The intellectualization of Filipino

BON IFACIO P. SIBAYAN

Introduction

The education of the Filipino people in the schools has been carried out
mainly through two foreign languages: Spanish during the seventeenth,
eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries and English in the twentieth Century.
It is therefore understandable that practically all the important intellectual
achievements of the Filipino have been accomplished through Spanish
and English. While the formation of a national language started in 1935
with the Constitution, it was only after World War II that the movement
to educate Filipinos in their native languages and in Filipino gained
urgency.
While many thoughtful Filipinos see the importance and value of
English in their national life, these same Filipinos realize that it will not
be the main language of the people because quality education in English
can be acquired only in higher education; the majority of Filipinos will
be denied the English language. There must be a language that will be
good for the people, especially the majority. That language is Filipino.
The change in the expectations of the Filipino people on the Status,
role, and function of Filipino is quite amazing. It started äs a dream in
1935; the national language was intended to function äs a common
national language of all Filipinos. It had no name in the beginning and
was simply referred to for 21 years (1937-1958) äs 'national language'.
It was introduced äs a school subject in fourth-year high school and
senior year of teacher-education courses in 1940 and a subject in all
schools by 1946. It was named Filipino in 1959 by the Secretary of
Education (and not by an act of Congress) to distinguish it from its
Tagalog base and to give it national identity. The Department of Educa-
tion and Culture declared Filipino äs the 'coequaF of English in a bilin-
gual-education program äs medium of instruction in subjects other than
science and mathematics in all schools and universities in 1974. Earlier,
the 1973 Constitution declared Filipino äs an official language but not

0165-2516/91/0088-0069 $2.00 Int'l J. Soc. Lang. 88 (1991), pp. 69-82

© Walter de Gruyter
Brought to you by | University of California
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
70 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
the national language of the Philippines, making the Philippines quite
unique äs a nation which lost a national language (see Sibayan 1986 for
the account of this loss). In 1987 the Constitution simply declared Filipino
(spelled with an F) the national language of the Philippines. Beginning
in the academic year 1989-1990, the leading university of the country,
the state-financed University of the Philippines, started a five-year pro-
gram to make Filipino the main language of instruction, replacing
English.

Filipino and the controlling domains of language

Declaring Filipino äs coequal in the education of Filipinos through an

order and effectively educating them in that language are two different
things, however. The process has been beset by many difficulties, some
of them seemingly almost insurmountable. For example, replacing Eng-
lish with Filipino in the domain of education especially in higher educa-
tion has been met with indifference if not totally ignored in most Colleges
and universities (Segovia 1988a). The contribution of scholarly societies
to the intellectualization of Filipino is not great either. Of 48 scholarly
societies, only five have their writings regularly published in Filipino; the
rest use English in their scholarly writings (Segovia 1988b). An executive
order in August, 1988, issued by the President of the Philippines encourag-
ing the use of Filipino in government correspondence was met with
hostility in a number of native non-Tagalog-speaking places and ignored
by the bureaucracy.
The problems of Filipino revolve around those of language replacement
of an intellectually modernized language, English, in the controlling
domains of language, by a still-to-be-intellectually-modernized language,
Filipino, a language which many Filipinos consider in its present state of
development äs inadequate for the purpose of intellectual modernization
(see Sibayan 1967; Otanes and Sibayan 1969; Sibayan 1974, 1985b; Gon-
zalez and Sibayan 1988).
It is this perceived inadequacy of Filipino and the efforts of Filipinos
to make it adequate äs the language to take over in what I have called
the controlling domains of language (that is, the domains that dictate
what language to learn and aspire for, because that language is the
effective working language in the domain, namely, those of government
administration, legislation, the judiciary and the law, business, commerce,
industry, science and technology, the professions, media, and education
on all levels) that will be the main problem in the development of Filipino.
The solution to this problem revolves around Havranek's ooncept of the

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
 The intellectualization of Filipino 71
intellectualization of a language, quoted and elucidated by Garvin and
Mathiot (1968), Ferguson's (1968) modernization, and Haugen's (1972)
cultivation, concepts which we shall extend and elaborate on under the
cover term intellectualization.
The work of Filipinos in intellectualization has been concentrated on
the development of Filipino äs a medium of instruction on all levels of
education from the first grade to the university. It is the intellectualization
of Filipino in the education domain that will be the main concern in this
essay (see Alisjahbana 1969; Omar 1981).

The development of language

Of the three aspects or phases in language development suggested by

Ferguson, namely, graphization — reduction to writing, standardiza-
tion — the development of a norm which overrides original and social
dialects, and modernization — the development of intertranslatability
with other languages in a ränge of topics and forms of discourse character-
istic of industrialized, secularized, structurally differentiated modern soci-
eties (Ferguson 1968: 28-29), the most crucial and difficult phase in the
development of Filipino is that of modernization.
While the reduction to writing of Filipino, especially intellectualized
Filipino, up to the present is still not settled and the letters of the alphabet
and the orthography especially of borrowed words still have to be stan-
dardized, the problem of graphization is on the way to being solved.
With regard to standardization in Ferguson's sense, a norm of spoken
Filipino, the variety spoken in Metro Manila, sometimes referred to äs
the Manila lingua franca, a variety that masks the ethnic language back-
ground of non-native Speakers of Tagalog and that of the dialect of native
Speakers of Tagalog outside the Manila area (for example those of Laguna
and Batangas, two Tagalog-speaking provinces), is now accepted äs the
spoken norm and is becoming the prestige variety of Filipino.
A language may be modern or modernized but not intellectualized.
The Filipino used in entertainment, for example, in most programs on
TV is modern but not intellectualized. The Filipino of the home and
everyday life is modernized but is obviously not adequate for education,
especially for higher-education purposes. The Filipino used in Filipino
tabloid newspapers and other publications intended for populär consump-
tion is modern but not intellectualized in the sense we use the term in
this paper. The modernized Filipino of entertainment and the home and
everyday life and Filipino used in daily newspapers and magazines circu-

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
72 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
lated among the people may be called a popularly modernized language
(PML).
Filipino to be considered thoroughly intellectualized must be developed
for use in the controlling domains of language. These are the domains
that use the kind of Filipino that may be learned only in schools and
universities. We will call this an intellectually modernized language (IML)
in contrast to a popularly modernized language. An IML is the kind of
language that makes possible intertranslatability with other IMLs on a
ränge of topics and forms of discourse, to borrow Ferguson's words.
Populär modernization generally precedes intellectual modernization.
However, an IML depends upon a mass base for its growth. That base
is PML. A PML has more users. The larger the Community of PML users
is, the bigger the source for the IML, because there would be more people
who would aspire to join those using the IML. There may be a period
or point, however, when PM and IM growth may occur simultaneously,
a Situation considered ideal.
A language may be intellectually modernized but if it is possessed by
only a tiny upper elite and if it has no mass base that possesses a PM
version from which to draw future IM users, it will die; the classic example
is Latin. This is also the case of Spanish in the Philippines. Spanish was
withheld from the common people during the Spanish regime so that
fewer than 3 percent of the adult population had command of the Spanish
language at the end of Spanish rule in 1898. Only a tiny elite possessed
IM Spanish in five language domains, namely, government administra-
tion, legislation, the judiciary, higher education, and the professions.
There was no PM base for Spanish. In contrast, a PM English rapidly
spread among the common people, and äs the number of those who
possessed IM English increased, the fate of intellectualized Spanish was
predictable: abandonment and 'death'.
It is worth noting, however, that it took English and Filipino 90 years
(1898-1988) to completely replace Spanish in the domain of higher educa-
tion. This fact has important implications for the replacement of English
by Filipino.

People and language intellectualize each other

The development of a language and the development of a people are

interrelated. A language does not develop by itself; it is the people who
develop a language. In turn, a developed language, one highly intellectu-
ally modernized, is needed in educating and developing a people; the
relationship is reciprocal: the people develop the language which in turn

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
 The intellectualization of Filipino 73
is needed by the people to develop themselves. A good example of this
reciprocal relationship is the case of English and the Filipino people. This
is the best argument for the use of Filipino in education and other
language domains.
When English was introduced in the Philippines in 1898, there was no
Filipino English-speaking Community. By 1935, in the short span of 37
years, English was the main language used in the controlling domains of
government administration (the bureaucracy), legislation, the judiciary,
business, commerce and industry, education from the primary grades to
the university, the important professions, science and technology, and
the mass media. Popularly modernized and intellectually modernized
English had taken hold of the Filipino. English had become the language
of aspiration, prestige, and power.
This amazing accomplishment was mainly the work of Filipinos who
had become educated through the English language. One of the best
proofs of the ability of the Filipino in the use of intellectualized English
was the establishment of the National Research Council of the Philippines
in 1933. The members of this organization were scientists and other
scholars who wrote in English. The Council, renamed Philippine National
Science Society in 1987, now has several thousand members.
When English was introduced in the Philippines, it was already an
intellectualized language. It was the Filipinos who had to be intellectual-
ized in it. Teaching the Filipino people through it was accomplished by
declaring it äs the sole medium of instruction in the schools and the
language of government. Fortunately, English is a flexible language; it
accommodated many vocabulary items and expressions to take care of
Philippine realities.
What Filipinos did with English and what English did for Filipinos, a
small but growing number of thinking Filipinos, especially those with
nationalistic inclinations, want to duplicate with the use of Filipino.

Intertranslatability, a state of intellectualization

The chief characteristic of a modernized language according to Ferguson

is intertranslatability. We see two types (processes) of intertranslatability,
the two-way type and the one-way type. The two-way type involves IMLs,
languages used in research and the publication of new knowledge, for
example, English, German, French, and Russian. It is relatively 'easy' to
translate an intellectual work from English to German, French, or Rus-
sian, or vice versa.
In the case of Filipino, translation äs a process of intellectualization is

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
74 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
one way. Works in IMLs may be, and often are, translated into Filipino
but not vice versa. There is practically no work in Filipino that needs to
be translated into the highly intellectually modernized languages of wider
communication (IMLWC). The intellectualization of Filipino must de-
pend heavily on a source language that is an IMLWC. That source
language is English.
Because Filipino will depend for its intellectualization mainly upon
scholarly works in English and those educated in English, the quantity
and quality of knowledge to be made available in Filipino will depend
upon the state of knowledge in English possessed by Filipino scholars
and writers. The intellectualization of Filipino will depend upon bilingual
scholars. Even the ordinary teacher in Filipino has to be a good bilingual.
The Student has to be bilingual in English and Filipino. Quite obviously
a monolingually educated person in Filipino will have very limited access
to past and current world knowledge available in English or other IMLs.
The writing of scholarly works and the breaking down into 'suitable
chunks' of subject matter for allocation to various levels of the educa-
tional System must, ideally, take place simultaneously. At the same time,
Filipinos must be taught in the newly developed subject matter.
The language source of knowledge for the intellectualization of Filipino
must not be confined to English, however. A part of the national plan
of intellectualization must include the training and education of Filipinos
who are competent in Filipino in critical fields of knowledge and who
can bring to the Filipino knowledge and scholarship available in other
IMLs such äs German, French, Russian, and Japanese.
The intellectual modernization or intellectualization of Filipino
through translation frpm an IMLWC, for example, from English into
Filipino, is a very difficult and time-consuming process because Filipino
still has to develop the vocabulary, the terminology, thematizations, and
the registers and discourse types for practically all intellectual disciplines.
This difficulty is brilliantly illustrated in a translation exercise of highly
intellectual subject matter by Gonzalez (1988b).
In an effort to understand what a teacher has to go through in switching
from English to Filipino in the teaching of content at an advanced level,
Gonzalez imagined himself äs tasked with giving a lecture in phonetics
to a group of language teachers. He took the description of the tongue
(concrete) from Heffner (1964: 32) and the epilogue (abstract) from the
same work (1988b: 231). His insights are revealing and instructive; a brief
sample is äs follows:

The process of translation involved in restating scientific texts from English to

Filipino — and in the process exemplifying intellectualization in Filipino (a result

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
 The intellectualization of Filipino 75
of using Filipino for thematizing hitherto unthematized topics belonging to a
scientific register in English) involved first a process of deconstruction or breaking
down of the semantic components into their most basic elements (even semantic
primes) and reconstructing them in the new language, with attendant difficulties
because of the specific denotations of existing lexical items (now applied to
untraditional uses) and their connotations äs well äs their lexical collocations and
combinatorial constraints (Gonzalez 1988b).

He found that contrary to bis expectations, concrete textual material

was more difficult to render into Filipino than abstract material.
Gonzalez convincingly demonstrates that the process of intellectualiz-
ing a Third World language like Filipino with the source of knowledge
for intellectualization being an IML is so formidable that it may be only
the dedicated scholar-teacher or scholar-writer who will attempt to do it.
And yet this is exactly the kind of undertaking that Filipino scholars in
all fields of knowledge should be doing.

The contribution of Filipino to learning

Related to the foregoing difficulty in the intellectualization process is a

very disturbing finding in the evaluation of the bilingual education pro-
gram on the use of English for teaching science and mathematics subjects
and Filipino for teaching Araling Panlipunan [social studies] and all other
subjects from 1974 to 1985.
To investigate the relative impact of Filipino and English äs communi-
cation tools in learning content subjects, a series of 18 hierarchical
multiple-regression equations were computed and pertinent statistics sum-
marized. It turned out that the contribution of Filipino 'to the learning
of content subjects, even to Araling Panlipunan, is minimal, at least at
this stage of Implementation and the development of Filipino itself äs a
language of instruction' (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988: 47-48).

Need for a pedagogical idiom in Filipino

The foregoing facts on the difficulty of 'translating' English into Filipino

and the 'minimal' contribution of Filipino to learning subject-matter
content point to the need for a pedagogical idiom in Filipino.
If a fairly undeveloped and unintellectualized language like Filipino is
to be intellectually modernized, through the schools, a pedagogical idiom
using Filipino must be systematically formulated. A pedagogical idiom

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
76 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
consists of carefully graded subject-matter content, from easy to difficult
to most difficult, systematically allotted to various grades and levels in
the educational System, accompanied by appropriate styles or methods
of teaching or manner of and aids in presentation. A pedagogical idiom
depends upon a wealth of textbooks and references.
A pedagogical idiom in Filipino will set the variable multiple threshold
levels and types of proficiency (the term communicative competence may
be related to this), that is, the kind of proficiency in the spoken and/or
written use of Filipino that should be acceptable after four years or six
years or ten years of schooling for exit and/or continuing to higher
educational levels; by 'type of threshold-level proficiency' is meant the
level of proficiency considered satisfactory for content subjects or special-
ized areas of knowledge that are discipline- or occupation- or profession-
based, for example mathematics, engineering, electronics, medicine (see
Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988: 49).
Such a pedagogical idiom has been built for subjects taught in English
for Philippine schools. No comparable pedagogical idiom in Filipino is
available at present. For example, in 1985, of 1,171 titles of textbooks
and references for use in universities, only 28, or 2 percent, were in
Filipino (Sibayan 1985a: 59).

The Institute of National Language

An account of the development of Filipino must include a Statement on

the work of the Institute of National Language (INL), later renamed
Surian ng Wikang Pambansa, now Linangan ng mga Wika sä Pilipinas,
which was originally established to develop Filipino. No in-depth evalua-
tion of the agency's contribution has been made. In this writer's opinion,
the most important contribution of the INL has been its continuously
reminding Filipinos that there is a national language to be developed. It
fought in the Supreme Court and won over those who wanted to stop
the teaching of the national language in the schools; the Court thus
established the legal Status of Filipino early in its development (see
Sibayan 1974). Had the schools been prevented from teaching Filipino,
it is doubtful if the language could have attained its present state of
development.
The INL also helped in producing written materials in Filipino, thus
helping in the standardization of its grammar and lexicon. However,
because of its earlier puristic attitude, it delayed the standardization of
its orthography by insisting on a 20-letter abakada [alphabet] which
eliminated the letters c, f, j, q, v, x, and z because 'these are borrowed

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
 The intellectualization of Filipino 77
letters for sounds that do not exist in Philippine languages'. Fortunately,
the Institute 'restored' these letters recently. Dictionaries in Filipino
(mostly bilingual) written under the abakada have words beginning with
k äs the third letter, including the first monolingual dictionary in the
language, published in 1989.

Measures of intellectualization of Filipino

How will one know that Filipino has been intellectualized? Because the
goals that Filipinos want to achieve with the Filipino language äs one of
the chief tools for national development are very high, I have suggested
that the following questions should be answered in the affirmative äs
indicators of the intellectualization of Filipino: 1. Can the Filipino be
educated through the Filipino language from the primary grades through
the university including graduate school? 2. Is Filipino the main language
used in the controlling domains of language? 3. Do most Filipinos desire
that their children be educated mainly through Filipino? The three questions
can be affirmatively answered for such IMLs äs English, French, German,
Spanish, and others (Sibayan 1988b).
The foregoing tests may be too stringent from a realistic point of view.
As Fishman has so acutely observed,

Industry, technology and populär consumption may never be fully controlled [by
smaller national languages], least of all by truly democratic regimes. To have half
a loaf may be a bitter pill for small national languages but half a loaf is better
than none. If even large national languages have had to learn that lesson vis-ä-
vis languages of wider communication, then small ones must do so all the more
(Fishman 1984: 43-44).

If the findings in Gonzalez and Sibayan (1988) are used to answer the
foregoing tests in the intellectualization of Filipino, the inevitable conclu-
sion is that Filipinos have to work very hard, to put it mildly. The road
to intellectualization is indeed a very long one. However, the first Steps
have been taken, and äs indicated elsewhere in this paper, the achieve-
ments in a little more than half a Century give the Filipino strong bases
for hope.

Language conflict and language replacement

What is comforting to advocates of the continuing use of English and

distressing to advocates of Filipino is the lesson learned from the replace-

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
78 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
ment of Spanish by English. These facts must be considered: it took 90
years before English (with the help of Filipino) could completely replace
Spanish in the schools. The use of English was vigorously and relentlessly
pursued by the Americans, and this preoccupation was continued by
Filipinos. There were fewer than 3 percent of adult Filipinos who had a
command of Spanish at the end of Spanish rule in five controlling
domains of language; in contrast, by 1990 it is estimated that 68 percent
of the Philippine population are speaking English. English is the dominant
working language in practically all the controlling domains of language
today. English was already an intellectualized language when it was
introduced into the Philippines — only the people had to be intellectual-
ized through it. In contrast Filipino still has to undergo intellectualization
äs the people become intellectualized in it. As this twin process is slowly
taking place, Filipino will try to replace English in äs many domains äs
possible. With these facts in mind, the question is, how long will it take
Filipino to take over, even if not completely, in the controlling domains
of language?

Some insights on language development

The following Statements on the development of a Third World language

based on the Philippine experience with Filipino may be helpful in lan-
guage planning. Some may be useful in the formation of a theory of
language intellectualization.

Needfor a creative minority and other workers

There must be a body of men and women with vision and the ability to
articulate and put into eifect a program of language development. This
creative minority must be backed up by an 'army' of well-trained and
dedicated workers at various levels of competence. These people need
not belong to one agency; however, a national agency is needed to lead
in the development of the language, provided the members of the agency
are liberal and well informed on language and language development.
Above all, a Third World language development program that aims at
simultaneous people and language intellectualization needs government
and nongovernment support.

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
 The intellectualization of Filipino 79
Role of schools and universities

The development of a national language may be a most difficult one if a

highly intellectualized and modernized colonial language is the language
of the controlling domains of language. Because of this fact, replacing
the colonial language must be done through gradual degrees in domains
where the target population is not the entrenched user of the colonial
language; for example, the young in the schools are the most receptive.
Adult users of the colonial language generally resist such a change. The
schools and universities play a very crucial role in the process of populär
and intellectual modernization: the primary and lower secondary schools
for PML development, the upper secondary schools for beginning IML
development and the Colleges and universities for IML development.

Written form primary

The written form of the language is primary in the intellectualization

process because it is the written form which Stores cumulative knowledge
that even native Speakers of a language go to school to learn. The
intellectualization of language and the intellectualization of a people
through that language depend on stored (written) knowledge. This means
that there will be a need for bilingual scholars in all fields of knowledge,
curriculum writers and teachers who can translate the knowledge in a
pedagogical idiom. There will also be a need for a vigorous Publishing
industry.
Because of the importance of the written form, it is more difficult for
a Third World nondeveloped language to replace an IML entrenched in
domains that depend on a great deal of written literature, for example,
those of science and technology. The replacement of the colonial language
in domains that depend on the oral form is quite easy, for example, that
of the lingua franca and of entertainment.

Formation of a hybrid language

The oral form of the Third World language, especially that spoken variety
which mixes the colonial language and the development language (in the
Philippines, what is now called Taglish) is accepted much more readily
in practically all domains and by all social levels. This actually helps in
the populär and intellectual modernization of the developing language.
The 'quality' of the spoken form may ränge from the 'market-place'

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
80 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
variety to learned lectures in academic circles. The bilingual education
program in the schools, the movies, television, and the radio all help in
this development.

Function of source language

The intellectualization of a Third World language must depend on a

source language that is an IMLWC, because very little of the world's
fund of advanced knowledge is available in the developing language.
Because of this, the people who will be using the new language for
educating others must be bilingual in the source language and the develop-
ing national language.
In countries with small national languages, the period of bilingualism
may last almost indefinitely, if not for all time.

Philippine Normal College

References

Alisjahbana, S. Takdir (1969). Some language planning processes in the development of

the Indonesian-Malay language. In Can Language Be Planned?, Joan Rubin and Björn
H. Jernudd (eds.), 179-187. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. (1988). The parameters of intellectualization — application to
Filipino. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 19 (2), 35-44.
—, and Gonzalez, Andrew (1981). Towards intellectualization: the use of Filipino äs a
medium of instruction in Philippine tertiary institutions. In National Language äs
Medium of Instruction, Asmah Haji Omar and Noor Ein Mohd (eds.), 111-160. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Carreon, Edwina S. (1988). The parameters of discourse and research in Filipino. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics 19 (2), 27-33.
Ferguson, Charles A. (1968). Language development. In Language Problems of Developing
Nations, Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.),
27-35. New York: Wiley.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1984). On the peculiar problems of smaller national languages. In
Panagani: Language Planning, Implementation and Evaluation. Festschrift for Bonifacio
P. Sibayan. Andrew Gonzalez (ed.), 40-45. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Garvin, Paul L., and Mathiot, Madeleine (1968). The urbanization of the Guarani language:
a problem in language and culture. In Readings in the Sociology of Language, Joshua
A. Fishman (ed.), 365-374. The Hague: Mouton.
Gonzalez, Andrew (1977a). Filipino in the year 2000. In Language Planning and the Buil.ding
of a National Language, Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew Gonzalez (eds.), 263-290.
Manila: Philippine Normal College and Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
— (1977b). The future of English in the Philippines. Likha l (2), 37-46.
— (1985). The sixteenth Century Tagalog of the Doctrina Cristiana (1593): a first Step
towards intellectualization. Likha 13 (2), 1-36.

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
 The intellectualization of Filipino 81
— (1988a). The intellectualization of Filipino — Agenda for the twenty-first Century.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics 19 (2), 3-6.
— (1988b). Reconceptualization, translation, and the intellectualization of a third world
language: the case of Filipino. Paper read at the First Hong Kong Conference on
Language and Society, April.
—, and Postrado, Leticia (1974). Assessing Manpower and Teaching Materials for Bilingual
Education. Manila: United Publishing.
—, and Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (eds.) (1988). Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines
(1974-1985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Haugen, Binar (1972). Dialect, Language, Nation. The Sociology of Language. Essays by
Binar Haugen, selected and introduced by Anwar S. DU. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Heffner, R.-M. S. (1964). General Phonetics. Madison: Univesity of Wisconsin Press.
Medina, Buenaventura S., Jr. (1988). Salingwika, salindiwa: Isang paglalahad at ilang
mungkahi [Transfer of meaning: an exposition and some recommendations]. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics 19 (2), 61-69.
Omar, Asmah Haji (1981). The Malaysian national language in academic discourse. In
National Language äs Medium of Instruction, Asmah Haji Omar and Noor Ein Mohd
(eds.), 73-92. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Otanes, Fe T., and Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1969). Language Policy Survey ofthe Philippines.
Manila: Language Study Center, Philippine Normal College.
Perez, A.Q. (1981). The intellectualization of Filipino. In National Language äs Medium of
Instruction. Asmah Haji Omar and Noor Ein Mohd (eds.), 95-110. Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Pineda, Ponciano B.P., et al. (eds.) (1989). Diksyunario ng Wikang Filipino. Manila: Linan-
gan ng mga Wika sä Pilipinas.
Segovia, Lorna Z. (1988a). The Implementation of the bilingual education policy at the
tertiary level. In Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines (1974-1985), Andrew
Gonzalez and Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.), 71-98. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
— (1988b). The contribution of scholarly societies to the Implementation of the bilingual
education policy. In Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines (1974-1985),
Andrew Gonzalez and Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.), 131-142. Manila: Linguistic Society
of the Philippines.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1967). The Implementation of language policy. In Determination and
Implementation of Language Policy, Maximo Ramos, Jose V. Aguilar, and Bonifacio P.
Sibayan (eds.), 126-189. Quezon City: Phoenix.
— (1970a). Long ränge development of Filipino. Paper read before the Symposium on the
Philippine language, 7th Annual National Convention, Psychological Association of the
Philippines.
— (1970b). The standardization of Filipino. Paper read at the First Annual Convention,
Linguistic Society of the Philippines, April 25, Ateneo de Manila University.
— (1974). Language engineering and literacy in the Philippines. In Advances in Language
Planning, Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), 221-254. The Hague: Mouton.
— (1975). The teaching and growth of Filipino. Unpublished manuscript.
— (1978). Bilingual education in the Philippines: strategy and structure. In Georgetown
University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1978, James A. Alatis (ed.), 302-329.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
— (1985a). Reflections, assertions and speculations on the growth of Pilipino. Southeast
Asian Journal of Social Science 13 (1), 40-51.

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM
82 Bonifacio P. Sibayan
— (1985b). Status and Role of English and Filipino in the Philippines. Washington, D.C.:
United States Information Agency.
— (1985c). Teaching for communicative competence in a second language. In Communica-
tive Language Teaching, Bikram K. Das (ed.), 196-219. Singapore: Singapore University
Press.
— (1986). Filipino and the Filipino's renewed search for a linguistic symbol of unity and
identity. In The Fergusonian Impact. Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language,
Joshua A. Fishman, et al. (eds.), 2, 351-360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
— (1988). Terms and points of reference in intellectualization with particular reference to
Filipino. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 19 (2), 7-12.
— (1989a). Reflections on the intellectualization of Filipino. Paper read at the 2nd Confer-
ence on the Intellectualization of Filipino, 3 January, Philippine Normal College,
Manila.
— (1989b). The intellectualization of a people through still-to-be intellectualized language.
Paper read at the 1989 International Conference on Trends and Directions in Language
Education: Their Impact on National Building, 27-29 April, Quezon City, Philippines.
Yabes, Leopoldo Y. (1973). Let's study the new constitution: the language provision.
Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review 38, 1-2. (Quezon City: University of
the Philippines.)

Brought to you by | University of California

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/11/15 10:53 AM