgos Museum in Vigan?
How many know how our writers continue to plumb the Ilokano soul by plumbing his own soul as well? How many know of our indigenous peoples who, through their teaching and practice, have continued to make alive the traditions that are now threatened by the globalized and nationalized societies?
How many of our otherwise promising writers we are losing to other trades and industry because we do not read, because we do not take pride in the Ilokano work that we read if we ever read at all, and because we do not care whether the Ilokano and Amianan languages will ever survive and thrive in the next five years?
Many of us academics, teachers, educational leaders, cultural workers, and even government men and women are ignorant of so many things Ilokano and Amianan even if we are not supposed to be because we are supposed to be knowing better than the average man or woman on the street. History has given us this rare moral and political obligation, born of our special blessings, to become witnesses to the Ilokano and Amianan cultures and languages—to witness to its truth, to witness to its sense and meaning, to witness to its vast possibilities?
But how many among us, indeed, are taking this vocation to witness with truthfulness and courage?
How many of us can ever say with pride, that yes, I am an Ilokano scholar, and I know my European and American thinkers like Luce Irigaray and Toni Morrisson and I know my Michel Foucault and Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jurgen Habermas and Pablo Neruda and Virginia Woolf—and yet I know as well the critical works of our scholars? How many can name our writers from the Amianan, their meditations on war and conflict and struggle, and their excursus on freedom and democracy and social justice?
IAS and Multilingualism
How many have read Greg Laconsay’s translation into Ilokano the former President Ferdinand Marcos’ Today’s Revolution: Democracy, where in there, he translated into a beautiful Ilokano concept what ‘consciousness’—utob-nakem-- is all about?
How many know that more than100 years ago, Williams came up with a book on Ilokano grammar? How many know that there are many versions of the Christian Bible in Ilokano?
These itemization of what we know and what we do not know is an attempt at accounting and soul-searching. We can easily quote some obscure author in English.
Where would education begin and where would it end?
Are we to exempt our biologists here their ethical duty to not to know about our language, our people, and our culture?
Are we to exempt our educational leaders from not knowing about cultural and linguistic democracy and the cultural and linguistic genocide that is happening to our people at this time?
These issues about the Ilokanos are the same issues affecting the other two Ks in the Amianan: the Kordiliera and the valley of Kagayan. (I am using the K-form of the sounds in the areas of the Amianan for mnemonics: the Kailokuan, the Kordiliera, and the Katantanapan--they valleys--of Kagayan). This simply means that we ought to ask the same set of questions, and using the same measures, must also account the other IPs from Amianan.
But back to the issue of linguistic and cultural genocide and how it is affecting us as a people.
My clear take on this is this: that we must not allow this linguistic and cultural genocide to continue.
The message I am telegraphing is univocal and does not admit of other interpretation: we must put an end to all the forces that are making us as a mass-herd, as a people that has come to value forgetting, as a people that valorize truth-telling but believes that there is redemption in becoming a party to all this masquerade that is happening all around us.
While in other parts of the globe, there is that humble recognition of the failure of the past, in the disturbing and deadly consequences of ‘massifying’ people and making them speak and talk and see the world only in one and only one language, and in the systemic rectification of the errors of the past by making ‘official’ the other languages from their regions that deserve no less attention than the already ‘officialized’ one by virtue of giving citizenship to this language, we are here in this country trying to make good with the fascistic possibilities of an ideology that did not and will never make our minds and imagination productive, that ideology that has something to do with a singular and only a singular language that encapsulate all what we are.
The idea of a national language is an ideal; I have always claimed this in previous works, but not at the expense of perpetrating cultural and linguistic injustice against a people of a nation made up of various cultures and languages, virtually making this nation as a nation among nations. The idea of a national language ought to follow the spirit of the fundamental law of the land, a provision, that to me, need no further violation as we have already violated: (a) that this national language shall be called Filipino and (b) that this should be a product of all our existing languages. We need not say more on this, more so because of the errors of history against us.
The big trouble comes in when in the pursuit of the single linguistic symbol, the terrorizing meaning and effect of that one word, ‘single’, is masked off with faux unity and faux national culture and everything faux that attend to it. There is something wrong here and scholars must do two things: (a) help in the unmasking of these lies peddled to us in the last 70 years since President Manuel Quezon signed the law that made Tagalog as the basis of the national language, with its signing what presidential power can do to make language and culture leaders accommodating to a presidential wish to have Tagalog as the national language, and (b) permit, in the spirit of linguistic justice, a form of social justice, the evolving of a real, honest-to-goodness society that is premised on the promise and possibilities of cultural pluralism as a way of life. The account of Andrew Gonzalez on the social drama involving the accommodation that happened among the uninformed and ignorant Ilokano and Cebuano representatives in that deliberation on the question of the basis of the national language suggest to us what presidential power can do (cf. Gonzalez 1990), and the decades-old exclusion of many Filipinos in the public sphere of national language and national culture discourse.
I take issue with Tagalog as a national language. It is unconstitutional.
I take issue with Tagalog being used as a mask to account the idea that there is now the existence of a Philippine national language that is called, among others, a schizophrenic name P/Filipino by one academic at the University of the Philippines. It is not morally right and correct.
This linguistic and cultural schizophrenia must be diagnosed, named, and unmasked—and its prognosis stated: it is making a rapid genocide of our Ilokano culture, of our Ilokano language, of the languages and cultures of Amianan.
Now, where does Ilokano and Amianan Studies come in this linguistic and cultural struggle for freedom, for autonomy, and for authenticity?
The trouble with the isomorphism—this idea that Tagalog=P/Filipino—that has happened in Tagalog as a national language is that:
(a) it has made Tagalog as a triumphal language, marching and marching with the beat of victory, and gaining advocates and adherents, and a military and a navy and ever-ready to wage a war against all of us, we who speak differently, we who see the world differently;
(b) it has positioned Tagalog as the political and cultural and economic powerhouse, with more profits for movies, magazines, books, and other media when these are in Tagalog at the expense of the other languages, with more political power for academics and other cultural leaders who can speak Tagalog masked off as P/Filipino, with superiority claims for all other peoples who can speak it;
(c) it has made other languages inaccessible, more remote than ever, because their existence do not matter even if Tagalog advocates speak about a token attitude by including a word or two from language A, another two or three from language B, and another four or five from language C;
(d) it has made many Filipino linguists on the national language blind, preferring to wallow in the blessed thought that to maintain the isomorphism that Tagalog is equal to P/Filipino is a convenient position and a comfortable intellectual discourse; and
(e) it has made Tagalog literature as the canon for anything Philippine-- in poetics and the linguistically aesthetic, with Tagalog writing being used as a measure for many things, including the perks and pelf that go with Tagalog writing, and including the awarding of National Artists for Literature—practices that are not only tyrannical and undemocratic, but also anomalous in a country that acknowledges the blessings of diversity and multilingualism.
Conclusion: IAS as a Paradigm Shift
From this perspective, we see clearly the political and epistemic position of IAS. It is not going to allow knowledge that is microwavable but resists all forms of knowledge that offer convenience and comfort, but not critical enough to admit its fundamental lack of integrity and truthfulness.
It is not going to allow the repetition of lies, but will unmask these lies in an effort to forge a broader view of the universe and human experience by using a critical lens to account what makes truth and meaning matters.
In the end, we will speak here of an IAS that looks at the universe of the peoples of Amianan from a political, cultural, and economic perspective:
(a) a federated part of the country with full autonomy, with its lingua franca, with its politics that is grounded on a caring concern for the power of the people to define their own destinies in their own terms;
(b) an Amianan made up of diverse cultures and peoples and languages, but unified, in a certain way, by a lingua franca enriched by the languages of the various IPs; and
(c) an Amianan that becomes its own hub of investment and commerce, and that has the capability to trade, as in the past, with other nation-states, other federated communities of the Philippines, and among its IPs.
IAS is a whole new epistemology, a new vision, a new way of looking at things.
IAS is a door to liberation, to social redemption, and to the cultural affirmation of the people’s cultural and linguistic rights, their human rights.
References
Azurin, A. M., “Mga katiwalian sa ating kamalayan tungkol sa kaalamang bayan,” in L.Q. Santiago, ed. Mga Idea at Estilo. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1995, pp. 7-20.
Bautista, V. V. and R. Pe-Pua, ed. Pilipinolohiya: Kasaysayan, Pilosopiya at Pananaliksik. Quezon City: Kalikasan Press, 1991.
Gadamer, H-G. Truth and Method. Continuum, 1989.
Gonzalez, A.B. Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience Thus Far. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila UP, 1980.
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. second ed, enlarged. The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
ilo_Latn gla_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn eng_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn taq_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn vec_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn gla_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn zho_Hans eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn pap_Latn ast_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn ilo_Latn por_Latn pag_Latn ilo_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn swe_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn lvs_Latn tgl_Latn tgl_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn eng_Latn