Philippine Englishes PDF

Asian Englishes ISSN: 1348-8678 (Print) 2331-2548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20 Philippine Englishes Wilkinson Daniel Wong Gonzales To cite this article: Wilkinson Dan...

Asian Englishes ISSN: 1348-8678 (Print) 2331-2548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20 Philippine Englishes Wilkinson Daniel Wong Gonzales To cite this article: Wilkinson Daniel Wong Gonzales (2017) Philippine Englishes, Asian Englishes, 19:1, 79-95, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2016.1274574 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1274574 Published online: 26 Jan 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 37 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reng20 Download by: [NUS National University of Singapore] Date: 02 March 2017, At: 03:00 AsiAn EnglishEs, 2017 VOl. 19, nO. 1, 79–95 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1274574 RESEARCH ARTICLE Philippine Englishes Wilkinson Daniel Wong Gonzales Department of English language and literature, Faculty of Arts and social sciences, national University of singapore, Block As5, singapore ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY After outlining recent developments and surveying various Received 23 september 2016 perspectives, I argue that scholars should adopt the notion of Accepted 16 December 2016 Philippine ‘Englishes’ to acknowledge all substrate-influenced KEYWORDS ‘regional’ (e.g. Iloilo English), social, and hybrid varieties (e.g. language contact; Philippine Hokaglish). Beginning with a brief overview of the current situation, I English; Philippine Englishes; examine literature hinting for the invalidation of a standard Philippine sociolinguistics; variation English, identifying some evidence of variation due to (socio)linguistic factors through a concise survey of local Englishes. The study asserts that the Philippine Englishes model is more encompassing and forward-looking; it also shows some evidence that Philippine English is at the dawn of stage 5 (differentiation) of Schneider’s dynamic model. Although this model might raise more questions, it hopes to challenge researchers to embark on new-wave investigations on local Englishes while encouraging them to utilize existing research and frameworks. Ultimately, what this study hopes to provide is a fresh perspective on the preponderance of literature on Philippine English by introducing the said model. 1. Preliminaries Philippine English is a relatively recent but established field whose renown can be concretely evidenced by the genuine efforts of linguists who have spent many years painstakingly com- piling corpora and conducting various research on them. Without the collective efforts of pioneers such as Bautista (2004a), Philippine English would most likely not have received as much attention on the international stage as it would have locally. It would have just remained an English dialect spoken in the Philippines or as Filipino English, and would most probably not be included as one of the world Englishes if such initiatives were not taken to define its status. Fortunately, the availability of the one-million-word Philippine component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-PH) compiled by Bautista, Lising, and Dayag (1999) has consequently motivated and instigated researchers to partake in vibrant linguistic discourse. Overall, it has contributed to the wealth of scholarship towards the development of Philippine English and has situated it on several prominent frameworks in world Englishes such as Kachru’s (1982, 1985) concentric circles model and Schneider’s CONTACT Wilkinson Daniel Wong gonzales [email protected] © 2017 informa UK limited, trading as Taylor & Francis group 80 W. D. W. GONZALES (2003) dynamic model of World Englishes. The compilation also allowed Bautista (2000) to publish a landmark monograph on the features of a standardized Philippine English, which further instigated research in the field. 2. Philippine English: developments and perspectives Kachruvian theory, in an attempt to illustrate the diffusion of Englishes, situates Philippine English in the outer circle along with other English as second language varieties such as Singapore and Indian English (Kachru, 1982, 1985). These would be unlike American English (AmE), British English, and other English as a native language varieties that are located in the inner circle. On the other hand, Schneider (2003) focused on how Englishes dynamically progress from stage 1 (foundation) to stage 5 (differentiation) as a dialect. He claims that Philippine English is fossilized at stage 3, or nativization, because although it is observed to have ‘deeper inroads’ (2003, p. 260) compared with Hong Kong English at stage 2, it appears to be restricted by language policies promoting a national language – in this case, Filipino. While many agree with the current framing of Philippine English on these theoretical models by substantially contributing to Philippine English research, it was only a matter of time before scholars began to question its position in relation to these frameworks, attempting to redefine the status of Philippine English. Critical of Schneider’s (2003) assertion that Philippine English is at stage 3 or nativ- ization, Borlongan (2016) argues that Philippine English has already reached the dawn of stage 4 or endonormative stabilization. He claims that event X already took place and that the Philippines has already formulated its English language policies without external control. Moreover, Borlongan argues that aside from its acceptance in a private university, Philippine English has already homogenized, making it possible for codification through reference grammars and dictionaries despite evidence of residual linguistic conservatism. Martin (2014b), however, presents a counter-argument, reinforcing Schneider’s (2003) stand that Philippine English is fossilized in stage 3 or nativization by noting the Filipinos’ dis- regard for Philippine English as an identity carrier as opposed to Singapore English. The tendency of educated Filipinos to choose Anglo-American literature compared with those of Philippine origin also forms one of her major rebuttals. Initially oriented towards synchronic studies, the focus of research on Philippine English in recent years appears to be gradually shifting towards diachronic change and variation, probably in an attempt to prove endonormativity. Using the ICE-PH to represent the 1990s and the Philippine parallel to the Brown corpus (Phil-Brown) to represent the 1960s, Collins, Borlongan, and Yao (2014) focused on the use of modals and quasi-modals and how they vary in frequency, genre variation, and semantic differentiation. They discovered that modals in Philippine English across time appear not to follow American nor British English, taking on a trajectory of their own and alluding to a step towards endonormativity. On the other hand, Borlongan and Dita (2015) attempted to diachronically investigate the use of expanded predicates in Philippine English over a three-decade period. They discovered that while there is a significant increase in its use compared with older Englishes (e.g. British English), evidence points to an insignificant increase in the use of expanded predicates in Philippine English within the period. Grounded on the claim that Philippine English is already at stage 4, Borlongan and Dita (2015) explain that such findings which imply residual linguistic conservatism are typical of endonormative stabilization.  ASIAN ENGLISHES 81 Recent studies like those mentioned are an indication that Philippine English is, indeed, developing. However, I believe it would benefit us to take a step back and evaluate the position of Philippine English at this point. It is imperative that we assess whether or not Philippine English is moving along a desirable and sensible trajectory because doing so would prove useful in furthering Philippine English beyond its status as a stage 4 outer circle English. 3. Re-evaluating ‘Philippine English’ and related studies A preponderance of research on Philippine English is so far observed to utilize the ICE-PH primarily due to its streamlined comparability with other ICE components, providing lin- guists attempting to compare it with other Englishes a reasonably credible and parallel counterpart. The ICE-PH, like other components, also has spoken and written data that are further subdivided into smaller genres (e.g. private conversation, academic writing). It is understandably and commonly used by researchers due to its genre representativeness, aside from its easy accessibility and convenience of use with corpus analysis software like AntConc or WordSmith. That it has made synchronic and even diachronic studies like that of Borlongan and Dita (2015), Gonzales and Dita (2016), and Collins et al. (2014) possible can be credited to the availability of such corpora. However, while their potential should not be belittled, the current ICE-PH corpus and the research that utilize it should not be immune to the insistent but valid criticisms. The reliability of the data compiled in ICE-PH is central to my argument involving the redefinition of Philippine English. While it is understandable that the ICE-PH is an attempt to create an initial corpus and that a significant number of linguists are eager to use this novel data source, I maintain that we should reexamine any findings established by current Philippine English data. Perhaps what I would like to point out here is that all conclusions which have been made up to this stage should not be generalized to the whole Philippines, but should only provide a sample of the English spoken in that context. Bautista (2004a), one of the pioneers of Philippine English and one of the compilers of the ICE-PH, notes that the Filipino speakers and writers – the data source of the corpus – only came from the educated ‘acrolectal’ sector, particularly with the college freshmen being the least educated. Although she affirms that no claims can be made about the rep- resentativeness of the data, she notes that the corpus is Manila-centric and has a significant portion of data coming from a private university community through convenience sampling rather than random sampling due to lack of funding and human resources. Moreover, in an earlier paper, Bautista (2000, p. 73) pointed out that the data ‘certainly makes no claims to being representative of the universe of educated Philippine writing and the texts in certain text-types are uneven in quality.’ Just like other ICE-PH-based research on Philippine English such as that of Collins et al. (2014), Borlongan’s (2016) and Martin’s (2014b) arguments for and against the endonorma- tive stabilization of Philippine English seemed to have been formed on the assumption of a general ‘Philippine English.’ Their studies, too, are based on existing ‘Philippine English’ studies. In an excerpt, Martin mentioned that: [i]n terms of linguistic development, innovations in the lexicon [of Philippine English], as well as distinct pronunciation and grammatical features, have been documented. Codifications of PE features, which include a dictionary and several descriptions, have begun to promote the 82 W. D. W. GONZALES variety to its speakers … However, the variety is widely used only among the educated class. (2014b, p. 81) Based on this excerpt alone, her claim suggests what was mentioned earlier – that the fea- tures of ‘Philippine English’ apply to the entire Philippine nation. I hold certain reservations to the assessment I have just made; I am only merely suggesting that the foundation on where their premise is built can be questioned. By generalizing findings based on an unrep- resented ‘Philippine English,’ we could be ignoring other minorities and groups affected by other social factors, indirectly advocating elitism. Perhaps this was an ‘essentializing move’ (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 47); in other words, when Philippine English started, it was nec- essary to have a priori assumptions and preconceived classifications of identity categories because the field was still not that accepted and established. Put succinctly, generalizing different features of English in the Philippines under one banner – Philippine English – is thought to have a positive outcome that would thrust its development because the concept of a local variety of English in the Philippines is not entirely recognized by the Filipinos. Local teachers still taught ‘AmE’ and attempted to hygienize the ‘broken’ English of the locals. Thus, it is possible that scholars have employed these essentializing moves to advocate the emergence of a new local English through standardization even if this entailed ignoring the identities of minorities manifested by possible regional Englishes through erasure (Irvine & Gal, 2000). While such moves were necessary previously, it is now imperative that we underscore the tension between essentializing and non-essentializing again. The success of the Philippine English advocacy should not be an end on its own but a call to non-essentialize the identity of Philippine English. There is a need for a more complex framework and the redefinition of Philippine English. Studies on it can only advance if we understand that this English is fluid and not permanently and rigidly classified. 4. Going beyond Philippine ‘English’ It is surprising that many researchers and much literature have already hinted against a general ‘Philippine English.’ In what may be seen as an attempt to underscore the contrast to Gonzalez’ (1996) essay on a standard Philippine English, Bautista (1996) presents three sub-varieties of Philippine English: Yaya English, bargirl English, and Colegiala English – the explanations and descriptions of which can be found in the following sections. These ‘sub-varieties’ of Philippine English were questioned by Tinio (2013), who criticized that the model offers little by way of explaining how gender and class delineations affect change; put differently, only little analysis has been done to identify the causes in relation to a larger social sphere. Indeed, regardless of the fact that the sub-varieties are apparently skewed to only female participants in limited parts of the Philippines, no substantial efforts were made to investigate the social factors surrounding the sub-variation. Nonetheless, the existence of sub-varieties and some of their distinct ‘grammatical features’ as documented by Bautista (1996) could be considered evidence of deviation from general or Standard Philippine English. Sharing a similar implication would be Tayao’s (2004) seminal study of the phonology of Philippine English where she endeavored to detail the evolution of Philippine English phonology in a three-decade period, veering from only focusing on speakers using one lectal variety. After having surveyed studies on Philippine English phonology before the 2000s  ASIAN ENGLISHES 83 and discussing the complexities using the lectal framework, Tayao conclusively remarked that the: … range of segmental and suprasegmental features in [Philippine English] phonology vary not only geographically (in relation to the first language of [Philippine English] speakers, whether that is Tagalog, Ilokano, Cebuano, etc.), but also socially (in relation to social group membership, occupation, etc.). Thus, future agendas for research in this field should perhaps be concerned not so much with making statements about one ‘standard’ Philippine pronun- ciation, but rather with providing descriptions of a range of accents, differentiated according to geographical and linguistic background as well as according to social-group membership. (2004, p. 86) Tayao’s (2004) intentional use of the ‘lectal’ framework in classifying Philippine English users into basilectal, mesolectal, and acrolectal speakers may be seen as an effort to decentralize Philippine English by considering other social factors such as geography and occupation. Put differently, what her research suggests is paramount to the deconstruction of the cur- rent ‘Philippine English’ framework in that it underscores the importance of non-standard variation in the development of Philippine English. Interestingly, Gonzalez (2004), another pillar of Philippine English, raised the possibility of indigenized varieties from the new Englishes (e.g. Singapore English, Philippine English, etc.) despite the continuing hegemony of post-Imperial English; he provided an exposition of the historical, political, social, and economic factors that have shaped Philippine English. Furthermore, he foresaw almost a decade ago that the number of English speakers in the Philippines would increase due to language policies enforced. Indeed, English has not lost its place in the heart of most Filipinos. The legitimization of English as an official language, integration to the current educational system, and high regard of most Filipinos for English language competence to be globally competitive suggests that English will not make its departure from Philippine society anytime soon. Following Gonzalez’ (2004) hypothesis, the prominent presence of English coupled with existing pro-English and pro-mother tongue language policies could then point to the possibility of English variations forming within from Philippine English itself. 5. Towards Philippine ‘Englishes’ In light of the apparent need for a more comprehensive and encompassing idea, what I would like to propose, then, is the notion of Philippine ‘Englishes’ to include all possible substrate-influenced English varieties (e.g. Philippine Chinese English), socially influenced varieties (e.g. Yaya English), as well as mixed varieties or ‘X-Englishes’ (e.g. Hokaglish). 5.1. Substrate-influenced Englishes 5.1.1. Indigenous-language-based Bolton and Bautista (2004) narrated the history of Philippine English and recounted how the native AmE teachers or ‘Thomasites’ arrived in 1901 and eventually dispersed throughout the islands, teaching Filipino teacher-trainers. English directly taught using AmE standards, then, was the primary source of language input. However, the withdrawal of the United States from the Philippines in 1946, as well as several local language initiatives in the fol- lowing years, may have diluted the ‘standard’ AmE, prompting the emergence of ‘Philippine 84 W. D. W. GONZALES English’ catalyzed by Tagalog-based Filipino and characterized by general ‘Philippine’ fea- tures. It should be noted that, earlier, the Thomasites were not concentrated in one region. It is thus safe to assume that English was not just taught in Manila or Cebu but rather in a relatively large number of regions that cannot be comprehensively pinpointed. The under- lying thesis here is that the apparent dispersion of English across the islands has made it possible for the language to take deep roots in most if not all parts of Philippine society. Consequently, the evolution of English due to factors such as retroactive interference dur- ing language learning, or substrate influence, remains a strong possibility. By retroactive interference, I intend to refer to the situation where the English output of an individual is affected by another previously learned language such as his or her mother tongue(s). With the knowledge that there are 183 documented living languages in the Philippines as of this point, which can be roughly grouped into eight macrolanguages – Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Ilocano, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, Tagalog, and Waray (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2016) – we can assume that this plethora of languages has created an environment conducive to language contact and change. For some reason, these macro-languages can be loosely correlated to specific geographical areas (see Figure 1), and thus these Englishes can also be labeled as ‘regional Englishes,’ although the geographic location or region itself has little to do with the actual transfer of substrate linguistic features to the English. Following Mufwene (2001), the presence of English and one or more local languages in a particular regional language ecology can be analogized to a language being an organism. After the substrate regional languages have contributed to the gene pool or the feature pool, as Mufwene (2001) pointed out, English would select grammatical features from that pool guided by constraints. The proportion of the features belonging to one language compared with another could be explained by Mufwene’s (1996) concept of the founder principle in creole genesis, which can also be used to account for variation in Philippine English. His idea seems to be mainly related to Zelinksy’s (1992) Doctrine of First Effective Settlement, which states that: Whenever an empty territory undergoes settlement, or an earlier population is dislodged by invaders, the specific characteristics of the first group able to effect a viable, self-perpetuating society are of crucial significance to the later social and cultural geography of the area, no matter how tiny the initial band of settlers may have been … in terms of lasting impact, the activities of a few hundred, or even a few score, initial colonizers can mean much more for the cultural geography of a place than the contributions of tens of thousands of new immigrants generations later. (1992, pp. 13–14) Following the founder principle, the English of a region such as Iloilo would have more Hiligaynon or Ilonggo substratum influence or select more Hiligaynon grammatical features compared with Tagalog ones, which probably came later when national language stand- ardization was advocated. In short, the substrate languages native to a regional area largely concern variation of the English in that area as well. Theoretically, this would then suggest that a plethora of Englishes in the Philippines exists due to a large number of languages and dialects in the country (see Figure 1). 5.1.2. Foreign-language-based The idea that Englishes have emerged in non-indigenous diasporic enclaves should also not be dismissed; they deserve as much attention as other more renowned world Englishes. One example would be the English spoken by second-generation or third-generation Korean  ASIAN ENGLISHES 85 Figure 1. Map of major languages in the Philippines. source: Cartogis, College of Asia and the Pacific, and The Australian national University (2016). immigrants, who were raised and educated in the Philippines, allowing for the mastery of two if not three languages (e.g. English, Korean, Tagalog). It is very likely in a contact sit- uation between three languages that the English of second-generation or third-generation Koreans – or Philippine Korean English – might emerge. The selection of non-native substrate feature by speakers using English may also be observed in Chinese communities such as the Binondo and Quezon Chinese enclaves in Metro Manila (Gonzales, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c) or Iznart Street in Iloilo City. Philippine Chinese English would be exclusively used by second-generation to fourth-generation Chinese-speaking individuals as well. The English that they speak – Philippine Chinese 86 W. D. W. GONZALES English – may emerge from the speakers’ linguistic repertoire containing namely English, Tagalog, Hokkien, and Mandarin. As of this point, it is fair to say that these Englishes are only theoretical in nature. Because they were formed in a similar language ecology as the local English, it would be normal for these foreign-language-based Englishes to reflect the local English or Philippine English in general. Although this presents an outstanding challenge for linguists documenting the English, extensive research needs to be done to discover distinctive phonological, grammat- ical, and even paralinguistic features before these can be considered Englishes. Regardless, Englishes such as Philippine Chinese English and Philippine Korean English have already theoretically emerged due to varying intensive contact with local languages. 5.1.3. Evidence Indeed, many scholars have suggested that such regional Englishes exist. Dumdum, Mo, and Mojares (2004), who situated their discussion in the central Philippine context, com- mented on the status of Philippine literature and English in Cebu. They note that Manila is not the sole source of literary creativity in Philippine English and that other regions like Cebu have their history and language which may affect the English that they use. Although the evidence only took form in a conversation, it still serves as a reminder that one has to focus away from Manila and examine the bigger picture. Similar to Tayao (2004), Dumdum et al. (2004) imply the emergence of a local English in the Philippines, particularly Cebu English, complete with its set of idiosyncrasies as opposed to other Philippine Englishes (e.g. Iloilo English). Coincidentally, in his doctoral dissertation Villanueva (2016, p. 242) generally explored the distinctive grammatical features of ‘emerging’ regional varieties of Philippine English; specifically, he investigated a self-compiled corpus of academic essays, theses, and disser- tations collected from universities where local languages, particularly Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, and Hiligaynon, are used and attempted to find innovations in English language use. Although he found no significant differences in relation to mass and count noun inno- vations, he underscored the statistically significant change regarding innovations in prep- osition, article, and verb tense usage. In light of what appears to be the slow emergence of linguistic innovations towards the genesis of Englishes, it is worth noting that the existence of many languages (e.g. Cebuano) in the Philippines differentiates Philippine English from other world Englishes in relation to the geographical factors. While the possibility of ‘American Englishes’ due to other factors theoretically exists, the cause of the change would most likely not be ascribed to the diversity of mutually intelligible and unintelligible substrate languages. Unlike other Englishes, it would appear that the case of Philippine English is unique in that further subclassifications by substrate English as a native language or geography may be plausible. 5.2. Social Englishes 5.2.1. Lectal Englishes Llamzon (1997) is considered the pioneer in adopting the lectal framework in Philippine English. In his study of its phonology, Llamzon notes that although Philippine English is derived historically from AmE, Filipinos ‘rarely conform’ to its norms in all settings (Tayao, 2004, p. 80), which somehow encouraged the stratification of lects.  ASIAN ENGLISHES 87 The first – the acrolect English – would be an English that is closest and more similar to AmE which is spoken by media personalities, lectors, ministers, and English majors (Tayao, 2004). Filipinos who speak the acrolect variety tend to enunciate vowels and consonants that mostly resemble AmE phonology (Llamzon, 1997). The mesolect variety, on the other hand, is spoken by celebrities, government officials, academia, and the mass media. Tayao (2004) characterizes mesolectal speakers as individuals who use the language extensively, such as in the workplace. This variety is considered an intermediate type in the lectal con- tinuum, with the acrolectal variety on one end and the basilectal variety on the other. The latter variety, according to Tayao and Llamzon, is utilized by speakers who have limited command of the English language that is usually spoken by non-professionals (e.g. janitors). Overall, what distinguishes an English from being of an acrolectal, mesolectal, or basilectal variety is the speaker’s frequency of Philippine English use in various domains as well as the preference for the language in writing, reading, and watching movies, among many other activities (Tayao, 2004). What also matters in determining what English a speaker is inclined to speak is the linguistic input he or she receives. Putting it all together, a speaker’s lectal English may be identified as such – the more English input and output an individual receives, and the higher the person’s preference for the English language in daily activities, the more acrolectal his or her English are in the lectal continuum. 5.2.2. Occupation-based Englishes Apart from different lectal Englishes, there is some evidence showing that an individual’s English may vary across different professions and occupations. Mentioned earlier, Bautista (1996) studied three kinds of English sub-varieties, or Englishes, which also happen to be the speech of women. Yaya English or nanny English would refer to the ‘unschooled’ English variety spoken by a usually young female maid taking care of either children or elderly people (Bautista, 1982, p. 378, 1996). On the other hand, Bargirl English points to the English of female employees in red-light district bars precisely situated in the periphery of Clark and Subic airbases, as opposed to bars in general. This English contrasts Colegiala (or college girl) English, which concerns the English of female girls educated in convent schools; this English sub-variety appears to be indicative of social class rather than a reflection of a desire to receive religious training. I do not want to dwell at length in the interest of brevity, but all of these Englishes also coincidentally happen to be correlated to the occupation of the speakers – that is, the Englishes of nannies, bargirls, and female college students. 5.2.3. Fractalization in Social Englishes Another argument for the Philippine Englishes model would be associated with Irvine and Gal’s (2000) idea of fractal recursivity, which is roughly defined as the projection of an opposition salient at one level onto some other level. The dichotomizing and partitioning process, in other words, would also be observable at other levels, creating subcategories on each side of contrast or supercategories that include both contrasts but oppose them to some other category (Irvine & Gal, 2000). In Philippine society, the stratification – more particularly the educational level (Martin, 2014a), lectal differences, the conflict between rich and the poor, as well as the difference between provincial and urban – contributes to this so-called recursivity. Such an idea does 88 W. D. W. GONZALES not define fixed groups and Englishes but attempts to thrust the notion of shifting Englishes at different levels of contrast depending on the culture and society. For example, basilectal Philippine English can be further divided into upper and lower basilectal, which can be further classified into provincial upper basilectal or urban upper basilectal. It is also worth noting that social factors also account for the further expansion of these already seemingly fine categories. The English used by a Filipina tindera or stall vendor would most likely be different from the English spoken by a middle-class Filipina businesswoman. At the same time, the Philippine English spoken by Filipino-Chinese could be distinct from the English spoken by Filipino-Koreans or ‘pure’ Filipinos. In an extreme case, for example, it is most likely that an ‘urban upper acrolectal Binondo Manila Philippine Chinese Business English’ exists. Perhaps, a major reason why Englishes like this are not studied is the assumption that no significant variation can be observed. However, I posit that little as the difference may be, these English varieties are worth analyzing and describing linguistically. 5.3. Hybrid Englishes Until recently, speakers conforming to what is ‘standard’ and ‘proper’ has been of central importance, resulting in the pressure of speaking a ‘pure’ English that is free of mixing (Schneider, 2016). Nonetheless, contemporary Englishes, or postcolonial Englishes and world Englishes, have begun to receive burgeoning scholarly attention in recent years. Schneider (2016, p. 340) notes that modern Englishes are ‘far from being “pure” any longer’ and mentions that these Englishes show a broad range of transfer from the indigenous lan- guages, resulting in the mixing of codes. McLellan (2010) even argues that world Englishes are in fact code-mixed varieties. As such, Schnieder (2016) remarks that English is not only merely limited to varieties, but is now a globally available resource. In the familiar words of Abad (1997, p. 170), ‘English is now ours. We have colonized it, too.’ The future of world Englishes is no longer associated with just ‘unadulterated’ English varieties, but also extends to fluidly mixed or ‘codemeshed’ Englishes as well (Canagarajah, 2013, p. 15). These types are referred to as hybrid Englishes or ‘X-Englishes’ by Schneider (2016, p. 341), referring to the naming formula that labels these Englishes (e.g. Singlish, Hinglish, etc.). He continues by saying that the denotations of these codemeshed Englishes are not equal in standing because they denote heavy lexical borrowing from English into the local language. Interestingly, such mixed Englishes exist in the Philippines. In the following sections, I name three relatively established mixed languages or X-Englishes – Taglish, Conyo English, and Hokaglish. 5.3.1. Taglish Taglish, a mixed language involving Tagalog and English, has received considerable schol- arly attention in recent years; it has been enriched by the influential works of scholars such as Bautista (2004b) and Thompson (2003). Taglish occurs widely in both oral and written forms in media, sports commentary, commercials, tabloids, as well as informal talk and classrooms, among many others (Schneider, 2016). Moreover, Taglish can also be utilized in electronic platforms such as text and app messaging apart from blogs and other chats. What follows is from one of Bautista’s (2004b) Taglish examples: (1) A: Has anybody ever tried to, you know, bribe you into silence?  ASIAN ENGLISHES 89 B: Bribery is such a ticklish subject. Pag nagsalita ka [when you talk about it], they’d say ‘Ay naku [Oh gosh], she’s trying to be holier than thou.’ But the network is very strict about it. A: What about partiality, you know …? Bautista (2004b) notes that Taglish is exclusive to the middle and upper classes because it reflects their expertise in both Tagalog and English. She contrasts it with Singlish or Singapore Colloquial English, which is the basilectal variety of Standard Singapore English. Like Singlish, Taglish is widely used, accepted, and even encouraged by peers although it still seems to have some lingering stigma attached to it (Thompson, 2003). 5.3.2. Conyo English One of the more recent Philippine Englishes is Conyo English, as coined by Borlongan (2015). During the period of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, the term conyo has two meanings: cunt from the Spanish word coño; and an interjection referring to a Spaniard (Garvida, 2012). Through the years, the Filipinos began to associate this term with upper- class people of fair skin living in an exclusive neighborhood; eventually, they began to identify the term conyo with the language spoken by these privileged fair-skinned people, attaching it to anyone who speaks a corrupted English with Tagalog or Spanish words. Such identification established Conyo English, which is defined by Borlongan (2015) as a Philippine English sociolect or a type of codeswitching between English and Tagalog that is associated with upper-class people of the Philippine society. For Borlongan, Conyo English is characterized by a less smooth switching between the languages, unlike Taglish which is probably more accepted in Philippine society because Conyo English is considered playful and exaggerated. Garvida (2012, p. 32) identifies the use of it as a way to show others that they are ‘privileged socially and economically.’ Noting that the use of Conyo English may be attributed to their deprivation of the Spanish language in colonial times, she pointed out that it helped some Filipinos, particularly those of higher economic status, to create an iden- tity for themselves to distinguish themselves from the lower-class Tagalog-only speakers. Borlongan (2015) notes the grammatical features of Conyo English. On the phonolog- ical level, he mentioned that the phonology of the acrolectal variety seems to have been transferred to Tagalog switches and that the intonation and stress are largely Tagalog. On the syntactic level, he notes that the word ‘make’ may be attached to a Tagalog equivalent of a low-frequency English word – see the following example: (2) Can you make tusok – tusok to the fishball? Can you make skewer – skewer to the fishball? ‘Can you skewer the fishball?’ Presently, the attitudes towards the use of Conyo English appear to be multifaceted; it is derogatory for most Filipinos who think that those who use it are pretentious, while for those who use it Conyo English has a positive connotation because they can use it to estab- lish rapport with people of the same economic status. For linguists, this Philippine hybrid X-English provides many opportunities for vibrant discourse. 5.3.3. Hokaglish Another hybrid X-English is Hokaglish, which is also popularly known as Salamtsam- oe (loosely translated from Hokkien as ‘mix-mix’). Documented by Gonzales (2016a, 2016b, 2016c), Hokaglish is considered a mixed language that essentially involves three 90 W. D. W. GONZALES languages – Hokkien, Tagalog, and English. It is also likely that Spanish, Mandarin, and Cantonese play a part in the formation of Hokaglish, as observed in the history of the Philippine language ecology (Chu, 2010; Tan, 1993). Gonzales (2016a, 2016b) notes that Hokaglish is used in five primary domains: restaurants, houses, academic institutions, reli- gious institutions, and telephone calls. However, it is likely that the use of the language would depend more on the interlocutor rather than the domain. An example from Gonzales’ data bank is shown as follows: (3) A: A ni ba? [Like that?] B: Di u hoat thang boe [You can buy] fifty percent a. From the soya milk you can earn fifty percent per bottle. A: Than siami a? [How much would you earn?] B: You sell it for twenty pesos. From this, it would appear that Hokaglish is a hybrid X-English. Schneider clarifies this and further notes that it might differ from other X-Englishes in the degree and amount of mixing involved (E. Schneider, personal communication, December 12, 2016). Indeed, Hokaglish can be distinguished from Singlish and other X-Englishes in that it has relatively small English mixing (Gonzales, 2016b), probably due to English’s relatively late entrance into the language ecology or arena of the Philippines, unlike Tagalog. Furthermore, Hokaglish appears to be unlike Taglish in that it appears to be stigmatized among Chinese community members despite widespread use. 6. Potential criticisms Up to this point, I have briefly but concisely surveyed the different Englishes in the Philippines, illustrating that such Englishes formed by various factors do exist. While this may be insightful, the suggested need to adopt an extended Philippine English model – the Philippine ‘Englishes’ model – as well as future prospective work based on this notion may be dampened by Bautista’s (1996) findings. She notes that the features in Yaya, Bargirl, and Colegiala English are insignificantly different from the ‘standard’ Philippine English. What may also shadow future work is the relatively unremarkable difference across four local varieties of Philippine English or Englishes in some grammatical aspects as pointed out by Villanueva (2016). Nevertheless, apart from notable innovations in preposition and tense usage, Villanueva (2016) has also noted that his study only focused on ‘acrolectal’ varieties like Bautista (2000, 2004a) and most researchers on Philippine English up to this point. A long time has also passed since Bautista’s (1996) study. Many more recent studies and scholars have indirectly, if not directly, signaled that we embark on studies which focus on variation within the country, to support endonormativity and possibly the differentiation of Philippine English as a distinct variety. As of this point, I have already argued that we should redefine ‘Philippine English’ to include other ‘regional,’ social, and hybrid varieties; I also suggested that we should take steps in realizing new-wave studies in Philippine ‘Englishes.’ However, this is not to say that we should abandon inquiries and investigations on ‘Philippine English’ altogether because to discredit all research done by linguists is to consequently render Philippine English and  ASIAN ENGLISHES 91 all its developments up to this point useless. It ultimately suggests that we have to start from the very beginning again to address the supposed ‘regression.’ Doing this would be an utter waste of time; it is also not the objective of this article. Thus, a probing of more favorable solutions that would not require the complete abandonment of existing research on ‘Philippine English’ would be beneficial for Philippine English and its foreseeable future. In light of this, I propose that we reconcile existing research in Philippine English, tak- ing steps to clarify if not redefine vague concepts as well as amalgamate existing theories related to it. For instance, researchers attempting to acknowledge existing studies utilizing ICE-PH as their primary data source may want to relabel 'Philippine English' data as 'Manila English' data, because it is, as Bautista (2004a, p. 22) claims, ‘Manila-centric,’ and continue interpreting Manila English data only within the context of Manila. However, it should be noted that we should not abandon the use of the term ‘Philippine English,’ because it refers to the collective varieties or Englishes in the Philippines in general. On the other hand, we can use existing localized models or frameworks to support the notion of Philippine ‘Englishes.’ Martin’s (2014a) concentric circles model, an offshoot of Kachru’s (1982, 1985) model, is particularly useful for detailing the lectal differences within each Philippine English. Adopting her model, Manila English itself would have three circles of English. That is, it would have an inner circle pertaining to the educated class’ usage of English, an outer circle referring to people in conflict of whether or not to use the somehow superior Anglo-American norms or the deemed deficient local variety, and the expanding circle for people who think that using English is a ‘painful, humiliating experience’ (Martin, 2014a, p. 56). Alternatively, Tupas and Salonga (2016) introduced the concept of unequal Englishes to illustrate the differing ideologies that surround the particular use of an English. That is, the English which one uses may be seen both positively and negatively in compar- ison with another English. This inequality of Englishes may play an interesting role in the context of Philippine Englishes, as it can be foreseen to apply to various (socio)linguistic research studies. For example, speakers of Iloilo English may perceive their English to be superior compared with Manila English possibly due to the no-‘dialect’ language policies enforced in some schools or due to other factors. At the same time, they may feel inferior to the seemingly superior Manila English or other ‘standard’ Englishes. Evidently, both Tupas and Salonga’s (2016) and Martin’s (2014a) models are beneficial in supplying us with novel insights and another perspective of Philippine English in general. It would be interesting to see how research in Philippine English would progress if these models were to be incorporated into future studies on Philippine Englishes. What would be more fascinating is if these new-wave studies (see Villanueva, 2016) can look into the relation of language and the social sphere as Tinio (2013), Bolton and Bautista (2004), and Tayao (2004) pointed out in proto-Philippine Englishes studies (i.e. Yaya English); that is, if more investigations into the relationship between social factors and the basis for the variation of the local Englishes can be made. 7. Conclusion The conceptualization of Philippine ‘Englishes’ from Philippine English adds a further ripple to the wave that has been rising around the projection of sociolinguistics, English linguistics, and, more specifically, contact linguistics. Earlier in this article I began to introduce this theory by first presenting a brief overview of current developments in Philippine English, 92 W. D. W. GONZALES pointing out recent local research oriented by influential models such as Kachru’s (1982, 1985) concentric circles and Schneider’s (2003) dynamic model. I also underscored the debate between exonormative and endonormative stabilization. What followed then was my call for a reevaluation of the foundation upon which discourse on Philippine English was built up to this point. Put differently, I suggested that generalizing findings based on an unrepresentative ‘Philippine English’ without the inclusion of ignoring other minorities and groups affected by other social factors could imply an indirect advocacy for Manila imperialism or elitism. After highlighting the indispensable role of English in a multilingual society and pre- senting evidence of (sub)varieties within Philippine English itself (e.g. Colegiala English, basilectal English), I hypothesized that more distinct local varieties of English can be observed despite earlier suggestions of a homogeneous and ‘standardized’ Philippine English across the country. Departing from findings of a survey of literature on substrate-influ- enced regional, social, and hybrid varieties, my hypothesis then led to a proposal that we move beyond standardized Philippine English towards Philippine Englishes, bearing in mind that existing studies and theories on Philippine English should not be discred- ited but instead should complement the central thesis of this article; that is, to recognize Philippine ‘Englishes’ and embark on future (socio)linguistic studies thereof for the benefit of Philippine English as a whole. Although the impact this has on Philippine English and its development remains to be seen, it would be fruitful to begin investigative work while placing importance on the social aspect of change and undertaking investigations encompassing less known and understudied varieties, just as Tupas (2004) and other scholars suggested. A possible starting point would be to study major Philippine Englishes based on the eight local macro-languages, which Villanueva (2016) has already laid the groundwork for. Then, after these are well examined, more in-depth explorations on socially influenced local variations across genres and writ- ten and spoken domains can be pursued to ‘safeguard against the danger of idiolectal bias’ (Collins, 1991, p. 181–197). But then this article raises more important questions in the advancement of Philippine English and its Englishes. What does this have to say in relation to current linguistic the- ories? Although some changes such as phonology and some grammatical features may be observed (Tayao, 2004; Villanueva, 2016), are there notable idiosyncrasies among the local Englishes regarding syntax, semantics, and morphology? If so, to what degree? Is the vari- ation due to linguistic factors, social factors, or both? What are the (socio)linguistic factors that could prompt the variation among the Philippine Englishes? While this article does not offer conclusive answers to the aforementioned questions, it does, however, attempt to provide a general perspective that can be used as a starting point to catalyze the further development of Philippine English on the local and global stages. In relation to the debate between the exonormativity and endonormativity of Philippine English, the establishment of the Philippine Englishes model would suggest that Philippine English is moving towards stage 5, or differentiation, of Schneider’s (2003) model, instead of stage 3 as argued by Martin (2014b) or stage 4 proposed by Borlongan (2016). Dialect birth, as evidenced by the emergence of many possible Philippine Englishes, would bring Philippine English to the fifth and final stage of Schneider’s dynamic model. Another main parameter of stage 5 would be the construction of the identity of communities along ethnic lines to the point that it becomes a source of identity and ethnic pride. Borlongan (2009)  ASIAN ENGLISHES 93 conducted an attitude survey on Philippine English and concluded that English might rep- resent Filipino identity. Also, a year ago, I personally witnessed some Ilonggo friends noting that the English spoken by Ilonggos is much better than the ones spoken in Manila. They claim that their English is enunciated clearer and are thus proud that they are raised with such an English. Moreover, Schneider (2003) points out that stage 5 does not entail complete monolingualism; he notes that it is possible to have co-existing indigenous languages along with the English spoken, just like the case of Australia or New Zealand. Apparently, the Philippines matches this profile. English is spoken alongside Tagalog and other peripheral languages. If we take these arguments into account, they will propel Philippine English beyond stage 4. However, some prerequisites have not yet been fulfilled. Schneider (2003) notes that one of the primary requirements of stage 5 would be the political, cultural, and linguistic independence from principal external sources of power and orientation that would imply the futility of the need to compare one’s English with another. There is evidence that the Philippines is already a ‘stable young nation’ (Schneider, 2003, p. 255) and independent. However, it would be fallacious to conclude that the nation is independent in all aspects. Although it may appear that the Philippines is politically independent, culturally Filipinos still tend to regard Caucasians like their American ‘allies’ highly. Their subconscious pref- erence for non-indigenous music and products, among many others, could ostensibly point to the fact that they are not yet fully independent. Linguistically, there remains some conservatism (Borlongan, 2016) and comparison. Nevertheless, despite not meeting some parameters of stage 5, most evidence of fulfilling this indicates that Philippine English is at the dawn of the final stage of Schneider’s model. As implied, the notion of Philippine ‘Englishes’ is apparently a theory as of this point; I have only scratched the surface. More evidence and documentation must be gathered and interpreted for it to become more coherent and established. What one can only expect of this article is to show that this theory has ample explanatory power to make it worth testing. Whether or not the theory gets validated, it will have succeeded in advancing, if not re-de- fining, Philippine English – ultimately determining its trajectory in the future. At the very least, this discussion of Philippine Englishes should prompt linguists, local and international, to reevaluate the underlying foundations of their discipline, apart from being open to the limitless possibilities their new research findings might entail in light of changing times. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. ORCID Wilkinson Daniel Wong Gonzales http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6073-256X References Abad, G. (1997). Standards in Philippine English: The writers’ forum. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language (pp. 163–176). Sydney, Australia: The Macquarie Library Pty. Ltd. Bautista, M. L. S. (1982). Yaya English. Philippine Studies, 30, 377–394. 94 W. D. W. GONZALES Bautista, M. L. S. (1996). Notes on three sub-varieties of Philippine English. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp. 93–101). Manila, the Philippines: De La Salle University Press. Bautista, M. L. S. (2000). Defining standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features. Manila, the Philippines: De La Salle University Press. Bautista, M. L. S. (2004a). An overview of the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-PHI). Asian Englishes, 7, 8–26. Bautista, M. L. S. (2004b). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5, 226–233. Bautista, M. L. S., Lising, J. L. V., & Dayag, D. T. (1999). Philippine English data for the International Corpus of English project. Manila, the Philippines: University Research Coordination Office, De La Salle University. Bolton, K., & Bautista, M. L. S. (2004). Philippine English: Tensions and transitions. World Englishes, 23(1), 1–5. Borlongan, A. M. (2009). A survey on language use, attitudes, and identity in relation to Philippine English among young generation Filipinos: An initial sample from a private university. Philippine ESL Journal, 3, 74–107. Borlongan, A. M. (2015, October). Conyo English: Explorations of Philippine English sociolects. In D. Salazar (Chair), Contemporary studies of Philippine English. Symposium convened at the 21st Conference of the International Association for World Englishes, Istanbul, Turkey. Borlongan, A. M. (2016). Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. Asian Englishes, 18, 232–241. Borlongan, A. M., & Dita, S. N. (2015). Taking a look at expanded predicates in Philippine English across time. Asian Englishes, 17, 240–247. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society, 33, 469–515. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London, the United Kingdom: Routledge. CartoGIS, College of Asia and the Pacific, & The Australian National University. (2016). Philippine languages. Retrieved from http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/ Chu, R. T. (2010). Chinese and Chinese mestizos of Manila. Leiden, the Netherlands & Boston, MA: Brill. Collins, P. (1991). Will and Shall in Australian English. In S. Johansson & A. B. Stenstrom (Eds.), English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide (pp. 181–197). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Collins, P., Borlongan, A. M., & Yao, X. Y. (2014). Modality in Philippine English: A diachronic study. Journal of English Linguistics, 42, 68–88. Dumdum, S., Mo, T., & Mojares, R. (2004). In conversation: Cebuano writers on Philippine literature and English. World Englishes, 23, 191–198. Garvida, M. M. (2012). “Conyo talk”: The Affirmation of hybrid identity and power in contemporary Philippine discourse. Lingue e Linguaggi, 8, 23–34. Gonzales, W. D. W. (2016a, May). Exploring trilingual code-switching: The case of ‘Hokaglish’. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Manila, the Philippines. Gonzales, W. D. W. (2016b). Trilingual code-switching using quantitative lenses: An exploratory study on Hokaglish. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 47, 106–128. Gonzales, W. D. W. (2016c, November). The language ecology of post-colonial Manila and Hokaglish. Paper presented at the English Language and Literature Research Day, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Gonzales, W. D. W., & Dita, S. N. (2016, June). On split-infinitives in World Englishes. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference of the Asian Association for Lexicography, Century Park Hotel, Manila, the Philippines. Gonzalez, A. (1996). Philippine English. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp. 88–92). Manila, the Philippines: De La Salle University Press.  ASIAN ENGLISHES 95 Gonzalez, A. (2004). The social dimensions of Philippine English. World Englishes, 23, 7–16. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Kachru, B. B. (1982). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue (pp. 31–57). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge, the United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, M., Simons, G., & Fennig, C. (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, nineteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Llamzon, T. A. (1997). The phonology of Philippine English. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context (pp. 41–48). Sydney: The Macquarie Library Pty. Ltd. Martin, I. P. (2014a). Philippine English revisited. World Englishes, 33, 50–59. Martin, I. P. (2014b). Beyond nativization? Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. In S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffman, M. Huber, & A. Kautzsch (Eds.), The evolution of Englishes: The dynamic model and beyond (pp. 70–85). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. McLellan, J. (2010). Mixed codes or varieties of English? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 425–441). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge. Mufwene, S. (1996). The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica, 8, 83–134. Mufwene, S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge, the United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, E. (2003). The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79, 233–281. Schneider, E. (2016). Hybrid Englishes: An exploratory survey. World Englishes, 35, 339–354. Tan, S. V. (1993). The education of Chinese in the Philippines and Koreans in Japan (Unpublished thesis). University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China. Tayao, M. L. G. (2004). The evolving study of Philippine English phonology. World Englishes, 23, 77–90. Thompson, R. M. (2003). Filipino English and Taglish: Language switching from multiple perspectives. Amsterdam, the Netherlands & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Tinio, M. T. (2013). Nimble tongues: Philippine English and the feminization of labour. In L. Wee, R. B. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.), The politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific (pp. 205–224). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Tupas, T. R. (2004). The politics of Philippine English: Neocolonialism, global politics, and the problem of postcolonialism. World Englishes, 23, 47–58. Tupas, T. R., & Salonga, A. (2016). Unequal Englishes in the Philippines. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20, 367–381. Villanueva, R. J. C. (2016). The features of Philippine English across regions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines. Zelinksy, W. (1992). The cultural geography of the United States: A revised edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.