And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation
towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
..
Camilo M Villanueva Jr
ENG535M Foundations of Language Studies
Leah E Gustilo, PhD
Final Paper
13 December 2010
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
2
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation
towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Introduction
The Philippine educational system has been plagued with the dilemma brought about by
bilingual education (Bautista, 1995; Benton, 1980; Gonzalez, 1990a, 1990b; Sibayan, 1991; and
in Bolton & Bautista, 2009, by Tinio, 1990; Tollefson, 1991; and, exhaustively discussed and
problematized by Bernardo, 2009, in “English in Philippine education: Solution or problem?”),
which leaves learners having a hard time internalizing and applying concepts due to less than
satisfactory comprehension of either of two languages that may not be their first language and
therefore alienate learning more than they make learning accessible.
This dilemma is captured in the apparent paradox—even a series of little ironies—in the
title, specifically on how (a) Words—sound and sense, both intangible thus temporal—become;
and, (b) Filipino word-formation works to expand and lead to codify the lexicon of—not Tagalog
or Pilipino or some such, but—Philippine English. The first an issue of idea turning into palpable
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
3
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
reality and the second an issue of one local national(ist) language-in-progress forming another
erstwhile foreign colonial(ist) language: both digression and dissent and, therefore, catalytic of
change.
Thus, this paper tries to problematize word-formation as it describes trends and
observations that, in the end, tells us what simple words really do or effect or mean not only for
us being familiar with them but knowing them and using them and finding them in print and in
dictionaries of our language(s).
We learn using and through words and we use words to manifest and make use of what
we have learned. In using words we communicate not only what we are saying but effect what
we meant and achieve what we intended. In the process, we form and fortify our identity not
only as persons but as a people, not only as individuals but as a culture.
This jump from one to whole is not mere rhetoric and will not be as traitorous as it is my
fervent hope that you realize with me as we read on—and, hopefully, learn anew.
Theoretical Framework
The issue then of pedagogy is not a simple issue of language choice, but of national
language planning that entails the simultaneous cultivation of both corpus and domains of use—
what Ponciano B P Pineda (1985) describes as the two macro areas in language planning and of
which lexicon and education are the primary items on each list, respectively—and what I say
should be grounded, most importantly, on two key elements:
1. Filipino psychology—a sensitive understanding of how Filipinos see themselves as
learners and users of languages (first, second, and foreign); how Filipinos construct the
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
4
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
self in relation to and in a position opposite other learners, users, and teachers of
language (native, nonnative, and foreign); and, how Filipinos view education as an end in
itself useable right after and as means towards some higher goal; and,
2. Pragmatic sociolinguistics—a sensitive understanding of how Filipinos make sense of
things by and in the way they creatively use language; how Filipinos create, project, and
assert inner selves (loob) and empower their external selves (labas) in their spontaneous
use of language with others; and, how Filipinos understand, remember, and pass on
knowledge by comfortably and lightheartedly using the language that first comes to
mind.
These two foundations simply privilege both the individual and the social aspects of
language and, thus, may be said to be informed by the propositions of Sapir (1949), Saussure
(1915), Venuti (1998), Joshua Fishman (1971), Corder (1982), Basil Bernstein’s deficit
hypothesis, William Labov’s variety concept, and Howard Giles’ accommodation theory.
At the most basic, however, the study may be said to take its shape from Elmer Haugen’s
language standardization paradigm (1966), as most other dissertations on the subject (e.g.,
Matienzo, 1980; Catacataca, 1981; Dela Peña, 1984; Mercado, 1992) have so acknowledged and
which we shall see more of in the following discussions.
Conceptual Framework
The search for the best language for more effective teaching, however, seems not quite
the focus of two national directives in:
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
5
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
1. Playing up the use of English as the useful, global, and formal language that will
ensure users of being accepted into the circle of bright, in, and successful Filipinos—
and therefore the language to learn (equipped for a future in diaspora as global
citizens—with the view perhaps to get all learners take over the world leaving behind
the archipelago’s vast agricultural lands and resources to multinational investors and
developers); and,
. . . President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order 210. [Signed 17 May 2003 and supported byDepEd Order No. 36 S.2006. —Annotation Mine] Its most important point is the establishment of “the Englishlanguage as the primary medium of instruction in all public institutions of learning at the secondary level.” (“Primeron the Filipino Language”)
2. Downplaying the use of Filipino, or any Philippine language for that matter, as the
limited, parochial, and informal language that will ensure users of being accepted into
the circle of simple, traditional, and content Filipinos—and therefore the language to
clear out what the use of English had so cluttered in learners’ minds.
On 29 September . . . announced that “two congressional committees had approved and endorsed to the Houseof Representatives the report prescribing the use of English as the medium of instruction in Philippine schools, frompre-school to college, including technical and vocational courses.” According to the report, the Committees onHigher Education and on Basic Education agreed to consolidate related proposals into House Bill 4701. “If enactedinto law,” the report continued, “the bill will supersede the ‘bilingual policy’” which is in effect today. (“Primer onthe Filipino Language”)
Sending the two languages in opposite directions as if the two are binaries, yet with effort
to privilege both in the educational setting, has ultimately turned off learners from seeing the real
merit of being proficient in both and end up graduating without any firm hold on either language.
Since both are difficult and with technology intervening to make things easier, language
has sought the comfort zone of, on the one hand, the less demanding, loosely structured, and
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
6
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
unchecked “conventions” of text messaging, emailing, and chatting as written discourses for
Filipinos as users and producers of language.
While a great majority has been lured to adopt the ease of instant messages as genre of
choice, many have remained passive consumers and receivers of language in their greater
preference for the visual and auditory media—although tabloids and broadsheets remain popular
reading fare, along with popular novels and entertainment or lifestyle magazines, their visual
appeal remains the primary bait to dissimulate the reading act or the processing of language—as
in the cable, video game, Facebook, and iPod culture in urbanized locales with the continued
mass appeal of television and radio taking decidedly linguistic twists to maintain hold of a more
mobile and erratic 24/7 audience.
Background of the Study
Media has taken to lionize the generation’s limited language abilities—ergo creating
more, and more passive, consumers instead of producers and creators—by supplying less
demanding alternatives where language plays minor or lesser roles:
1. Mobile and Internet communication are user-friendly functionalities based media that
breaks down language to yield more sound than sense (text) or more signal than
message (web design); and,
2. Audiovisual media are audience-friendly media that breaks down the language barrier
by transforming linguistic codes into visual scripts and beats and rhythms that remain
communicative as they are entertaining by putting language in the background as
dialogues or lyrics, such that even news reports—a formal TV genre—have not only
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
7
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
taken to Filipino (the informal, more personal language) but have also been
dramatized by the anchor’s verbal voice play.
Less demands, more audience. Lesser need to pay attention to the fineprint or nuance of
language, more entertaining and better appreciated. The farther detached the discourse process is
from the individual, the safer and more comfortable people are—the freer people are to imitate,
emulate, or take after those they hear, watch, or see as larger than life or bigger than them and
quite out of reach.
While the majority of the objects of language teaching—Filipino learners and users of
English and of Filipino—are comfortably couched in the language variety spawned and spread
by the telecommunications and mass media industries, the educational and linguistic sectors are
busy working out possible solutions by looking at upgrading language teachers (who are likewise
couched in the same comfort zone), lobbying government cultural and educational officials,
reengineering curriculum designs, and institutionalizing two of the most important clearings
opened for the codifying of the national language:
1. Intellectualization of Filipino—through the continuous use and application of this
language-in-progress in learning content areas, translation, and discourse while
continually propagating the lexical corpus with the most useful words to embody
knowledge and establish familiarity to encourage use; and,
2. Standardization of Philippine English.
These two languages, divergent at first and heading towards different directions, are
actually coming full circle and, thus, by realizing their divergent goals are actually converging:
very much like a snake now trying to bite and swallow its own tail!
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
8
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
This “direction” has been worded a bit differently in the following observation in Bolton
and Bautista (2009):
Perhaps most interesting of all in the case of the Philippines (though it is not unique, as a similar situation isfound in Singapore) is that a second language, English, has become a permanent feature of society, and that the useof English remains so important in higher education, business, and international diplomacy. The transplantation hasnow reached full circle, not in linguistic extinction, not in deterioration or return to a foreign language, but as asecond language with specific domains and standards. (Gonzalez, “A favorable climate,” p 25)
What is crucial is to look at these two languages as works-in-progress, much the same
way as the English language grew to its mammoth proportions by taking in all the oceans’
planktons carefully filtering but generously accepting, and therefore only achieved by tirelessly:
1. fueling their wide and persistent use in various institutionalized and informal
linguistic endeavors, settings, and genres;
2. flexing their adoption by and adaptation in being assimilated across demographic
boundaries, social strata, discourse communities, and media/technological formats;
3. recording these uses, applications, and variances/varieties for testing in and eventual
application of these languages-in-progress in embodying learning content areas by or
through translation of technical knowledge and literature and discourse; and,
4. propagating regularly and religiously the lexical corpora of Filipino and Philippine
English with the most useful words to embody Filipino knowledge and establish
general familiarity to encourage use not only in spoken but also written discourse in
both formal and informal settings until such time that the forking paths of the twin
corpora feed each other and diverge in Filipino—the Philippine National Language.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
9
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Again, these “directions” have been worded a bit differently, and quite summarily, in
Dayag’s observation of several observations in “English-language media in the Philippines”
(Bolton & Bautista, 2009), which includes not only on the source of words feeding the lexicon
but also implications for research—a discussion that runs from page 55 to page 63—and which
begins thus:
It is widely acknowledged that along with creative literature (fiction and nonfiction), the Philippine media are arich source of words and expressions, especially those of contemporary lusage, that have become part of thePhilippine English lexicon. This seems to have been affirmed by Bolton (2005: 101), who argues that `perhaps themost important source for contemporary language . . . particularly at a less formal level, is the Philippine Englishnewspapers [or Philippine media, in general], whose distinctive style of journalism rests not only on the creativeutilization of local vocabulary, but on a range of other resources as well.’ (2009: 55)
Dayag (2009) continues to describe in his observations some valuable clues—and, for
this paper, pathways—to the nature and movement for the development of a Philippine national
language, namely:
1. Source or font of words feeding the lexicon:
A close examination of the citations of the above lexical entries [referring to Bautista (2007) study presentingwords from the Macquarie corpus of Asian English or ASIACORP to describe the lexicon of Philippine English.—Annotation mine.] reveal that most of these words and expressions were taken from news stories and columns inEnglish-language newspapers in the Philippines. This suggests the potency of the Philippine media, especially printmedia, as an instrument in the development of the Philippine English lexicon. (p 56)
2. Processes by which these words are formed or created—and the relationship of these
processes to the Filipino language:
[C]oinages abound in Philippine English. Perhaps this indicates lexical creativity and innovation in PhilippineEnglish, and the fact that they appear in the print media underscores the media’s invaluable contribution to thedevelopment of the Philippine English lexicon. This is made more meaningful if one considers the ubiquity ofindigenous or Filipino-based words and expressions in the media, such as the ones that appear in . . . front-pagenewspaper headlines . . . . (p 56)
3. Implications for research and the need for studies to update and follow through the
seminal studies conducted in this research area:
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
10
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
And while the ASIACORP used data more than a decade ago, the evolution of the lexicon of Philippine Englishis a continuing process. (p 56)
This [WTNID, see below.—Annotation mine.] dictionary, however, fails to capture Philippine Englishvocabulary used in this contemporary era because, as Bolton and Butler (2004: 98) put it, `the vocabulary . . .represents an archaic and petrified version of Philippine vocabulary, dating from the 1910s and 1920s.’ . . . theWebster’s dictionary may not be a reliable dictionary, given that its Philippine English entries are not only date, `butalso totally inadequate to capture the vibrant creativity of a hybrid and irreverent tropical English in full flight’(Bolton and Butler, 2004: 99). (p 56)
It is the ACCENT Corpus and the Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary that reflect Philippine culture, makingPhilippine English a truyly indigenized variety of world Englishes. And while they may have been instrumental incodifying this institutionalized English variety, more attempts should be made by scholars to publish nationaldictionaries that are authentic, adequate, and current. After all, languages evolve, and as such, dictionary-making is adynamic process.
4. Move towards standardization, into lexical legitimacy:
Many of these words that appear in English-language newspapers and magazines in the Philippines haveentered dictionaries and even corpora, a crucial step in the process of codifying Philippine English, making it aninstitutionalized and legitimate variety of world Englishes, if one goes by the criterion set by Quirk (1990) (cited byBolton and Butler 2004: 92). One such dictionary is the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, whichcontains a fairly large number of Philippine English words. (p 57)
Happily, a corpus and a dictionary were evolved in the early years of the twenty-first century. The corpus, titledthe Asian Corpus of Computerized English Newspaper Texts (the ACCENT Corpus), developed in Hong Kong,aims `to investigate the English-language press in Asia’ (Bolton and Butler, 2004: 99). (p 57)
5. Characterization of Philippine English words “currently” codified in legitimate
dictionaries of International and/or Philippine Englishes:
Indeed, perhaps with the exception of Filipinos who belong to the older generation, lexical items such as . . .cacique (a powerful landowner) . . . are no longer part of the lexicon of the average Filipino. Another observationthat can be made about the list of Philippine words in the Webster’s dictionary is that most of them have Philippineflora (e.g. anahau, anonang, dao, salak) and fauna (e.g. kabaragoya, maya, mural), and cultural communities (e.g.Yakan, Kulaman, Hantik, Bangon) as referents, and that, unless Filipinos live in places where these plants andanimals exist or unless they have encountered members of communities, Filipinos can hardly relate to them becausethey are simply not part of their reality. (p 57)
Lexical items from the Philippine English newspapers include ambush interview (`a surprise interview’),economic plunder (`a large-scale embezzlement of public funds’), and topnotcher (`high achiever’). These and otherwords from the newspapers included in the ACCENT database attest to the lexical creativity and innovationa thatmay underline the `Filipino-ness’ of Philippine English. By the same token, the Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary ofPhilippine English for High School (Bautista and Butler, 2000), which lists words taken presumably from written
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
11
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
texts such as newspapers and magazines, is regarded as a truly Filipino dictionary in that it `has consciouslyattempted to adopt an explicitly Pinoy (i.e. `Filipino) perspective (Bolton and Butler 2004: 93). . . . (pp 57–58)
With that vision, ambitious only without concerted effort of concerned agencies and
perhaps in the absence of a political will but not altogether far-fetched to be viewed a dream, we
are brought back to terra firma standing on three soft spots, namely, that:
1. Filipino is growing and it is contributing not only to the lexicon of Filipino but more
importantly to the lexicon of Philippine English,
2. Word-formation is one way by which Filipinos make meaning and sense of things, and
3. Words are cultural artifacts that not only create individual vocabularies but a national
cultural identity, a record of the nation’s living history, and a mirror of society’s changing
times.
Review of Related Literature
The foundations, therefore, of this short empirical study are the triumvirate language
pairs of learning–teaching, production–reception, and use–study with each coupling embodying a
different set of key concepts crucial to understanding the larger and deeper dynamics of our word
search.
LanguageEntry Point
Premise Significance Goal Variable Framework ResearchArea
Learning–Teaching
new familiarspokenwords mayhelp easecontentlearning &
standardizationof Phil Englishas Filipino /expansion ofstandardFilipino
identifyFilipinomeaningcodes &drawassertions--
register &acceptance
Discourseanalysis //sociolinguistics// standardWorld English
negotiatingidentity &cultureformation //Filipinopsychology //
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
12
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
writing academicregister
& expandstandardFilipino
SLL/SLA
Production–Reception
new wordsspoken areeasy tocreate, fun,easy to use,& easilyaccepted &passed on
codification ofFilipino intostandard PhilEnglish
identifyproductivemeaningmakingprocess--&drawpatterns forstandard PhilEnglish
usability &potential formeaning-making
Filipinopsychology //standard PhilEnglish
wordformation &meaning-making //sociolinguistics
Use–Study new wordsspoken–written bysubgroupsget intomainstreamspoken
expansion ofFilipino & PhilEnglishlexicons
identify thekinds–usesof newwords--&see newfeatures ofPhil Eng
form,function, &variance
features of PhilEnglish(Gonzalez,1996) //standardEnglishes
new words &their L–Gfeatures //lexicography
Table 1.1. Concept Matrix of Related Literature Review
The key concepts outlined in Table 1 will be defined in the review of literature along with
the terms most crucial to our understanding
1. linguistic areas within which the study will fall into and take off from, and with whose
body of knowledge the study will be informed and contributing to;
2. parameters within which the study will revolve and expand, and with whose limitations
the study will be guided and benchmarked; and,
3. frameworks within which the study will be read and explained, and with whose criteria
the study will, hopefully, reveal new facts and validate or debunk the old.
However, despite the breadth of factors influential to and affecting the issue of present
trends in word-formation processes towards the codification of Filipino towards expanding the
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
13
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
lexicon of Philippine English I will try to restrain myself from going any deeper or broader than
the more immediate issues.
Hence, so from the all-encompassing concept matrix I have laid out—which I hope have
already established the scope and importance behind the seemingly trivial matter of how words
are formed and what new words are formed thereby—I shall focus my review discussion only on
word-formation in the Philippines and give readers a survey of what has been done and achieved
in this area.
Language planning. To start off, however, the word formation needs to be put in the
context of the gamut of topics that have been discussed earlier; that is, as part of larger design
though smaller (or more specific) is nonetheless vital and, I daresay, nothing accidental or even
incidental. Words—and how they are formed—represent the complex historic-cultural
developments that necessitated their present form and are, therefore, as dynamic and changing as
the socio-cultural conditions that sustain its existence, to paraphrase from Yule (2009).
Before we see that larger picture, it will be helpful for us to borrow three diagrams from
Ponciano B P Pineda’s “Pagpaplano ng wika ukol sa pambansang pagsulong” (1985, pp 254–
268) to serve as our maps—to show us precisely where we are, in our excursion into Philippine
word formation, in the vast field of linguistics. The first two gives us a bird’s eye view of the
topography while the third zooms in on elements population this terrain.
1. Surian ng Wikang Pambansa’s typology of language planning (p 255)—which I took
the liberty to synthesize as Table 2 to show a comparative–developmental picture of
the end process’s source and evolution.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
14
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Factors that NecessitateForming a National
Language
Three Steps in theNational
Language Act No.184
SWP’s Typologyof Language Planning
Jernudd’s Typologyof Language
Planning (1971)
1. Necessity of a nationallanguage
Preparation Paghahanda Determination
2. Official support Development Paglilinang/Pagpapaunlad Development
3. Finding a dialect which issufficiently developed andwhich will satisfy theexigencies of a nationaltongue
Supervision Pamamanihala Implementation
Table 1.2. Comparative Development of SWP’s Typology of Language Planning
2. Haugen’s typology of language planning (1966; p 255)—whose quadrants present the
very steps involved and taken by a language in its move towards national status, so to
speak, as in Table 3. Pineda identified the counterparts of these four steps in the
SWP’s three steps (represented in the tables as matching colored cells).
Linguistic Area Initiation Implementation
Form 1. Selection of Norm 2. Codification of Norm
Function 3. Elaboration of Function4. Acceptance by Intended
PopulationTable 1.3. Haugen’s Typology (1966)
These steps will help us understand better what happens to language—more specifically
to a word—when it becomes, more than itself yet more basic: for instance, when it becomes a
building block of a national(ist) cultural construct or identity or a symptom of a national
educational malaise wanting to be diagnosed and prescribed a cure or a tool for identifying the
best language to adopt for optimum mass proficiency. This last item is the case of Pineda (1985,
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
15
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
pp 262–263) in the SWP’s search for the best model Wikang Pilipino for Filipino, whose
highlights I am sharing with you below.
Research Sub-Question Findings Implications toLanguage Policy
Vocabulary,Lexicon, & Word
Formation1. What model Pilipino is
being used now by peoplein communicating?
Model 1 is mostdesirable.
Cultivation of NationalLanguage should startfrom Model 1 nucleus,whose core vocabulary andform is Pilipino.
• It uses the corevocabulary ofthe Pilipinolexicon.
• Privilegesnative lexicon,but borrowsfrom local andforeign streams.
• Loan words arespelledfollowingPilipinoorthography.
2. What model Pilipino isideal for all forms ofcommunication(written/oral,formal/informal)?
Model 1is ideal forall forms ofcommunication.
Model 1 should beused in teaching allother subjects, exceptfor math and thesciences whichshould be taughtusing Model 5.
Curriculum materialsshould be written andpublished usingModel 1 as used invariouscommunicativesituations and inteaching differentsubjects and courses.
Model 1 should beused in preparingcurriculum materialsfor teaching mathand the sciences.
3. Which model Pilipino is Expanding/moderni Expanding and enriching Borrowing from
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
16
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
the best method/step toenrich and modernize thelanguage?
zation will beoptimal bycombining Method3 (Borrowing frominfluencing foreignlanguage) andMethod 1(Rigorous selectionof lexical elementsfrom local orindigenouslanguages)
Pilipino should be bycombined Methods 3 and1.
Englishcapitalizes onwords, phrases,and idiomsreadilyunderstandable.
Table 1.4. SWP’s Search for Model Pilipino for Filipino (SY1978–1979) Result Highlights
I am mentioning these because I want to call your attention to a couple of the SWP
study’s fascinating results—that not only would later shed light on aspects of our analysis,
results, and conclusions but also foreground our appreciation of the third typology, hence, of the
foregoing sections of this chapter—that may well be keys that at this point in time (or farther
back to school year 1978–1979 when the descriptive study was done) have already revealed to us
quite uncannily glimpses of the future.
This will be more apparent in the actual paragraphs used for Models 1 and 5 in .
Model 1 Model 5
Isang elektronik gadyet na inimbento ng isang
Pilipino na magsasaayos sa pagtulog ng mga taong
hindi mapagkatulog ang malapit nang ipakilala sa
publiko.
Ang elektronik gadyet na nginalanang `Dormitron
922’ ay may patente ng pamahalaan.
Ipinakikita sa mga pagsusuring klinikal ng
`Dormitron 922’ na ang mga karamdamang insomiya,
Isang Filipino-invented electronic gadget na
magno-normalize sa sleeping pattern ng mga taong
suffering from sleep disorders and malapit nang i-
introduce sa public.
Ang electronic gardget known as `Dormitron
922’ ay patented na ng government.
Ipinakikita ng clinical findings ng `Dormitron
922’ na ang insomnia, hysteria, obsessional neurosis,
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
17
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
histirya, hindi mapalagay dahil sa labis na pag-iisip,
altapresyon, pabagu-bagong tibok ng puso, at hika ay
mabisang tinatalaban ng elektronik terapi.
hypertension, cardiac instability and asthma ay
nagrerespond well sa electronic therapy.
Model 2 Model 4 Model 5
Rejects and strips language offoreign elements in favor ofthe local and indigenous.
Coinages and resurrection ofarchaic terms.
Freely uses words, phrases,idioms, and allusions fromdifferent languages as the userdeems fit.
Language as an amalgam of theindigenous and foreign as wellas of various registers andprocesses.
This English-basedmodel, popularly knownas “Enggalog,” that usesmore linguistic elementsin English than inPilipino.
Table 1.5. SWP’s Model Pilipino for Filipino Model Search Winners(With the Vocabulary, Lexicon, and Word Formation Features of the Losing Models)
After consolidating the results and the implications to language policy, SWP came up
with a third diagram that lays down what Pineda calls the “Macro Plan.”
3. SWP’s typology for the cultivation of a national language (1966; p 263)—which as in
Table 6 specifies now the elements that undergo planning and the implementing
agents in the nurturing process simultaneously work on two major levels: (a) the
Corpus or the Language itself and (b) the Domains or the Areas of Language Use, to
which Pineda added a third, higher and overarching level that, though not beyond the
dynamics of cultivation the SWP did not pencil in, links the two, which is (c)
Rhetoric or Language in Use. This last item spells out that cultivation can only
happen given a living language that while it is its society’s tool for change and
progress is necessarily incomplete or imperfect, constantly needing improvement and
trying to fill in its own as well as its users’ inadequacies. (pp 264–266)
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
18
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Nat
iona
l Lan
guag
e
A B CI. Corpus
LexiconGrammarOrthographyLiteratureTranslation
II. Domain of UseEducationCulturePublicAdministrationSciencesTechnologyLawmakingJudiciarySocietyMedia
Table 1.6. SWP’s Typology of National Language Cultivation
The arrow points to where we are at right now—to an area of the Philippine linguistic
corpus that best captures the wild and unbridled dynamism of the language as it is currently used
and is known and to which new manifestations of reality fall, enter, and come in to become part
of all the others following it: the Lexicon.
Word formation. Virgilio Enriquez in his essay “Pagbubuo ng terminolohiya sa
sikolohiyang Pilipino” (1985, in Bautista, 1990) cleared two important grounds on which the
present study has privileged to stand on: first, on word formation as an essential function and
process in the institutionalization of a national language; and, second, on Philippine
sociolinguistics, specifically on the psychology of teacher–audience–user continuum, as motive,
influence, and effect in the choice, use, understanding, and learning of language.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
19
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Higit pa sa pagpaplano ng wika, higit pa sa pagbuo ng mga teoryang pangwika, higit pa sa pagtatalu-talo ngmga dalubahasa, ang aktibong paggamit ng wika ang pinakamabisang paraan sa pagbuo ng terminolohiya.Karanasan ang magtuturo, reaksiyon ng mga tagapakinig ang gabay. Ang gumagamit ng wika ang magpapasiya. (p269)
Enriquez, who refers here to Filipino, which he is moving to intellectualize via the field
of Filipino psychology, unassumingly refers us back to Pineda’s two macro areas of lexicon and
education (1985) as start off points in the effort to plan and create a national language. Working
up one side means working up the other, simultaneously: to come up with a workable language
of the people means entails building up the language’s lexicon and using these newly formed
words in learning the language and in understanding learning areas using the language.
Enriquez underscores for us the organic relationship between language use and learning a
language as they are both rooted in words that are in already in use and familiar or
understandable. After all, and here I translate Enriquez’s thesis: Use is key in forming a
vocabulary; experience teaches and the reactions of audiences guide; the user of the language
decides. (1985, p 269 in Bautista 1996)
More than solid theoretical groundwork, Enriquez identified and discussed the nine ways
(p 270) by which words are formed or should be formed—at least in the search for new
terminologies to capture and name the complexities of concepts in Filipino psychology, which
have no or have very remote foreign counterparts—with the overarching view of being
understood and, thus, effecting optimum comprehension and, consequently, learning.
Enriquez’s list is significant here because it goes with a diagram, which I took the liberty
to recast in tabular form for understandability in Table 7, sequencing the processes in their
preferred order of use in choosing or finding the best term to use—in any case, to represent an
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
20
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
idea or concept, and I would like to reiterate—that means, the term most accessible to the widest
audience. This term is one that readily can be recognized, understood, and learned—and to
which I hasten to add—used: meaning repeated, adopted, said, as well as written out.
I will detail these processes in the table because they will provide us a very useful
understanding of how words are formed in the context of coming up with a standard term using a
particular standard procedure in a standard language of learning and use. Thus, it would not be
unfair to say that these procedures are somehow reflected or subsumed in the current primer to
Filipino orthography published by the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.
Ado
ptio
n Word-Formation
Process
Characteristic Use Example Change
Pag
sasa
ling-
Wik
a (P
aglil
ipat
-Wik
a)
1. SalingAngkat
(TahasangPanghihiram)
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage is usedwithout change in itsvisual form andmeaning.
A word remainsevidently foreign yetundeniably borrowedwith the change inpsychological andcultural contextsresulting, eventually,in a change inmeaning, usuallyfrom general tospecific.
A borrowed word issignaled by anasterisk or anunderline or printedin italics.
A word does notchange in spellingfrom English.
A word hasminimal or nochange in spellingfrom Latin, Greek,German, French,and Spanish.
home for theaged,encountergroup
persepsyon,katarsis,gestalt,iskima,sikolohiya
Spelling and Pronunciation
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
21
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
2. SalingPaimbabaw
(Paimbabawna Pag-aankin ngBigkas atBaybay)
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage changes invisual form—adopting the spellingof how it ispronounced by auser—but not inmeaning.
Often, the mutatedform of the word isvisually exotic yetaurally familiar.
A word is spelledaccording to how auser says it.
reimporsment
3. SalingPanggramatika
(Pagsunod saSintaktikangFilipino)
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage changes invisual form—adopting thegrammar of theuser’s language—butnot in meaning.
This process oftenresults in multiplevariants in bothspelling andpronunciation.
A word is spelledand said quitearbitrarily.
sosyal inter-aksyon,sosyalnainteraksyon,inter-aksyongsosyal
4. Saling Hiram
(Pagsasalinng Hiram naSalita)
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage changes inform—as atranslation in theuser’s language—butnot in meaning.
The new word,which often takestime to be acceptedin use, takes either aliteral ormetaphoricaltranslation.
Translating a wordis often the bestway to find themost appropriateterm.
pakikidigmang sikolohikal,mekanismongpananggalang, bakas nggunita,kaalamangnasa dulo ngdila
5. SalitangLikha (Sari-Gawa)
(Paglikha atPagbuo ng
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage is given orprovided a new localcounterpart.
Inventing newwords orsearching for alocalcounterpart isnot often
pagtatalik osekswal napagtatalik
Written
Form
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
22
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
BagongSalita)
The new wordcounterpart oftenalso takes some timeto be accepted inuse, beingunfamiliar.
resorted to byFilipinos, atleast not in thefield ofpsychology. (pp274–285)
6. SalitangDaglat
(Pagpapaiklisa Orihinal)
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage takes ashorter form—usinginitials of the term.
Popular forshortening a term inEnglish, but rarelyin Filipino—theterm KSP is unique.
STM (short-termmemory), PJP(PhilippineJournal ofPsychology)
7. SalitangTapat
(Pagtugaygaysa Orihinal oPinaghiramang Wika atKultura)
A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage is matchedwith the most precisecounterpartavailable.
This processprivileges theoriginal in lookingfor the besttranslation of theword.
Recommendedway of finding thebest term.
pakikisalamuha for socialinteraction
8. Salitang Taal(KatutubongKonsepto)
(Pagdukal saWikangPagsasalinan)
A word/idea fromthe user’s cultureand language isused—instead of aword/idea that isonly similar orrelated in meaning.
The existing, moreprecise word is oftenmore delicatelynuanced in terms ofrelated terms, thus,reflecting culturalvalues and identity.
Encouraged tofind, define,develop, and studyindigenousconcepts andvalues—asopposed toadherence to andreliance on foreignparadigms andtheir translation.
kapwa >pakikitungo,pakikisalamuha,pakikilahok,pakikibagay,pakikisama,pakikipagpalagayang-loob,pakikisangkot, pakikiisa
9. SalitangSanib
(Pagpapalaganap sa mgaSalitang mulasa Iba’t IbangWika sa
A word/idea from adifferent Philippineculture and languageis used withoutchange—even despitevariations inpronunciations—inspelling or in
A word/conceptthat has beenstudied orresearchedbecomes part ofthe corpus forresearch, thevocabulary of the
Cebuanomalhay andwalho,Ilokanonakem,Surigaonagsinabtanay, Maranao
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
23
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Pilipinas) meaning. area of study, andthe lexicon of thelanguage.
maratabat,Hiligaynonhatag-gusto
Table 1.7. Virgilio Enriquez’s Word-Formation Hierarchy (1985)
In sum, we may glean three vital streams from this complex dynamism, from the bottom
up: (a) a word is an artifact of culture—reality, (b) word use is a marker of identity—relationship
or position, and (c) word formation is an assertion of reality—meaning. What seemed arbitrary
and superficial becomes conscious and motivated—always with and for a reason that is not
always, exclusively and simply to communicate.
Let us explore these streams further but this time from the opposite end of the academic
register. From the formal and standard to the informal and colloquial we push further to the
extreme and see how the lexicon of Tagalog slang (Zorc 1993), entertainment article Filipino
(Abello 2002), and gayspeak (KWF 2004) grows and acquires popular usage—or, simply put,
gets its cornucopia of words—with a wildcard of different types of borrowings from English
used in essays in Filipino (Reyes–Otero 2002).
Tagalog Slang. Taking off from Enriquez’s privileging of the common people as users
and learners of language—and therefore as a determining sector in the ultimate success of
language use and learning—R David Zorc (1993) leads us into this vital area of the discourse by
studying Tagalog slang and in so doing shows us two important leads that informed the present
study and cues to where hope could possibly lie (p 102):
1. How language is created by those who use it— “from a variety of in-group ways of
speaking like that of students, jeepney drivers, movie stars, military personnel and
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
24
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
gays”—hence, expanding our views that creators are not necessarily academics or
authors and confined in universities but in most places if not everywhere; and,
2. How the language used by people becomes or is institutionalized—and make “their
way to articles in the daily press”—hence, expanding again our views that
institutionalization does not only mean being read in textbooks and entered in
dictionaries and used in formal writing but in most popular media too which again is
found in most places if not everywhere.
Zorc’s study is also important for identifying two very important stages or processes in
the dynamic life of words, namely, “where slang words come from” (pp 102–106):
1. Loanwords—38% English, 17% Spanish, 2% Bisayan, 0.6% Chinese, 0.5% Japanese, 0.1% Ilokano, and0.1% Kapampangan;
2. Tagalog Words with New Meanings (15%);3. Coinages (0.5%); and,4. The Numbers Game (0.5%).
and “how words get re-shaped” (pp 106–109):
1. Word Play (31%),2. Metathesis (10%)—including Syllable Switching and Full Reversal,3. Reduction (9%),4. Abbreviations (5%). And5. Mix-Mix (5%).
These two actually mean more than just the statistics; in fact, we see and sense in Zorc the
wisdom that is the undercurrent of Enriquez’s nine-banded spectrum of word-formation
processes, specifically, in:
1. The choice of Borrowing—but with the twist of imbuing borrowed words with new
meaning, which is interestingly at #2 if we think of Tagalog as another language to loan
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
25
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
words from given a change in positioning—being the easiest and more readily accessible
both in terms of facility in use and comprehension;
2. The influences that go into new words—which in another sense is reveling the well of
vocabulary that is an eclectic gamut from both the regions and the world attesting to a
widening of mass cultural consciousness and from which users dip into for words to
name and express themselves with ease, facility, and with a degree of witty eloquence
and even fluency; and,
3. The light and casual attitude with which users create and use language—revealing an oft
overlooked key to linguistic proficiency that underscores the irony of being more
productive when one does not mean to or being more receptive and responsive when one
is least serious about things, which are perhaps innate cultural traits that thrive in fun,
play, and poetry.
Entertainment article Filipino. How words are shaped and take on meaning also
interested Larcy C Abello (2002) but this time surveying a different variety of Filipino—those in
showbiz magazine articles. Abello identified four of this processes by which language takes on a
different variation (in Minanga, p 130–134) and by which she categorized showbiz Filipino
language:
1. Artificial coinage, including shortening and acronym (AC);2. Importations (I);3. Attempts at verbal humor (AVH); and,4. Novel assignments of meaning (NAM).
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
26
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Abello’s study, which did not specify the body of works used in the study is limited,
though perhaps only in the anthologized version of the research, takes on a deeper meaning when
viewed against the word-formation repertoire of gayspeak on which showbiz register is largely
based.
Gayspeak. Thus, what Abello’s descriptive categorizations lack the Komisyon sa Wikang
Filipino makes up in its Mga Salitang Homosekswal: “Isang Pagsusuri” by coming up with 10
classifications based on Zorc and San Miguel (1993) with their corresponding frequency in the
corpus.
1. Neolohismo, 679 salita o 44.91%2. Panghihiram, 241 salita o 15.94%3. Pagpapalit, 193 salita o 12.76%4. Pagdaragdag, 101 salita o 6.67%5. Pag-uugnay, 78 salita o 5.16%6. Pag-aankop, 69 salita o 4.56%7. Metatesis, 59 salita o 3.90%8. Paghahalu-halo, 54 salita o 3.57%9. Reduksyon o pagkakaltas, 21 salita o 1.38%10. Pagdadaglat, 17 salita o 1.12% (pp xi–xiv)
Essays in Filipino. Meanwhile, Marietta Reyes–Otero (2002) identified three types of
Borrowings from English by Filipino essay writers, namely:
1. Loan words,2. Loan blend, and
3. Loan shift—including Semantic loans, Loan translations or calques, and Coinage (p 149).
Let us meantime defer looking more closely into each of these processes, which shall be
the meat of the chapter on Methodology, and jump into some sort of bird’s eye view of what had
just been presented.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
27
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Indulge me a bit in asking you to recall Yule’s (2009) nine word-formation processes—
with the tenth process being a combination from among these nine processes—and superimpose
them on Enriquez’s (1985) nine ways to form Filipino terminologies; and, then, tweak a bit and
reclassify.
Ado
ptio
n # ENRIQUEZ’sWord-Formation
Processes
#
Cha
nge
YULE’sWord-
FormationProcesses
# ZORC, ABELLO,& KWF’s
Word-FormationProcesses
Examples
Pag
sasa
ling-
Wik
a (P
aglil
ipat
-Wik
a)
1. Saling Angkat
(TahasangPanghihiram)
1.
New
Wor
d
Coinage Eponym
1.
148%
Coinage Coinage, Word
Play,Metathesis, andNumbers Game(Zorc)
Attempt atVerbal HumorT1 & T2(Abello)
Neolohismo,Pagpapalit,Metathesis, andPag-uugnay(KWF)
azucara de papa,eklat, harurot;Alvarado, DakotaHarrison, nenok;astig, bokal, sitak;adarit, atik, toyi; 1-0-0, 1-4-3, 6-6-6
kakuyangyangan,kakulakadidang;tsugi o tsugihin,baklesh, echos lang
48 years, afam,Aling Pining;joyad, karakas,mudras;anda, etits,wetpaks; M.Y. San,orocan, wrangler
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
28
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
2. SalingPaimbabaw
(Paimbabaw naPag-aankin ngBigkas atBaybay)
2.
Impo
rted
Borrowing Loan
translation orcalque
2.
93.7%
Borrowing Loan Words and
Tagalog wordswith newmeanings (Zorc)
Importation,Attempt atverbal humorT3, and Novelassignment ofnew meaning(Abello)
Loan Words,Loan Blends,and LoanShift—includingSemantic Loans,LoanTranslations,and Coinage(Reyes–Otero)
Panghihiramand Pag-uugnay(KWF)
du, fifty, jinggel,salbij, toxic,vacuum, ticol; dekahon, nota,pumapel, tsitsa;bayot, dako,gurang, pisot,sibat; bakya,buwisit, tong;dorobo; awanti,baset; ala, utol,yabang;
erase, boldie, sey,na-award, may-arrive, mag-on,flopsina pa-epek,dedma, bastedin,idenay; hubadera,hirit, papa, hataw;bagets, walangtienes, walangkiyeme, chicahan,tabo-tabo sa takilya
bet, bionic, emote,flawless, ikura,mahogany, plastik,pagoda, two ham,yesterday oncemore, variables;anaconda, carelesswhisper, coffeeparty, damo,espadaham, kati,malaking tsek,sagu-sago, sisid,taksan-taksan,walkathon,yugyugan, zonrox
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
29
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
3. SalingPanggramatika
(Pagsunod saSintaktikangFilipino)
3.
Com
bine
d
Compounding 3.
30.4%
Reduction Reduction
(Zorc)
ArtificialCoinage,includingShortening andAcronym(Abello)
Reduksyon oPagkakaltas(KWF)
Amboy, ebak,lonta, Munti,syano, transpo,yosi
bading,eching,jelling, kuning-kuning
bog, imbs, kyems,kebs, el, elibs, lala
4. Saling Hiram
(Pagsasalin ngHiram naSalita)
4. Blending 4.
26.1%
Acronym Abbreviation
(Zorc)
Acronym(Abello)
Pagdadaglat(KWF)
b.y., g.g., b.n.g.,h.p., k.g.b., l.t.,p.w.u., u.s.t.
nakaka-elyangeksena, ese kola,nanghahala
BIR, bj, dkny,opm, pg, pk, PMA
5. Salitang Likha(Sari-Gawa)
(Paglikha atPagbuo ngBagong Salita)
5.
Shor
tene
d
Clipping Hypocor
ysms
5.
8.5%
Multiple Processes Mix-Mix (Zorc)
Halo-Halo(KWF)
akinse’tkatapusan,anongsey mo, babybubot, bakal boy,baw lang, boljak,labnat, pa-epek,salitang kanto
ang haba ng hair,bongga ang fez,care mo ba, kerilang, fly na, looksa sky, makipag-eyeball, pamhen,wa appearance,wa pay,wanakosey, waknowing
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
30
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Table 1.8. Six Most Popular Word-Formation Processes Used or Resorted to by Filipinos, byFrequency (Villanueva, 2011)
In laying down side by side Enriquez’s hierarchy on creating new Filipino words, Yule’s
major types of word-formation processes, and the merged classifications identified in three
seminal researches on word-formation in Filipino (Zorc, 1996; Abello, 2002; Reyes–Otero,
2002; KWF, 2004), I hope to bring to fore Villanueva’s (2010) initial proposition of the six most
popular word-formation processes being used or resorted to by Filipinos.
We shall refer again to this table in the succeeding chapters on Methodology, Results,
and Conclusions as a helpful grid in identifying how the newest words that entered the standard
lexicon of Filipino are or have been formed.
6. Salitang Daglat
(Pagpapaikli saOrihinal)
6. Backformation
6.
4.6%
Blending Pag-aangkop
(KWF) burnik, dilis,
kaplog, maila,wasakiki, zing ndanz
7. Salitang Tapat
(Pagtugaygay saOrihinal oPinaghiramangWika atKultura)
7. Acronyms 7.
0%
8. Salitang Taal(KatutubongKonsepto)
(Pagdukal saWikangPagsasalinan)
8.
New
Use
Conversion—also known asCategoryChange orFunctionalShift
8.
0%
9. Salitang Sanib
(Pagpapalaganap sa mgaSalitang mulasa Iba’t IbangWika saPilipinas)
9. Derivation 9.
0%
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
31
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Before we go on, however, allow me to make the following observations, even two
preliminary conclusions, that surfaced in the juxtapositioning of Yule, Enriquez, and Zorc–
Abello–KWF.
First, that the use and creation of words in Filipino are results of having popular models
and endorsers, so to speak, using a language most accessible to their audiences as they speak and
write from their positions of privilege, assuring maximum exposre by mass media and optimum
adoption by repeated use.
1. It is most apparent that while there are multiple variants in most of the more often
used word-formation processes, four did not merit their own categories, namely:
Compounding, Backformation, Conversion, and Derivation.
2. This does not mean that these processes do not exist or are not used in current,
popular Filipino word-formation only that they (a) Do not seem to be popular—
therefore, not fun—ways for people to create new words or (b) Do not come up with
many words that are fun enough to be created firstly and used again and again
secondly.
3. The preference for or popularity of these word-formation processes holds true, at
least, for the user–creators of Tagalog slang terms, for the writers of showbiz
magazine articles, and for the growing legion of Filipino gay men—whose
commonality is that they are all in positions privileged to be heard–read –imitated.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
32
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Second, that the short-list of word-formation processes favoring shortening over
lengthening of terms seem to prove Zipf’s law—which, simply put, gives shorter words more
chances of being used by more people more often—at work in Filipino word-formation, in
particular, and in Filipino mass consciousness, in general.
4. Convenience, as in most areas of modern life, is key even in choosing which words to
use. The more handy and the more multipurpose a term is the more likely it would be
used by people, who have grown accustomed to such concepts as instant and all-in-
one. As what Racquel Llagas (1987) revealed in “Isang Sulyap sa Wika ng mga
Progresibo,” the less letters there are to pronounce, the more likely it is for a word to
become part of everyday vocabulary.
5. Thus, the resulting six highly favored word-formation processes involve forms of (a)
shortening a term or phrase, as manifest in the penchant for reduction, abbreviations
and acronyms, and varieties of hypocorisms; and, (b) combining two or more terms,
as manifest in the penchant for coinages, novel word–meaning associations, and
agglutinazions, which shall be discussed at the tail-end of this chapter.
6. Borrowing, the top choice in Filipino word-formation, in fact, unabashedly manifests
a bias for both convenience—in having the word all ready with its arsenal of
meanings and associations ready for instant use—and brevity—in having the shorter
everyday word all ready with the same arsenal of meanings and associations ready for
use in most situations, for most needs, and with all kinds of people. A classic
example for this latter assertion is in having all the reasons to pick the borrowed word
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
33
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
love or its even shorter variant luv over the kilometric, archaic-sounding, and mushy
Filipino terms pagmamahal or pag-ibig.
7. These complex of preferences, choices, and options are, of course, not without their
historical impetus and cultural foundation, glimpses of which we shall glean in the
chapter on Results and, if resources permit, delve into in the chapters on Discussions
and Conclusions.
As we ready to look more closely into the particulars of our study in the next chapter on
Methodology—wherein we lay down our corpus, variables, and parameters to further deepen and
more solidly ground our preliminary findings towards a more critical discussion of Results—let
me digress a bit by sharing with you about a column written by Mike Tan (2009) on a recent
Filipino word-formation trend.
Tan benchmarks this field’s domain of study with a quick sweep from Zorc’s (1993)
seminal study on Tagalog slang expressions—resulting in the landmark lexicographic work
Tagalog Slang Dictionary (1993/2000) by Zorc et al—to Aguas’s Pinoy dyok-siyo-nar-ry which,
despite being neither strictly lexicographic nor empirical and in spite of being largely humor than
reference, had touched sociolinguistic heartstrings and elicited significant observations:
1. Filipinos know how to use words and wield it—in fact, fashion it—and brazenly
flaunt their wordwise wit via the word-formation process known as agglutination,
which may as well be the Philippines’ counterpart to Yule’s more generic
Compounding;
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
34
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
2. Language is indeed dynamic and shows much about Filipino culture—and that
Filipino is “evolving at a much faster rate than ever before” attesting to an equally
dynamic people that feed this growth with usage and innovation;
3. Filipinos enrich their language by their creative use of it—a case in point is how
people come up with new words to name erstwhile nameless things and phenomena,
which often start in jest or jokingly in casual situations and occasions resulting in the
formation of colloquialisms;
4. Slang terms either fall into disuse or persist—defying the years by surviving through
generations and defying conventions by eventually becoming part of the mainstream
Tagalog and Filipino lexicon;
5. Tagalog slang word-formation evolves—citing specifically the 1970s tendency to
invert words (e.g. erap) to the point of conducting conversation using transposed
syllables in what Tan described as a “linguistic counter-culture that literally turned
languages in their heads” to “the less daring” process called agglutination that is
characteristic word-formation for Germans (e.g. kindergarten) and one that is
embodied by many Filipino words (e.g. bahaghari) and is now gaining ground as a
process popularly used to spawn interesting new words; and,
6. Agglutination itself involves variations—combining, for instance, (a) inverted slang
word + borrowed word in yostik for the stick with cigarette butt tied at one end for
lighting firecrackers; (b) standard Filipino word + standard Filipino word in puhok for
the short hair around the whorl of the head; (c) clipping a Filipino phrasal term in
karug for the hair that crawls down the male navel down to the pubes; and (d)
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
35
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
standard English word + standard Filipino word in the punning newnal for a new
mole and dumidorant for the deodorant residues left in the armpit.
These studies boil down to the fact that language grows faster and bigger if people feed it
in every way and instance possible and how this is done is through the Filipinos’ freely using
both the Filipino and English languages that surround them—visually and aurally—steering clear
of formal institutions to the media and social arenas of constant and diverse interactions (e.g.
market places, malls, and streets) and of decidedly academic or learning-objected occasions to
more personal, casual , and uncalled for opportunities for dialogue with no expectations or preset
goals or impositions towards a simmering milieu of interactions that broadly and deeply institute
in informal learners and casual users and accidental audiences not a language per se but a playful
range of options for expression of the self and comprehension of others and the world.
At this point it will be timely to ask whether the mass and ubiquitous option being fed us
is Filipino, English, or both? To make answering this riddle easier, perhaps, is to ask—and quite
corollary to the issue—if we can still identify a word as English or Filipino at a glance
(discounting both as an option will provide us a clue here) and how identification can or was
made possible and certain.
I will try to answer that riddle—and, hopefully, you will be convinced of the process by
which I will lay down proofs and of the explanation that I will essay to tie up the pieces—but
first help me find the answers to a series of simple questions.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
36
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
Research Questions
1. What are the most significant new words added to the lexicon of Philippine English?
a. What are the winning words in Sawikaan’s five-year Salita ng Taon search?
i. Which of these winning words are new entries or old entries with new
meanings in the latest edition of the UP Diksiyunaryo ng Filipino (2010)?
ii. Which of these winning words are new entries or old entries with new
meanings in the latest edition of the Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary of
Philippine English for High School (2000)?
iii. Which of these winning words are new entries or old entries with new
meanings in the Oxford American English Dictionary (2nd ed, 2006)
and/or the MSN Encarta World English Dictionary (2009)?
b. What are the features of these new words added to the lexicon of standard
Philippine English?
i. What are the most popular features of these new words?
ii. What are the similarities and differences among the new words?
2. What word-formation processes resulted in the creation of these new words?
a. Which of these word-formation processes produced the most number of new
entries?
i. Which word-formation processes created the most number of new words?
ii. Which word-formation processes created the most number of new
meanings?
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
37
Introduction and Review of Related Literature
b. How did the application of the most productive word-formation processes change
through time?
i. What are the most remarkable technical changes, for example, in the ways
affixes were used or words were clipped?
ii. What are the most remarkable stylistic innovations; for example, the
introduction of new steps?
3. How is the Filipino reconstituted in the canon of World English by these words and
word-formation processes?
a. What individual values do these words and word-formation processes edify?
i. What cultural character is empowered by these representations?
ii. What political stance does the Filipino take in these representations?
b. What national values do the new words and word-formation processes edify?
i. What historical identity is taken by these representations?
ii. What historical path is carved by these representations?
Given the foregoing investigative prompts, premises, and frameworks, it is my hope as
researcher that we will be able to see more and understand better the meanings in, behind, and
around this study’s identification, classification, and definition of newly added words in the
Filipino lexicon with the view of expanding and, consequently, codifying also the lexicon of
Philippine English.
And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation
towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Methodology
Words are studied in many different ways, each method approaching words from a specific
standpoint or perspective or subject position, zooming in on particular aspects of words and how
these aspects relate both to the words to other aspects, and exploring words against or in relation
to each other up to a certain depth or breadth and linguistic level—that is, on the orthographical,
phonological, lexical, semantic, and/or morphological levels.
A study may take on one or a combination of foci, methods, and levels depending on
their goal, from the most physical and technology-based to the most analytical and theory-
oriented: that is, from retrieval and documentation—such as archiving obsolete words to
organizing the words of a living and continually evolving language to collecting words and how
they are used in speech and writing to form a corpora—to analyzing a words at various levels to
extract implications to language, discourse, learning, and culture.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
39
Methodology
Quick Look at Related Studies
For us to see the implications as well as limitations of the present study, it will be helpful
if we acquire at least a cursory view of what kinds of studies have been done in the area—which
takes us from words, word formation processes, dictionary making, to lexical databases—and
find out what opportunities and insights are offered by these different, yet related, researches
herein presented in no particular order as to their approaches to studying words and their
implications to the growing lexicons in Filipino and Philippine English.
Word Formation in the New Englishes. Vital to the present study in many ways is
Thomas Biemeier’s “Word formation in New Englishes—A corpus-based analysis” (2008) for
updating the field with “the first systematic investigation of word formation in the new varieties
of English around the globe”; hence, providing not only methods and measures but also results
that give solid foundation for comparison and verification of present findings.
The first part deals with theoretical questions and provides useful methodology. In the second part the findingsdrawn from eight sub-corpora of the International Corpus of English (ICE) are presented and analyzed. The extentof use of the words examined, the number of new coinages, and the text types are important parameters for an in-depth analysis of individual word-formation categories. This study deals with selected word-formation categories,such as compounding and affixation, and it analyses frequencies obtained by carefully devised test methods.
It shows that English in the Philippines and Singapore, for instance, often exceed British English, used as akind of measuring stick, in terms of type and token frequencies. On a qualitative level, it documents the varieties’enormous productive potential, which attests to the process of structural nativization. In many cases new formationsare created by hybridization, but we encounter variety-specific nonhybrid formations, too. Furthermore, the widerange of variants to mark gender is presented. Finally, my study argues that the current lexical trends indicateindependent developments in New Englishes.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
40
Methodology
This study, “of key interest to lexicologists and dialectologists, this study provides a
comprehensive examination of word-formation in New Englishes from a qualitative and
quantitative perspective,” is best read along with Biermeier’s “Word formation in New
Englishes: Properties and trends” (2009) in Lucia Siebers and Thomas Hoffmann‘s World
Englishes: Problems—Properties—Prospects as well as with “Lexical trends in Philippine
English” in Ma Lourdes S Bautista’s Studies of Philippine English (2011).
Biemeier’s studies, in touching on most—if not all—of our current areas of concern
becomes both seminal and exemplar given the gamut of studies done on word-formation
processes are often only tangentially related to our present study, either dealing with
1. only one type of word-formation process as it applies, works, or manifests often in
relation to or contrast with some other feature of a language, dialect, or register—an
example would be the classic correlation between borrowing and code-switching,
both features of Philippine English as well as the various studies on the characteristics
of the existing and continually emerging variants and registers of Filipino in its
process of intellectualization and, from there, standardization;
2. word formation only as emerging part or characteristic feature of a larger design,
usually an exploration of or exposition on a sociolinguistic issue or phenomenon—for
instance, gay speak and Tagalog slang or the variances and registers of Filipino—in
relation to another linguistic feature, perhaps, such as many of Ma Lourdes S
Bautista’s studies in Philippine English as well as in Paul S Henson and Kathrine G
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
41
Methodology
Tan’s Humanities thesis “Movie magazine speak: A sociolinguistic study of slang
words, borrowing, and code-switching” (1998); or,
This is a study on three sociolinguistic concerns, namely slang words, borrowing, and code-switching. In studyingthese, the domain of movie magazines was used as source of samples and as subject of analysis.
In the analysis of slang, this study paid particular interest on the derivation processes of slang words and theirdenotations or semantic fields. Zorc and San Miguel's (1993) theories on the derivation processes of slang wordswere applied in the analysis. In addition, the slang corpus of this study was compared with the comprehensivedatabase of slang words of Zorc and San Miguel in order to gain insights on the changes, transformation, andevolution of slang. The output for slang included a compilation of the slang words in this study's corpus whichfollowed a dictionary format, as well as frequencies on the derivation processes, denotations and words particular tothis study and those already included in Zorc and San Miguel's database.
In the analysis of borrowing and code-switching, this study paid particular interest on their functions. Bautista's(1997) functions of borrowing and Gumperz's (1976, 1982) functions of code-switching were used as anchors foranalysis. Significant outputs in this section were the new functions of borrowing and code-switching which weredevised by the researchers after discovering a great number of samples whose functions could not be fitted under theprescribed framework. Due to the extensive list of micro-functions arrived at by the researchers, general functionswere devised to configure the data to an efficient level. (Excerpt from Abstract)
3. a specific linguistic enterprise at work or as applied to a language that word formation
becomes more of an accidental sidelight instead of a defining feature—examples of
these are the lexico-cultural or psycholinguistic studies on the lexicons of specific
cultural/ethnographic groups, sometimes narrowed down further to a particular
domain, and the various studies under the nascent field of Filipinology that aim to
explore and define concepts in Filipino psychology and/or culture.
Filipino Concepts and Meaning Making. In this regard, Susan Cipres–Ortega’s “Ang
larangang leksikal: Kalakaran at paraan” (2003) is important not only for scrutinizing 64 studies
that exhaustively problematize a concept, from such diverse vantage points as psycholinguistics,
humanities, social psychology, and even psychopathology, to find out trends and practices in
Philippine concept making; but also for proposing two alternative ways to better do a lexical
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
42
Methodology
study of concepts—namely, by combined Q-sort technique and K–J method or by
mutltidimensional scaling technique—from a Filipino perspective. The studies were on concepts
characterized either as (a) “malapit sa karanasan ng mga Pilipino o katutubo” or (2) “umiiral,
palasak, o `in’ noong panahong ginawa ang mga pag-aaral” (p 104).
Concept Proponent Year Proponent Conceptalembong Cabanero, del
Corro, & Ungson1972
pambobola Cayetanomalambing Arranz & Caro 1976 Tobia burgis
sikat Diaz & Ramilo Alampay & Sison brad, pare, at iba pabuang Cariaso, Polotan, &
Segura
hiya Canseco, Dizon, &Tiglao
matipid Jacinto
pangangatiyaw Angeles, Montano,& Pagtanac
basag-ulo Espiritu & Annlamangan Alas, Mojica, &
Sotelo1978 Altobar & Cacnio superstar
pakipot Jovellanos Licad marijuanaloob Zerrudo Lim & Quilang bomba
Sanchez & Vitug baduypagjujuramentado Masalunga 1981 Felipe labis na
kamunduhanpaninilip Dabid Silao sadista
torpe Sumayo
pakialamera Ligeraldehambog Menesesmataray Pastor
inutil Eleosida
hiya Salazar
basag-ulo Espiritu & Ann
Closer to Filipino Experience& Native to Culture
Popular, In, or Prevalent During thePeriod
Table 2.1. Studies on Filipino Concepts, by Category and Year, 1972–1981
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
43
Methodology
What is interesting about these concepts, particularly that those words which had been
popular during the time, is that they reverberate gleanings of what would be Sawikaan’s Word of
the Year selections that are, in fact, mini-studies of particular concepts but this time extended to
the level of being important not just in timeliness but in their relevance to and capacity to
embody Filipino culture and values—and, of course, to the task of lexicography, which brings us
to the next point.
4. Or, to a larger more ambitious but rarer extent, the recovery or codification of a
language, such as in the various efforts to compile, create, and standardize its
vocabulary, grammar, and usage through the making of a dictionary. While the UP
Diksiyunaryo ng Filipino is the Philippine benchmark for this effort, a study that
shows the general characteristics of studies related to words is Ruthmita H Rozul’s
“Developing a monolingual dictionary of obsolescent Tagalog words in Tagaytay
City, Amadeo, and Indang, Cavite” (2004).
The study attempts to collect in a dictionary form obsolescent Tagalog words in these three areas of study. Theresearch is pioneering in the field of lexicography on the obsolescence of Upland Cavite Tagalog.
The work is called a “monolingual” dictionary. The word “monolingual” typically uses the same speech variety forthe headword as it does for the explanatory text. However, this dictionary in fact cites Obsolescent Cavite Tagalogheadwords, and uses Modern Cavite Tagalog to explain them. As such, this work falls in the middle ground betweena truly monolingual dictionary and a fully bilingual/multilingual dictionary in which the headwords and theexplanatory text are typically distinct languages.
Specifically, the study aims to 1) apply a theory on language death in the development of a monolingual dictionaryof obsolescent Tagalog words; 2) identify the problems and apply solutions in the process of developing amonolingual dictionary; and 3) validate the dictionary and make revisions based on the results of the validation.
The researcher then analyzed the remaining entries based on Zorc and San Miguel: 1) the headword in ObsoleteTagalog; 2) the pronunciation, which the members suggested Tagalog (OCT) words. The researcher foundobsolescent Cavite Tagalog uses phonemic transcription; 3) the parts of speech; 4) the levels of words; 5) thescientific name of the entry; 6) the definition of the word expressed in Modern Cavite Tagalog, and where possible,a synonym of the MCT; 7) background information on the origin or derivation of the word; 8) a sentence examplegiving the form in an appropriate Tagalog context; 9) a picture or a drawing of the obsolescent word.
After the lexical entries were analyzed, and pictures and drawings were included, the collection, in the form of adictionary, was presented to the members of the younger generation for feedback. Words not obsolescent were
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
44
Methodology
dropped from the list. This is a novel aspect of the research. Local literature has not shown any study with membersof the younger generation validating the obsolescence of words of the older generation. (Excerpt from Abstract)
In both cases—numbers 3 and 4—the process of word formation has been subsumed in
the culture’s meaning making and in the lexicographic requirements of the genre—of particular
interest to us now in the field of lexicography is the formation of a monolingual dictionary in the
light of a bilingual educational system that calls for a unifying vocabulary to bridge the yawning
gap in comprehension and proficiency.
New Words and Making A Learner’s Dictionary. Essential to the task of codifying
and standardizing languages is the making of dictionaries that reflect not only the dynamism of
the language by featuring new words and concepts but also the expected and real needs of
learners who will benefit most from using the dictionary. For this task, Pius ten Hacken, Andrea
Abel, and Judith Knapp’s “Word formation in an Electronic Learners’ Dictionary: ELDIT”
(2006) is pioneering.
New words are formed when new concepts need to be named. Word formation is one of the major mechanisms forthe expansion of the vocabulary. In second language acquisition, word formation is important for the decoding ofwords the learner does not know, for the production of regular new words when the learner has not acquired thestandard word, and for the creation of a tighter network structure in the mental lexicon, which facilitates vocabularyacquisition.
In existing learners' dictionaries, the treatment of word formation does not support the acquisition of word formationrules in a way that would exploit these possible advantages. Optimizing the support of the acquisition of wordformation in electronic learners' dictionaries requires a reconceptualization of the task of the dictionary. ELDIT, anelectronic German and Italian learners' dictionary of a non-traditional type, takes up the challenge of representingword formation in such a way that its potential for the second language learner can be fully exploited. Theimplementation of word formation is based on collaboration with Word Manager, a system for morphologicaldictionaries. (Abstract)
Since, as Kingsley Bolton and Susan Butler (2008) laments that there is “no
comprehensive dictionary of Philippine English has been compiled” the effort I think should be
towards that of the monolingual dictionary, which defines words using the language of the
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
45
Methodology
words. Hence, Filipino words defined using Filipino is the best for the purpose of a language of
and in convergence. A learner’s dictionary, however, on top of this monolingual dictionary
would be even better in its inclusion of helpful information for the users of the language since
Filipino—along with all the languages it borrows or derives from—is in all likelihood of being
new is also evolving and wanting in some form of manual of style and usage for its users.
Other essential guides that would shed light to the creation and improvement of the craft
of dictionary making—with particular attention to the nuances inherent in definitions—are the
following resources.
Lew, Robert, & Anna Dziemianko. (2006). “A new type of folk-inspired definition in English monolinguallearners' dictionaries and its usefulness for conveying syntactic information,” InternationalJournal of Lexicography 19: 225–242. In B Lewandowska–Tomaszyk & M Telen (Eds.),Translation and Meaning, Part 2 (1992). Proceedings of the Łodz Session of the InternationalDuo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning;” Łodz 1990. Maastricht: RijkshogeschoolMaatricht [46 papers by 46 authors, 5 on lexicographic topics].
McCalman, Iain (Ed.). (1996). National biographies and national identity. A critical approach to theoryand editorial practice [Conference, Canberra 1995]. Canberra: Australian National UniversityHumanities Research Centre [13 papers by 16 authors].
Nakamoto, Kyohei. (1994). Establishing criteria for dictionary criticism: A checklist for reviewers ofmonolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Exeter,Exeter.
Picket, Joseph. (2007). “Considered and regarded: Indicators of belief and doubt in dictionary definitions,”Dictionaries— Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. 48–67.
Svensén, Bo. (2009). A handbook of lexicography. The theory and practice of dictionary-making.Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Before moving on, a vital consideration not only in word-formation and dictionary
making is the concept of mental lexicon, the consciousness from which everything we have
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
46
Methodology
discussed end up in and are retrieved from; and, hence, the key to retention, learning,
comprehension, and application of a culture’s corpus of most useful and important lexicon.
Aitchison, Jean. (1987/2003). Words in the Mind. An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 3rd ed. Oxford: B.Blackwell.
Project Design and Procedure
The study follows a three-stage process that corresponds to the three main research
questions posed in the Introduction.
Stage Main Research Question Reference
1. Data Gathering 1. What are the most significant newwords added to the lexicon of PhilippineEnglish?
2. Data Analysis 2. What word-formation processes resultedin the creation of these new words?
3. Interpretation of Results 3. How is the Filipino reconstituted in thecanon of World English by these wordsand word-formation processes?
Table 2.1. Stages in the Methodology
These stages have been designed with a minimum–maximum option for researchers such
that progress may be achieved in increments. Each stage is made up of two substages (and
subquestions) each with three subsubstages (or subsubquestions) that the researcher may address
at a minimum of one substage and subquestion at a time to a maximum of all sub- to
subsubstages and their corresponding questions before proceeding to the next stage.
Each substage has a separate set of goals, quantitative and qualitative criteria, and
analyzable results that make each phase of a phase a mini study framed again within a
minimum–maximum target.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
47
Methodology
Data Gathering
The Data Gathering stage seeks at the minimum to identify the most significant new
words added to the Filipino lexicon—that is, entered in the expanded UP Diksiyonaryong
Filipino, 2nd ed. (2010), the landmark first monolingual dictionary in Filipino—and at the
maximum identify too the most prevalent features of these new words.
Word Search
Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1
SubsubstageCriteria 2
ResultCriteria 3
Values/16
PreliminaryConclusions
I—What arethe mostsignificantnew wordsadded to theFilipinolexicon?
I.1—What arethe winningwords inSawikaan’sfive-year Salitang Taonsearch?
I.1.1—Whichof thesewinning wordsare new entriesor old entrieswith newmeanings inthe latestedition of theUPDiksiyunaryong Filipino(2010)?
number ofsignificantnew standardFlipino wordsadded tolexicon
I.1.2—Whichof thesewinning wordsare new entriesor old entrieswith newmeanings in thelatest edition ofthe Anvil–MacquarieDictionary ofPhilippineEnglish forHigh School(2000)?
number ofsignificantnew standardFlipino wordsalready instandardPhilippinehigh schoolEnglishlexicon
I.1.3—Whichof thesewinning wordsare new entries
number ofsignificantnew standardFlipino words
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
48
Methodology
or old entrieswith newmeanings inthe OxfordAmericanEnglishDictionary (2nd
ed, 2006)?
already instandardAmerican/WorldEnglishlexicon
Table 2.2. Stage 1—Data Gathering
Significant New Words in Filipino. The study made us of the year’s top three words—a
total of 16 words—chosen by the Filipinas Institute of Translation’s Sawikaan annual word
search selection committee for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010.
FIT is composed of Romulo P Baquiran, Jr, Mario I Miclat, P T Martin, Leuterio Nicolas,
Galileo S Zafra, Vim Nadera, Roberto Añonuevo, and Michael Coroza, with National Artist for
Literature Virgilio S Almario as adviser.
FIT describes these words—which need not be new but whose meaning has acquired a
new dimension and renewed relevance over time—as the most significant
old or new words [which have] impacted on the sociocultural, political, social, economic, and other aspects ofFilipino life during the year. These could be borrowed from a foreign or a local language, or an old one that hasacquired a new meaning. The word of the year is a significant addition to Filipino vocabulary and a welcomedictionary entry. (Nadera, 2010)
It would be worthwhile to compare this qualifier with that of the Webster’s New College
Dictionary which Mike Agnes, editor in chief, explains:
. . . [N]ew words and meanings find their way into the dictionary based primarily on their frequency and breadth ofuse, and whether they show themselves as well established over time. That last part is the key.(www.thefreelibrary.com)
The significance of a word, therefore, is marked by—among other things—how often,
how widely used, and how widely useful a word is: things which have been shown and proven in
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
49
Methodology
the proposals or competition spiels that Sawikaan word proponents presented to the FTI panel
and which is the content of the Sawikaan series published by the University of the Philippines
Press.
The next stage, however, needs to be presaged properly for further grounding with two
reassertions—first, that “Filipino has arrived”; and, second, that Philippine English is moving
towards a convergence.
Let us look at this arrival of Filipino as a language-in-progress but already very real and
in use from the following clips that underscore my observations from Jessie Grace U Rubrico’s
“Towards a Theory of Filipino” (2004), where the first reassertion was made.
1. Definition of Filipino
Atienza (1996) describes it as "isang wikang kompromiso, o lingua franca." Flores(1996) points out that Filipino isthe language of the "kulturang popular na nagmula sa Metro Manila at pinapalaganap sa buong kapuluan." Anotherview is that of Isagani R. Cruz of DLSU who states that for him Filipino is the English–Tagalog code switch.
To further clarify the last definition, which is also an assertion as well as a
characterization of the language, is a passage—the paragraph divisions are mine, to highlight
points—from Isagani R Cruz’s “Split-Level Americanization: A Case Study of McDonaldized
Philippines” (2006).
In reality, however, despite the Constitution, the presidential order, and the Department orders, there is only onelanguage of instruction in practically all classrooms in the country. It is Taglish, a non-language that is variouslylabeled as code-switching, pidgin, or a lingua franca, featuring a still-unsystematized mixture of Tagalog, English,and vernacular languages of various regions.
The government’s own language body, the Commission on Philippine Languages, defines the official languageFilipino as whatever language is spoken in the urban centers, especially Metro Manila (in the North), Metro Cebu(in the middle of the archipelago), and Metro Davao (in the South).
The few academic sources on Filipino, such as the Filipino dictionary (UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino, 2001) preparedby the University of the Philippines (the first of only four Philippine universities listed in the latest world universityrankings), strengthen the impression that Filipino is really Taglish.
(http://criticplaywright.blogspot.com/2006/12/split-level-americanization-case-study.html)
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
50
Methodology
2. Characteristics of Filipino
Is the Tagalog-based Pilipino really Filipino? Dr. Constantino cites the differences between Pilipino and Filipino, towit: Filipino (1) has more phonemes; (2) has a different system of ortography; (3) manifests a heavy borrowing fromEnglish; (4) has a different grammatical construction. Based on the trend of development of Filipino as manifestedin the data presented in this study, as well as the actual usage by the linguistic trendsetters in Philippine society—newscasters (both in radio and television), Filipino writers and some academicians, showbiz personalities—it wouldappear that his theory is closest to reality.
3. Spread and Use of Filipino
There is a consensus, however, among the academicians above that Filipino is the lingua franca in Metro Manilawhich is inexorably pervading the regional centers through the print and broadcast media, through the songs that thelocal bands sing, through intellectual discussions among academicians, etc. It is the language through which aprominent Filipino linguist communicates (Exhibit D), as well as the medium of expression among academicians(Exhibit A), and of the "caretakers" or "authority" of national language development in the University of thePhilippines System, namely, the writers and editors in the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino(Exhibit B).
4. Trends in the Evolution of Filipino
a. Gradual Convergence with Philippine Languages
Even the leading Cebuano weekly, Bisaya (which has been around for the past 68 years) has now printed in its pagesloan words from English which, more often than not, retain their original spelling despite their being subjected to theCebuano rules of grammar. One can safely say that Cebuano, like Tagalog, is undergoing linguistic change throughlexical borrowing from English. Right now the Cebuanos adopt two alternate forms—the original spelling and themodified. Soon only one form will be retained, by theory of simplification as embodied in the universals oflanguage.
Unfortunately, there isn't much borrowing from other Philippine languages. . . . One is confident that theconverging process will continue, not only for Pilipino and Cebuano but likewise for other Philippine languages likeHiligaynon,Bikol, Ilokano, Waray, Kapampangan, and so on. Language change is, however, gradual and it willprobably take several years before a substantive convergence can occur. What is apparent for now is that theconvergence is already taking place.
But considering the rapid linguistic development of both Cebuano and the Metro Manila Filipino, there seems to behope for Filipino. And this is manifested in the perceived convergence of Pilipino and Cebuano through theirrespective borrowings from English. A few examples are given below:
EnglishTerms
PilipinoForm
CebuanoForm
Filipino(convergence)
abroad abroad abroad abroad
advertisement adbertisment adbertisment adbertisment
announcer anawnser anawonser anawnsercategory kategorya kategorya kategoryaeffect epekto epekto epekto
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
51
Methodology
b. Heavy Reliance on English
At the moment, it is very clear that English borrowing has a dominant and pervading influence in the shaping of thelingua franca which is the penultimate form of Filipino, the national language. But will this trend continue?Language is dynamic. This researcher is of the opinion that as long as English remains the official language ofcommerce, science, and technology the trend will continue.
Meanwhile, Almario (1997, p.9) gives an update on Filipino: Nasa kalooban ngayon ng Filipino ang paglinang sa"sanyata" at "ranggay" ng Iloko sa "uswag" at "bihud" ng Bisaya, sa "santing" ng Kapampangan,"laum" at"magayon" ng Bikol at kahit sa "buntian" ng Butanon at "suyad" ng Manobo. Samantalay hindi ito hadlang samadaliang pagpasok ng "shawarma" "shashimi," "glasnost," "perestroika," "shabu," "megabytes." "odd-even," at ibaang idadagsa ng satelayt at FAX sa globalisasyon.
What does one make out of this assertion? Are we now to believe that the process of borrowing from otherPhilippine and foreign languages is now a linguistic reality? Judging from the data gathered and presented here,perhaps this is only partially true. That is, borrowing is almost exclusively from the English language. And why isthis so? It is difficult to give a substantive answer to this particular question, given the limited scope of this study.Perhaps one indication why there is a lot of borrowing from English compared to other Philippine languages is thefacility and appropriateness or applicability of English terms to modern day-to-day living of the average urbanFilipino. More so because the urbanized Filipino is constantly exposed to the trappings—high technology, media,etc.—of modern society which adopts English as its medium of communication, commerce, and education. As forFilipinos living in rural communities, the far-reaching radio and television broadcasts bring to them the linguistictrend emanating from the urban centers. (http://coconuter.blogspot.com/2004/01/metamorphosis-of-filipino-as-national.html)
Data Analysis
The Data Analysis is a two-part stage that looks into the features of and word-formation
processes that created the new words added to the Filipino lexicon.
The first part of seeks at the minimum to identify the most popular—or oft occuring—
features of the new words added to the Filipino lexicon and at the maximum identify too the
most prevalent features of these new words.
Word Descriptions
Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1
SubsubstageCriteria 2
ResultCriteria 3
Values/N
PreliminaryConclusions
I.2—What arethe features ofthese newwords added tothe lexicon of
I.2.1—What arethe mostpopularPhilippineEnglish
number andfrequency ofmost popularfeatures ofPhilippine
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
52
Methodology
[standardPhilippineEnglish]?
features(Gonzalez,1996) of thesenew words?
English in thenew words
I.2.2—What arethe similaritiesand differencesamong the newwords?
frequencyranking anddeviation ofsimilaritiesanddifferences inhow thefeatures ofPhilippineEnglish areexhibited bythe new words
Table 2.3a. Stage 2—Data Analysis (Word Descriptions)
Standard English Words. The 16 significant new words in Filipino—which are all in
UP’s monumental monolingual Filipino dictionary—will be further qualified by cross-checking
against two other lexical benchmarks: Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary of Philippine English for
High School (2000) for pioneering the lexicalization of Philippine English and The New Oxford
American Dictionary 2nd ed. (2006) for being the most complete and up-to-date lexicon of
American English—vis-à-vis the most recent The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE, 2010)—
and, as an additional resource, the online MSN Encarta World English Dictionary (2009).
It will be interesting to know at this point how the ODE (FAQs 2010) decides on which
words to enter and which to leave out. These new entries are usually standard English words—
unless, otherwise, labeled as colloquial or slang, for instance—and the standard nowadays has
expanded to include the various incarnations of World English as they are most widely used by
the peoples of English-speaking nations.
1. Significant and Will Stand the Test of Time
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
53
Methodology
[W]hen we have evidence of a new term being used in a variety of different sources (not just by one writer) itbecomes a candidate for inclusion in one of our dictionaries. For every new dictionary or online update we assess allthe most recent terms that have emerged and select those which we judge to be the most significant or important andthose which we think are likely to stand the test of time.
2. Recorded in a Print or Online Source
In previous centuries there were dictionaries in which writers listed words which they thought might be useful, evenif they did not have any evidence that anyone had ever actually used them. This is not the case today. New termshave to be recorded in a print or online source before they can be considered: it's not enough just to hear them inconversation or on television, although we do analyse material from Internet message boards and TV scripts.
3. More than 3-Year Usage or New High-Use Terms of Enormous Currency
It used to be the case that a new term had to be used over a period of two or three years before we could consideradding it to a print dictionary. In today's digital age, the situation has changed. New terms can achieve enormouscurrency with a wide audience in a much shorter space of time, and people expect to find these new 'high-profile'words in their dictionaries. This presents an additional challenge to lexicographers trying to assess whether a term isephemeral or whether it will become a permanent feature of the language.
4. Inventions that Name Something New
[S]ome invented words do catch on and become an established part of English, either because they fill a gap orbecause they are describing something new. Examples of this type of invented word include wiki, quark, spoof, orhobbit. (2010)
Crosschecking the inclusion of these significant new Filipino words in these dictionaries
of World English will be hitting two birds with one stone: first, in qualifying the words’
“frequency and breadth of use and being well established over time” as a Filipino word accepted
in the standard English lexicon; and, second, in confirming the words’ status as a standard
Philippine English word.
The words will then be compared as to their inclusion in none or all of the lexicons
mentioned—those that pass this stage will go to the next substage and be analyzed for features of
Philippine English words.
Philippine English. There are two vital resources to which the present study point back
to and take off from as they inform the methodology with vital parameters. These are:
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
54
Methodology
1. Ma Lourdes S Bautista’s Defining Standards of Philippine English: Its Status and
Grammatical Features (2000), for macadamizing the road paved by Llamzon,
Gonzalez, and others to codify the language that has been evolving with and from the
national-language-to-be that is Filipino. Philippine English, which has been
commended by D V S Manarpaac (2008) as a “successful process of language
appropriation,” is described by Bautista as follows:
Philippine English is not English that falls short of the norms of Standard American English; it is not badly learnedEnglish as a second language; its distinctive features are not errors committed by users who have not mastered theAmerican standard.
Instead, it is a nativized variety of English that has features which differentiate it from Standard American Englishbecause of the influence of the first language (specifically in pronunciation [. . .] but occasionally in grammar),because of the different culture—in which the language is embedded (expressed in lexicon and in discourseconventions), and because of a restructuring of some grammar rules (manifested in the grammar) . . . .
Philippine English has an informal variety, especially in the spoken mode, which may include a lot of borrowing andcode-mixing, and it has a formal variety which, when used by educated speakers and found acceptable in educatedFilipino circles, can be called Standard Philippine English. (p 21) [Paragraphing mine.—Proponent]
2. Kingsley Bolton and Susan Butler’s “Lexicography and the Description of Philippine
English Vocabulary” (2008), not only for identifying the need to codify the Philippine
English lexicon and the organic role of the dictionary in this task of codification as
the legitimizing tool for world Englishes, but also for describing the lexico-historical
innovations in the language that, through time, has metamorphosed in stratification
both “temporally and socially” (p 178)—reflecting a divide that bespeaks of
particular periods in history and of particular ethno-cultural groups that have been
active participants or movers during those periods. Interestingly, this divide will tend
to be blurred as we shall see in later in the Results.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
55
Methodology
Beginnings of Philippine English. The creation of a new vocabulary for a nation in
interaction with and under the control of a foreign power has resulted in the creation of new
words through four basic processes—thence, the groundwork from which succeeding word-
formation processes will be set against—as Bolton and Butler (2008) averred true for all
colonized nations:
1. Borrowing of words from local languages (e.g., Tag anting-anting, pili, and tuba; Sp abaca, anito, barrio,and fiesta),
2. Borrowing from other Englishes (e.g., solon),3. Formation of new words and new compounds in English (e.g., barrio folk, barrio road, barrio elder, and
barrio life), and4. Adaptation of the lexicon brought from the British and American homeland. (p 177–178, in Philippine
English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives)
These intercultural processes via language contact necessitated what we now know as the
Glossary such as the “List of Spanish and Philippine Terms” that Thomasite William B Freer
included among the back matter of his important cultural artifact, The Philippine Experiences of
an American Teacher (1906). Bolton and Butler (2008) discovered that of the 187 “early
borrowed” words on the list—153 were from Spanish, 19 from Tagalog, 7 Bicol, 4 Moro, 2
Gaddang, and 1 Igorot—107 or 57.2% are still in everyday usage or found as “relic items” in
literary works as of 2001, when the two searched the Macquarie database of Asian Englishes
called Asiacorp.
Word Formation
The second part of the Data Analysis seeks at the minimum to identify the most
productive—hence, also popular and most oft used—word formation process that created the
most number of new words added to the Filipino lexicon and at the maximum identify too the
trend in changes that these processes exhibit in creating and/or innovating words through time.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
56
Methodology
Word Creation
Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1
SubsubstageCriteria 2
ResultCriteria 3
Values PreliminaryConclusions
II—Whatword-formationprocessesresulted in thecreation ofthese newwords?
II.1—Which ofthese word-formationprocessesproduced themost numberof newentries?
II.1.1—Whichword-formationprocessescreated themost number ofnew words?
II.1.2—Whichword-formationprocessescreated themost number ofnew meanings?
II.2—How didthe applicationof the mostproductiveword-formationprocesseschangethrough time?
II.2.1—Whatare the mostremarkabletechnicalchanges, forexample, in theways affixeswere used orwords wereclipped?
II.2.2— Whatare the mostremarkablestylisticinnovations; forexample, theintroduction ofnew steps?
Table 2.3b. Stage 2—Data Analysis (Word Formation)
Characteristics and Features of Philippine English. It will be interesting to compare the
characteristics of early Philippine English with the four characteristics that Bautista came up
with after comparing Philippine data with Australian data from the Asian English Corpus of the
Macquarie Dictionary, namely:
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
57
Methodology
1. Normal expansion,2. Preservation of items which have been lost or become infrequent in other varieties,3. Coinages, and4. Borrowings. (academia.edu)
and with the characteristics identified by Gonzalez—and which Tom McArthur repeats in the
Oxford Companion to the English Language in Encyclopedia.com—to describe the vocabulary
and idioms of Philippine English, namely:
1. Loan words from Spanish (e.g., as alto, don, doña, estafa, and viand),2. Loan words from Tagalog (e.g., boondocks and carabao),3. Loan translations from local usages (e.g., open the light), and4. Local neologisms (e.g., captain ball, carnap, cope up, holdupper, jeepney, and joke only). (1992, in
Bautista pp 89–90)
In recognition of the field’s expanding horizon—and as follows the growing popularity of
corpus linguistics, the Philippine component of which is still continuously being populated—and
the language’s dynamic nature Ariane Macalinga Borlongan (2007) brings us further forward by
showing seven characteristic innovations that mark standard Philippine English based on her
analysis of 150 printed texts from the Philippine component of the International Corpus of
English (ICE–PH):
1. Borrowings,2. Normal expansions,3. Preservation of archaic or receding elements of genetically native Englishes,4. Analogical constructions,5. English compounds,6. Substitutions or paraphrases,7. Ambiguous expressions, and8. Insertion of redundant particles. (academia.edu)
The nature and characteristics of the vocabulary and lexicon of Philippine English will no
longer be surprising now after having seen that at the most informal level Filipinos create words
through—and in this order of preference and frequency—Coinage, Borrowing, Reduction,
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
58
Methodology
Acronym, Mixing, and Blending. More than this is the prevalence, say ubiquity, of inventions
and innovations introduced into the present speaking vocabulary coming from, influenced by,
and tainted with English for the most part and by other languages.
This early we already see recurrent patterns and trends in the common processes shared
by both Filipino word formation and Philippine English characteristic features—leading us to
see, too, the roots of Filipino identity dynamically changing with history (and colonial masters)
and with time (and technological developments) and the manifestation of the hegemonic power
at work.
What we see then as linguistic movements—or changes—in the convergence of two
languages in contact at first, then systematically and formally separated and delineated as
national languages in conflict yet coexisting and familiar though alien and also stratified, back to
convergence now in the interesting phenomena characterizing the twinning of Filipino–
Philippine English in what is a clear mirror, even barometer, of Philippine historico-cultural
character—and future—not simply as individual but as Nation.
Interpretation of Results
The Interpretation of Results is an optional, higher level type of analysis of results, that
seeks to unravel the Filipino—as people and Nation—in the new words added to the Filipino
lexicon. At the minimum, Interpretation of Results seeks to identify the individual identity and
values as well as their implications to a people’s culture and political stance as negotiated by
these new words; and, at the maximum identify too the national identity and values as well as
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
59
Methodology
their implications to a nation’s historical image and future as negotiated by these very same
words that just entered the Filipino lexicon.
Identity Formation
Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1
SubsubstageCriteria 2
ResultCriteria 3
Values PreliminaryConclusions
III—How isthe Filipinoreconstitutedin the canon ofWorld Englishby these wordsand word-formationprocesses?
III.1—Whatindividualvalues do thesewords andword-formationprocessesedify?
III.1.1—Whatculturalcharacter isempowered bytheserepresentations?
III.1.2—Whatpolitical standdoes the Filipinotake in theserepresentations?
III.2—Whatnationalvalues do thenew words andword-formationprocessesedify?
III.2.1—Whathistoricalidentity is takenby theserepresentations?
III.2.2—Whathistorical pathis carved bytheserepresentations?
Table 2.4. Stage 3—Interpretation of Results
Results and Discussions
And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation
towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Results and Conclusions
Words are living entities as well as collective embodiments of culture and consciousness. For
something created words are not only above and beyond all of humanity’s other creations but
also something that is so wondrous and sinister that those who used them at Babel were
dispersed confused for brazenly flaunting the insidious power of words. For something that is not
even physical—and, especially when alone, so fragile and small and inconsequential and
fleeting—a word means much and can contain more than anyone can ever imagine holding in the
biggest hands.
Words are powerful: A word is power.
We have seen it become the converging point not only of two languages but of two
cultures—even more considering the long and rich history of English and the troubled and
unsure infancy of Filipino—and, therefore, of two peoples—likewise maybe more than two
considering the many peoples that may have infused a word with their identity in the word’s
evolution and transformations.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
61
Results and Conclusions
In this chapter, let us look closer at some of the newest words to become incorporated in
the Filipino lexicon—and, in the process, enriching the vocabulary of Philippine English—and
find out:
1. Which of these new words in the lexicon of Filipino–Philippine English have entered
also the lexicon of World Englishes and, therefore, are also Standard English words?
2. Which of the words’ common lexical features identify them coming from the
Filipino–Philippine English vocabulary?
3. Which of the characteristic Philippine word-formation processes have been most
productive in enriching the Filipino–Philippine English lexicon?
4. What were the characteristic innovations or changes in the way these Philippine
word-formation processes created or changed words through time?
5. What individual and national identities of the Filipino are put forward by these new
words–word formation processes in the global context?
Results of Data Gathering
The Sawikaan Corpus of 16 Words
The five-year brainchild of the Filipinas Institute of Translation Sawikaan: Mga Salita ng
Tao—a word search, conference, and book—had consistently selected the most significant new
words in Filipino from 2004, skipping 2008 and 2009 when no word was deemed to have made
any significant impact on society, to 2010 to come up with a total of 16 winning words: 5 words
of the year, 1 first runner up, 5 second runners up, and 5 third runners up.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
62
Results and Conclusions
These 16 words form the corpus of our present on Filipino–Philippine English word
formation.
Rank
Year2004 2005 2006 2007 2008/2009 2010
W canvass huweteng lobat miskol jejemon1st ukay-ukay2nd tsika pasaway Botox roro Ondoy3rd tsugi tibak / t-
backtoxic friendster korkor
effect Tsunami birdflu sutokil(sugba, tola,or kilaw)
Ampatuan
tapsilog networking cha-cha abrodista unlikinse anyos blog Karir extrajudicial
killingsload
jologs wiretapping mall makeover tarposalbakuta e-vat meningo oragon solbdagdag-bawas
call center Orocan party-list emo
fashionista Caregiver payreted safety namumutbolterorista /terorismo
Coño Spa telenobela Spam
text Gandara kudkod videokeotso-otso
Table 3.1. Sawikaan’s Top Three Words of the Year, 2004–2010
Notes and Observations. Before we go into a discussion of the words, a careful scrutiny
of Sawikaan’s winning words and finalists in Table 3.1 will help reveal initial trends and patterns
that may shed light on parts or aspects of the results later or support findings by extrapolation
from that data presented, after all only the 16 top words will be discussed in detail.
A cursory scan of the table resulted in the following preliminary observations on, among
others, ranking of winners, number of finalists, and inclusion of finalists from the regions:
1. The Word of the Year in 2004 is followed by three runners ups, resulting in four
winners; however, in the succeeding years, only two runners follow the Word of the
Year, making a total of three winners only. This ranking became the standard lineup.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
63
Results and Conclusions
2. There are a total of 61 new words—5 words of the year, 1 first runner up, 5 second
runners up, 5 third runners up, and 45 finalists—in the search’s five years for an
annual average of 12.5 significant new words, or 3.5 winners and 9 finalists yearly.
3. The inclusion of a word from the regions only happened thrice, or four times: in
2004 with salbakuta from Bicol, in 2006 with kudkod from the Visayas, and twice in
2007 with sutokil (sugba, tola, or kilaw) from the Visayas and with oragon from
Bicol.
Assumption: Sawikaan Word Constant. The table may not reflect this, but it is
interesting to note, too, at this point that for a word to qualify a proponent must pass and then
later present a position paper to be defended in the Sawikaan Conference. A proponent would
discuss the etymology, merits, as well as exemplified the extent and variety of usage and
meanings of the word being nominated.
It may be interesting to see also the demographics of the 61 nominators and find
connections perhaps these statistics and the word being nominated. It may safely be assumed that
most of them are from the University of the Philippines community, where the conference is
usually held and where the core group of the FIT are based, with isolated cases of presenters
flying in from provinces to lobby their choices.
After considering nomination–nominator correspondence, it would seem worthwhile too
to extend the analysis and observations to the rest of the finalists for a more complete profile, but
limitations focus us on the 16 winners first then outline findings, predict trending values for the
rest of the words based on these findings, and verify these interpolations at some later time.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
64
Results and Conclusions
The resulting trending values, I assume, would not result in a a big difference given the
homogenizing characteristics that we have gleaned from the nature of Filipino–Philippine
English languages and word-formation processes. Hence, I am likewise theoretically assuming
that the same holds true for the trends in the frequency of morphological/lexical as well as
grammatical features of new lexical items—falling safely within the expected range or on
predictable grounds—and could, therefore, serve as a determiner or constant in future research.
New Words Added to the Filipino Lexicon
Results gathered from email (dated 24 December 2010) with Romulo Baquiran, Jr,
Sawikaan consultant–contributor to and actual checking of the 2010 U.P. Diksiyonaryong
Filipino revealed the following:
1. Sawikaan as Source of New Words. New words that have been added to the U.P.
Filipino corpus—such as botsa from mass media and arowana from zoology and
literature—have been contributed by consultants from various fields of knowledge.
Interestingly, the Sawikaan Conference is considered one of these consultant–
contributors to enriching and expanding the Filipino lexicon.
2. New Words from Sawikaan. There are 24 new words added to the 2010 UP Filipino
Diksiyonaryo which came from the Sawikaan corpus. These 21 new words may be
categorized further into those coming from:
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
65
Results and Conclusions
a. Sawikaan’s Top 16 Words. Of the 24 new words, 4 (i.e., lobat, ukay-ukay,
tsika, and tsugi) came from the 16 winning words. The 12 words left out of
the 16 winners may be further categorized as follows:
i. Old Entries. Of the 12 words left out, 9 (i.e., canvass, friendster,
huweteng, korkor, miskol, pasaway, roro, tibak/t-back, and toxic) are
already in the UP Diksiyunaryong Filipino corpus.
ii. Nonwords. Of the 12 words left out, 3 (i.e., botox, jejemon, and
Ondoy) have not yet entered the Filipino lexicon.
These may, therefore, be considered as nonwords most due
probably to their being recent neologisms and, thus, remain non-
Standard Filipino waiting for their legitimization.
b. Sawikaan’s 45 Finalists. Of the 24 new words, 20 (i.e., blog, call center,
caregiver, chacha, dagdag-bawas, e-vat, jolog, karir, load, mall,
meningococcemia, networking, orocan, solb, spa, sutukil, tapsilog, tarpaulin,
tsunami, and wiretapping) came from the 45 finalists.
Note though the following morphological changes between the form entered and the form
nominated: two have been included in the dictionary in their full, spelled out forms despite being
nominated to the Sawikaan in their clipped forms, namely meningococcemia for meningo and
tarpaulin for tarpo; chacha was entered without the hyphen in the nominated cha-cha; and,
jolog was entered in the uninflected for despite the nominated jologs.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
66
Results and Conclusions
The rest of the 25 words left out on the list of finalists may be further
categorized as follows:
i. Old Entries. Of the 28 words left out, 11.5 (i.e., abrodista, coño, effect,
extrajudicial killing, fashionista, makeover, oragon, safety, telenobela,
terorismo, and text) are already in the UP Diksiyunaryong Filipino
corpus.
ii. Nonwords. Of the 28 words left out, 13.5 (i.e., Ampatuan, birdflu, emo,
gandara, kinse anyos, namumutbol, otso-otso, party-list, payreted,
salbakuta, spam, terorista, unli, and videoke) have not yet entered the
Filipino lexicon and are yet to be legitimized as Standard Filipino.
Note, however, these morphological observations in the entries versus the non-entries:
party is included but not party-list, pirate is included but not payreted, terorista is not included
yet its pair terorismo is, and that several compounds with video are included but not videoke.
1. Which of these new words in the lexicon of Filipino–Philippine English have entered also
the lexicon of World Englishes and, therefore, are also Standard English words?
Filipino Words in the 2010 OED Online
Again, using the Sawikaan 16:45 word base but this time checking the 2010 online
version of the Oxford English Dictionary of World English (http://oxforddictionaries.com), we
see that only botox, canvass, ro-ro, t-back, and toxic are listed as legitimate English words—
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
67
Results and Conclusions
being entered with the Philippine meaning of the word, however, is beside the point at this
junction—turning out a ration of 5:27, or 5 words from the 16 winning words and 27 words from
the 45 Sawikaan finalists. Table 3.2 will show a summary of these two—minus the data on the
finalists though—including their functions.
Sawikaan16
UP Filipino(2010)
Function OED Online(2010)
Function
botox(b2006)
No Yes noun
canvass(w2004)
Yes verb Yes verb
friendster(c2007)
No No
huweteng(w2005)
Yes noun No
jejemon(w2010)
Yes adjective/ noun
No
korkor(c2010)
Yes noun No
lobat(w2006)
Yes adjective No
miskol(w2007)
Yes verb/ noun
Nobut, miscall
Ondoy(b2010)
No No
pasaway(b2005)
Yes adjective/ noun
No
roro(b2007)
Yes noun Yesbut, ro-ro
adjective
tibak/t-back(c2006)
Yes adjective/ noun
No/Yes noun
toxic(c2006)
Yes adjective Yes adjective
tsika(b2004)
Yes noun/ verb
No
tsugi(c2004)
Yes verb /adjective
No
ukay-ukay(a2004)
Yes noun /adjective
No
Table 3.2. Status of Sawikaan’s Top 16 as Filipino and English Words
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
68
Results and Conclusions
From the table, let us move forward to analyze only the words highligted in purple or the
words which appeared both in the Filipino and English lexicons, including two words appearing
only in the Filipino lexicon but could have appeared in the English lexicon given the English
source words that formed the Filipino compound.
Results of Data Analysis
Characteristics and Features of New Words in the Lexicon
Filipino–PHEnglish Words
Function Features of PH English(Baustista & Gonzalez,
1992)
Innovations inPH English(Borlongan,
2007)
WordFormation(Villanueva,
2011)canvass(w2004)
v. Normal expansion,borrowing; loan translation
Borrowing,normalexpansion
Borrowing
lobat(w2006)
adj. Normal expansion, coinage,borrowing; local neologism,loan words from English
Borrowing,normalexpansion,Englishcompound,ambiguousexpression
Borrowing,coinage,blending >multipleprocesses
miskol(w2007)
v./ n.
Normal expansion, coinage,borrowing; local neologism,loan words from English
Borrowing,normalexpansion,Englishcompound,ambiguousexpression
Borrowing,coinage,blending >multipleprocesses
roro(b2007)
n. Normal expansion,borrowing; loan word fromBr English
Borrowing,normalexpansion
Borrowing,acronym
tibak/t-back(c2006)
adj./ n.
Normal expansion, coinage,borrowing; loan word fromEnglish
Borrowing,normalexpansion,ambiguousexpression
Borrowing
toxic(c2006)
adj. Normal expansion,borrowing; loan word fromEnglish
Borrowing,normalexpansion
Borrowing
Table 3.3. Nature of Words in Both Filipino and English Lexicons
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
69
Results and Conclusions
2. Which of the words’ common lexical features identify them coming from the Filipino–
Philippine English vocabulary?
3. Which of the characteristic Philippine word-formation processes have been most
productive in enriching the Filipino–Philippine English lexicon?
Table 3.3 reveals the following recurrent characteristics that may define the nature of
words that are both a part of the Filipino and English lexicons based on three markers, namely:
1. The characteristics of Philippine English:
a. Normal expansion (6/6),
b. Borrowing (6/6),
c. Loan word from English (5/6),
d. Coinage (3/6),
e. Local neologism (2/6), and
f. Loan translation (1/6);.
2. The innovations in Philippine English:
a. Borrowing (6/6),
b. Normal expansion (6/6),
c. English compounds (2/6), and
d. Ambiguous expression (2/6); and,
3. The Filipino word-formation processes:
a. Borrowing (6/6),
b. Coinage (2/6),
c. Blending (2/6),
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
70
Results and Conclusions
d. Multiple process (2/6), and
e. Acronym (1/6).
Conclusion: General Features of Filipino–Philippin English Words
If we were to list these items according to the most common features, we will get the
following general characteristics of new words in the lexicon which are both Filipino—being
part of the standard Filipino vocabulary—and English—being part, too, of the standard English
lexicon.
Feature and TheirFrequency
6 5 4 3 2 1
1. Function * Adjective* Noun
* Verb
2. Source ofNew Words
* Borrowing* Loan Wordsfrom English
* Coinage * LocalNeologism
* LoanTranslation
3. MeaningMaking
* NormalExpansion
4. WordFormationProcess
* Borrowing
5. Innovations * Borrowing* NormalExpansion
* Coinage* Blending* MultipleProcesses
* Englishcompounds* AmbiguousExpressions
* Acronym
Table 3.4. Features of New English Words Both Filipino and English Lexicons, By Feature andFrequency
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
71
References
References
► Primary Sources
Filipino Language and Study
Alonzo, Rosario I. (2002). Varyasyon at varayti ng wika. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo(Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 25–39). Quezon City: Sentro ngWikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Almario, Virgilio S. (2006). Nakaplanong modernisasyon ng wikang Filipino. Sawikaan. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sawikaan.net/modernisasyon_ng_wikang_fil.html
Antonio, Lilia F, & Ligaya Tiamson–Rubin (Eds.). (2003). Sikolohiya ng wikang Filipino: Mga simulain,pamamaraan at nilalaman. Quezon City: C&E Publishing.
Catacataca, Pamfilo D (Ed.). (2004). Metamorfosis ng wikang Filipino: Sulyap at titg ni Ponciano B P Pineda.Makati City: Grandwater Publications.
Constantino, Pamela C. (2002a). Pluralidad tungo sa indentidad: Ang varayti ng wikang Filipino sa pagbuo ng wikaat kamalayang pambansa. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mgababasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 55–59). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino,Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Constantino, Pamela C. (2002b). Varayti at varyasyon ng wika: Historya, teorya at praktika. In J V M Peregrino, P CConstantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 19–24). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Constantino, Pamela C. (2002c). Wikang Filipino bilang konsepto. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N SOcampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 48–54). Quezon City:Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Fermin, Edizon. (2002). Mga varayti at varyasyong antropolohiko: Pagsilip sa mga hibla’t habi ng wika, kultura atlipunan. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varaytiat varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 90–101). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ngPilipinas.
Fernandez–Montenegro, Carmencita. (1982). An exploratory study of male and female language in Pilipino. In M LS Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 178–200). Manila: De La Salle UniversityPress.
► Filipinas Institute of Translation. (2006). Sawikaan. Retrieved fromhttp://sawikaan.net/modernisasyon_ng_wikang_fil.html
Hernandez, Jesus Federico. (2010). Descent to the sariling mundo: Untangling the complexities of the language ofmental health and illness in Filipino. 2nd International Conference on Filipino as a Global Language.Retrieved from http://larc.sdsu.edu/files/2010/03/Hernandez-Descent-to-the-sariling-mundo.pdf
Mariano, Jocelyn. (2002). Ang varayti ng Filipino sa mga balitang isports sa diyaryo. In J V M Peregrino, P CConstantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp118–125). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Nadera, Vim. (2010, August 1). Our salita ng taon is Jejemon. Malaya. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mb.com.ph/node/270105/our-
Ocampo, Nilo S. (2002). Mga varayti ng wika. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.),Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 2–18). Quezon City: Sentro ng WikangFilipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
72
References
Cipres–Ortega, Susan. (2003). “Ang larangang leksikal: Kalakaran at paraan.” Sa L F Antonio & L Tiamson–Rubin(Eds.). Sikolohiya ng wikang Filipino: Mga simulain, pamamaraan at nilalaman (pp 103–127). QuezonCity: C&E Publishing.
Paz, Vina P. (2002). Ang pang-akademyang varayti ng wika sa Filipinas. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & NS Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 170–179). QuezonCity: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Peregrino, Jovy M, Pamela C Constantino, & Nilo S Ocampo (Eds.). (2002). Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti atvaryasyon ng Filipino. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
“Primer on the Filipino language as a language of education.” (2007). The UP Forum. Retrieved fromhttp://www.up.edu.ph/upforum.php?i=105&archive=yes&yr=2
Resuma, Vilma. (2002). Pang-akademikong register ng Filipino: Kaso ng U.P. Integrated School. In J V MPeregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ngFilipino (pp 197203–153). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Reyes–Otero, Marietta. (2002). Varayti ng Filipino na gamit sa pagbabalita ng mga radio broadcaster. In J V MPeregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ngFilipino (pp 154–161). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Rubrico, Jessie Grace U. (2004, January 4). « The Metamorphosis of Filipino as National Language. » Coconuter.Retrieved from http://coconuter.blogspot.com/2004/01/metamorphosis-of-filipino-as-national.html
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1991). Intellectualization of Filipino. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippinesociolinguistics (pp 240–253). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Filipino Words and Word Formation
► Abello, Larcy C. (2002). Varayti ng wika sa mga balitang showbiz. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N SOcampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 129–136). Quezon City:Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
► Alcantara, Teresita A. (2010). Spanish-American lexicons in Filipino. Philippine Academic Consortium for LatinAmerican Studies <www.paclas.org.ph>. 2nd International Conference on Latin American Studies. De LaSalle University, Manila. Retrieved from http://www.paclas.org.ph/PAPERS/Alcantara.pdf
Almario, Virgilio S. (2005). Sapagkat buhay ang wikang Filipino. In G S Zafra & R P Baquiran, Jr (Eds.), Sawikaan2004: Mga salita ng taon (pp 1–7). QC: University of the Philippines Press.
Añonuevo, Roberto. (2007). Introduction. In R T Añonuevo & G S Zafra (Eds.), Sawikaan 2006: Mga salita ng taon(pp vii–xii). QC: University of the Philippines Press.
► Baklanova, Ekaterina A. Typological classification of borrowings in Tagalog. Retrieved fromhttp://web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/linguistics/plc2006/papers/Baklanova.pdf
Baquiran, Romulo P, Jr (Ed.). (2008). Introduction. In R P Baquiran, Jr (Ed.), Sawikaan 2007: Mga salita ng taon(pp vii–xv). QC: University of the Philippines Press.
Biermeier, Thomas. (2008). Word formation in New Englishes—A corpus-based analysis. Berlin: LIT. Abstractretrieved from http://www-englishes.uni-regensburg.de/EarlierProjects/Word-Formation_in_New_Englishes.shtml
Biermeier, Thomas. (2009). “Word formation in New Englishes: Properties and trends” In Lucia Siebers & ThomasHoffmann (Eds.), World Englishes: Problems—Properties—Prospects. Proceedings of the IAWEConference 2007 in Regensburg. Amsterdam. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cubar, Nelly. (1983). Trends in recent English borrowings in Pilipino: Sociolinguistic implications of the use ofPilipino as an instrument of communication. Malaysia: Pusat Bahasa Language Center.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
73
References
► Enriquez, Virgilio Gaspar. (1985). Pagbubuo ng terminolohiya sa sikolohiyang Pilipino. In M L S Bautista (Ed.),Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 269–286). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Gozzi, R D. (1990). New words and a changing American culture. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Henson, Paul S, & Kathrine G Tan. (1998). Movie magazine speak: A sociolinguistic study of slang words,
borrowing, and code-switching. Unpublished thesis in AB Humanities. De La Salle University, Manila.Kachru, Yamuna, & Larry E Smith (Eds.). (2008). Words and collocations. In Cultures, contexts, and world
Englishes (Chapter 7, pp 103–112). New York: Routledge.► Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2004). Mga salitang homosekswal: “Isang pagsusuri.” Manila: Sangay ng
Lingguwistka, KWF.► Ling107 Morphology—The Study of Word Structures. Retrieved from pyersqr.org/classes/Ling700/morph.pdfLlagas, Racquel. (1987). Isang sulyap sa wika ng mga progresibo (Unpublished paper in Anthropology). University
of the Philippines, Diliman.Pakir, A (Ed.). (1992). Proceedings of the Lexicography Workshop: Words in a cultural context. Singapore:
Unipress.Peregrino, Jovy M. (2002). Representasyon ng wika sa text messaging. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S
Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 137–141). Quezon City:Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
► Questionnaire—Word-formation Characteristics of Languages. Retrieved from http://pdf-ebooks.org/download.php
► Reyes–Otero, Marietta. (2002). Ang sosyolingguwistikong pardon sa panghihiram ng mga salitang Ingles ng mgamanunulat ng sanaysay sa Filipino. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga:Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 146–153). Quezon City: Sentro ng WikangFilipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
Sugioka, Yoko. Rule vs. analogy in word formation. Keio University. Retrieved from►Wolff, John U. (1973–1974). The character of borrowings from Spanish and English in languages of the
Philippines. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 63–75). Manila: De LaSalle University Press.
Zafra, Galileo S. (2005). Introduction. In G S Zafra & R P Baquiran, Jr (Eds.), Sawikaan 2004: Mga salita ng taon(pp vii–xiii). QC: University of the Philippines Press.
►Zorc, R David. (1996). Coming to grips with Tagalog slang. In M L S Bautista (Ed.). Readings in Philippinesociolinguistics (pp 102–109). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Language Planning, Use, and Pedagogy
Abad, Gemino H. (2009). “This scene so fair”: Filipino English poetry, 1905–2005. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton(Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 279–297). Pasig City: Anvil.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (1995). An outline: The national language and the language of instruction. In M L SBautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 223–227). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Benton, Richard A.. (1980). The Philippine bilingual education program—Education for the masses or thepreparation of a new elite? In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 309–326).Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Dumdum, Simeon, Timothy Mo, & Resil Mojares. (2009). In conversation: Cebuano writers on Philippine literatureand English. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives(pp 357–367). Pasig City: Anvil.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
74
References
Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1990a). Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines: Towards a multidimensionalmodel of evluation in language planning. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics(pp 327–340). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1990b). Language and nationalism in the Philippines: An update. In M L S Bautista(Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 228–239). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Hau, Caroline S. (2009). The Filipino novel in English. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English:Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 317–336). Pasig City: Anvil.
►Haugen, Einar. (1966). Dialect, language, nation ‘Dialect, nation, language.’ American Anthropologist 68. In J BPride & J Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (1972, pp 97–111). UK: Penguin.
Hidalgo, Cristina Pantoja. (2009). The Philippine short story in English: An overview. In M L S Bautista & KBolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 299–316). Pasig City: Anvil.
Martin, Isabel Pefianco. (2009). Colonial Education and the shaping of Philippine literature in English. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 245–259). PasigCity: Anvil.
Pineda, Ponciano B P. (1985). Pagpaplano ng wika ukol sa pambasang pagsulong. In M L S Bautista (Ed.),Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 254–268). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1978). Bilingual education in the Philippines. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings inPhilippine sociolinguistics (pp 287–307). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Tinio, Rolando S. (1990). A matter of language: When English fails. Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesPress.
►Tollefson, James W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community.London: Longman.
Tope, Lily Rose. (2009). Negotiating language: Postcolonialism and nationalism in Philippine literature in English.In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 261–278). Pasig City: Anvil.
Yuson, Alfred A. (2009). Filipino diasporic literature. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English:Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 337–355). Pasig City: Anvil.
Lexicons and Lexicography
►Accessing the mental lexicon: Words, and how we (eventually) find them. Chapter 6. Retrieved fromhttp://homepage.mac.com/gerry_altmann/babel/assets/Chapter-6.pdf
► Almario, Virgilio S (Ed.). (2010). The UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino (2nd ed.). Pasig City: Anvil & UP Sentro ngWikang Filipino.
► Añonuevo, Roberto T, & Galileo S Zafra, (Eds.). (2007). Sawikaan 2006: Mga salita ng taon. QC: University ofthe Philippines Press.
► Anvil–Macquarie dictionary of Philippine English for high school. (2000). Pasig City: Anvil.► Baquiran, Romulo P, Jr (Ed.). (2008). Sawikaan 2007: Mga salita ng taon. QC: University of the Philippines
Press.►Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (1997). The lexicon of Philippine English. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian
language: The Philippine context (Chapter 46, pp 49–72). Manila: Macquarie Library.► Bolton, Kingsley, & Susan Butler. (18 February 2004). Dictionaries and the stratification of vocabularies:
Towards a new lexicography for Philippine English. World Englishes 23(1), 91–112.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
75
References
►Bolton, Kingsley, & Susan Butler. (2008). Lexicography and the description of Philippine English vocabulary. InM L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives (pp 175–200).Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
►Cruz, Isagani R. (2005). A smorgasbord of criticism. In D T Dayag & J S Quakenbush (Eds.), Linguistics andlanguage education in the Philippines and beyond: Festschrift in honor of Ma Lourdes S Bautista (pp 61–69). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
►Cruz, Isagani R, & Ma Lourdes S Bautista (Comps). (1995). A dictionary of Philippine English. Pasig City:Anvil.
Hacken, Pius ten, Andrea Abel, & Judith Knapp. (2006). “Word formation in an Electronic Learners’ Dictionary:ELDIT,” International Journal of Lexicography 19(3): 243–256.
Ilagan, Bonifacio P (Ed.). (2010). Corruptionary : A dictionary of corruption Filipino words. Pasig City: Anvil.Khodarami, Sue. (1997 March 1). Words of the year: Lexicographers and word lovers select the words and phrases
that best summed up 2006. Do their choices agree with yours? Communication World. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Words+of+the+year%3a+lexicographers+and+word+lovers+select+the+words+...-a0160166926
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2004). Mga salitang homosekswal: “Isang pagsusuri.” Manila: Sangay ngLingguwistka, KWF.
McFarland, Curtis D. (1992). Determination of words (lexical items) in Pilipino. Retrieved fromsealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/mcfarland1992determination.pdf
►McKean, Erin (Ed.). (2006). The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.► Microsoft. (2009). MSN Encarta World English Dictionary. Retrieved from
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspxRozul, Ruthmita H. (2004). Developing a monolingual dictionary of obsolescent Tagalog words in Tagaytay City,
Amadeo, and Indang, Cavite. Unpublished dissertation in Doctor of Arts in Language and Literature. De LaSalle University, Manila.
Wood, Alden. (1999 October 1). Meet [Microsoft®] Encarta®, the lexical IPO of the 1990s, plus WNW’s 4th
college ed. Communication World. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meet+Encarta%5BR%5D%2c+the+Lexical+IPO+of+the+1990s%2c+plus+WNW%27s+4th+College...-a057786897
Yap, Fe Aldave. (1977). A comparative study of Philippine lexicons. Manila: Institute of NationalLanguage/Department of Education and Culture.
Yap, Fe Aldave. (1970). Pilipino loan words in English: Mga salitang Pilipino sa Ingles. Maynila: Surian ngWikang Pambansa.
► Zafra, Galileo S, & Romulo P Baquiran, Jr (Eds.). (2005). Sawikaan 2004: Mga salita ng taon. QC: University ofthe Philippines Press.
Zorc, R David Paul. (1979). Core etymological dictionary of Filipino. Np: Np.Zorc, R David, & Rachel San Miguel (Comps.). (1993/2000). Tagalog slang dictionary. Manila: De La Salle
University Press.
Philippine English
Alberca, Wilfredo L. (1978). The distinctive features of Philippine English in the mass media. Unpublishedtypescript.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (2009). Bibliographical resources for researching English in the Philippines. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 371–394). PasigCity: Anvil.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
76
References
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (2000). Defining standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features. Manila:De La Salle University Press.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (2009). Investigating the grammatical features of Philippine English. In M L S Bautista &K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 201–218). Pasig City: Anvil.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (1997a). Addendum: Notes on three sub-varieties of Philippine English. In M L S Bautista(Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 93–101). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S (Ed). (1997b). English is an Asian language: The Philippine context. Sydney: MacquarieLibrary Pty.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S, & Kingsley Bolton. (2009). Introduction. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), PhilippineEnglish: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 1–9). Pasig City: Anvil.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S, & Kingsley Bolton. (2004 February). Philippine English: Tensions and transitions. WorldEnglishes 23(1), 1–5.
Bautista, Ma Lourdes S, & Kingsley Bolton (Eds.). (2009). Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives.Pasig City: Anvil.
Bernardo, Allan B I. (2009). English in Philippine education: Solution or problem? In M L S Bautista & K Bolton(Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 29–48). Pasig City: Anvil.
►Bolton, Kingsley, & Susan Butler. (2009). Lexicography and the description of Philippine English vocabulary. InM L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 175–200).Pasig City: Anvil.
►Borlongan, Ariane Macalinga. (2007). Innovations in standard Philippine English. Current research on Englishand applied linguistics: A De La Salle University special issue. Retrieved fromhttp://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/280888/Innovations_in_Standard_Philippine_English.pdf\
Cadias, Abel Morales. “The indigenization of English….” Retrieved fromhttp://abelcadias.blog.co.uk/2009/01/12/the-indigenization-of-english-5362739/
►Dayag, Danilo T. (2009). English-language media in the Philippines: Description and research. In M L S Bautista& K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 49–65). Pasig City: Anvil.
Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (2009). A favorable climate and soil: A transplanted language and literature. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 13–27). PasigCity: Anvil.
►Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1996). Philippine English. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippinesociolinguistics (pp 88–92). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Manarpaac, D V S. (2009). “When I was a child I spake as a child”: Reflecting on the limits of a nationalistlanguage policy. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literaryperspectives (pp 87–100). Pasig City: Anvil.
►McArthur, Tom. (2010, November 2010). Philippine English. Concise Oxford companion to the Englishlanguage. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-PHILIPPINEENGLISH.html
►McFarland, Curtis D. (2009). Linguistic diversity and English in the Philippines. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton(Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 131–155). Pasig City: Anvil.
Pascasio, Emy M. (1978). Dynamics of code-switching in the business domain. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings inPhilippine sociolinguistics (pp 76–87). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Tayao, Ma Lourdes G. (2009). A lectal description of the phonological features of Philippine English. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 157–174). PasigCity: Anvil.
►Tupas, Ruanni R F. (2004). The politics of Philippine English: Neocolonialism, global politics, and the problemof postcolonialism. World Englishes 23(1), 47–58.
Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English
Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper
77
References
►Tupas, Ruanni R F. (2009). World Englishes or worlds of English? Pitfalls of a postcolonial discourse inPhilippine English. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literaryperspectives (pp 67–86). Pasig City: Anvil.
Who’s afraid of Philippine English? (11 May 2008). Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/manila-bulletin/mi_7968/is_2008_May_11/whos-afraid-philippine-english/ai_n35373928/
Philippine Sociolinguistics
►Bautista, Ma Lourdes S (Ed.). (1996). Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics. Manila: De La Salle UniversityPress.
Cruz, Isagani R. (2006 December 2). Split-Level Americanization: A Case Study of McDonaldized Philippines. ThePhilippine Star. Retrieved from http://criticplaywright.blogspot.com/2006/12/split-level-americanization-case-study.html
Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1985). Bilingual communities: National/regional profiles and verbal repertoires. In M LS Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 38–60). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Halliday, .M A K. (2009). Written language, standard language, global language (2004). In B B Kachru, Y Kachru,& C L Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (Chapter 20, pp 349–365). West Sussex: BlackwellPublishing Ltd.
Hernandez, Jesus Federico. Descent to the sariling mundo: Untangling the complexities of the language of mentalhealth and illness in Filipino. 2nd International Conference on Filipino as a Global Language. Retrievedfrom http://larc.sdsu.edu/files/2010/03/Hernandez-Descent-to-the-sariling-mundo.pdf
Kachru, Braj B. (2005a). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Kachru, Braj B. (2005b). Constructs of : Anatomy of an encyclopedia. In D T Dayag & J S Quakenbush (Eds.),
Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: Festschrift in honor of Ma Lourdes SBautista (pp 1–13). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Kachru, Barj B, Yamuna Kachru, & Cecil L Nelson (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of world Englishes. West Sussex:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kachru, Yamuna, & Cecil L Nelson (Eds.). (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.
Kachru, Yamuna, & Larry E Smith (Eds.). (2008). Cultures, contexts, and world Englishes. New York: Routledge.Quakenbush, John Stephen. (1989). Conclusion of Language use and proficiency in a multilingual setting: A
sociolinguistic survey of Agutaynen speakers in Palawan, Philippines. In M L S Bautista (Ed.). Readings inPhilippine sociolinguistics (pp 23–37). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Thompson, Roger M. (2003). Filipino English and Taglish: Language switching from multiple perspectives.Amsterdam: J Benjamins Pub.