The document summarizes the history and development of Philippine English through five stages: 1) Early American Period (1898-1946): English was introduced under U.S. colonial rule but was not widely spoken. 2) Postwar Nationalism (1946-1986): The Philippines gained independence but enactment of the Tydings and Bell Acts disadvantaged the country and increased nationalism. American influence declined greatly. 3) Endonormative Stabilization (1946-Present): Philippine English became accepted and standardized as a legitimate variety of English through literature, dictionaries, and grammars. 4) Differentiation (1986-Present): After People Power Revolution, a sense of cultural diversity and social differentiation emerged alongside political fragmentation

1. HISTORY OF
PHILIPPINE ENGLISH
Stage 4: Endonormative Stabilization
(1946?–Present?/1986?)
RICSHELL V, BULUTANO
MAEd- English Language

2. Sociopolitical Background: Post-Independence,
Self-Dependence
Schneider (2007) identifies a defining historical event in
transitioning to endonormative stabilization, that which
he calls ‘Event X’,
-an incident which makes it perfectly clear to the settlers
that there is an inverse mis-relationship between the
(high) importance which they used to place on the
mother country and the (considerably lower) importance
which the (former) colony is given by the homeland.

3. Borlongan considers that ratification and implementation of two
post-World War II US congressional acts as Event X in the
evolution of PhE. The Tydings Rehabilitation Act of 1946 and
the Bell Trade Relations Act of 1946, though meant to aid in the
post-war rehabilitation of the Philippines, turned out to
disadvantage the Philippines and heavily prioritized the
Americans in the exploitation of Philippine natural resources as
well as in the regulation of Philippine economy and trade. Even
Filipino politicians who are known supporters of the US in the
person of President Sergio Osmeña and Senator Claro Recto
expressed their dismay over these inequitable acts.

4. It is obvious that the United States would help her
most loyal ally only if the Americans would be
granted the same rights as the Filipinos enjoy in the
exploitation of the resources of the country. The
United States, then, played the role of a man who,
having been aided by a friend who lost everything in
defense of the former, now brashly demanded that
he be given the right to live with his friend’s wife in
exchange for his financial help.

5. Borlongan also directs attention to what he calls as post-Event X
incidents, or incidents which make more apparent the one-sided
relationship between the former colonizer and the new nation.
Borlongan argues for two such events in recent Philippine history:
The Philippine Senate’s rejection of the 1947 Military Bases
Agreement between the Philippines and the US in 1991 and the
recall of a small humanitarian contingent in Iraq in July 2004 in
response to the kidnapping of overseas Filipino worker Angelo
dela Cruz. To these which Borlongan cited earlier can be added
the anti- American remarks blurted by Philippine president
Rodrigo Duterte and his shift in foreign policy more favorable to
China, which irked and worried the community of nations.

6. Identity Constructions: The Birth of
Filipino Nationalism
Because the Philippines was an exploitation
colony (using Mufwene’s [2001] terms), instead
of the settlers remaining in the Philippines, most
of them left. According to census data (Bureau of
Census and Statistics, 1956), only 6,955
American citizens (or around 0.1% of the
population) stayed in the Philippines by 1948.

7. Sentiments of detachment from the former colonizer
cascaded down rather swiftly, most especially in
comparison with other British postcolonial societies,
because, for one, there is nothing similar to the
Commonwealth of Nations after the colonial period to
foster a rather sprightly, if not strong, association with the
former colonizer. Although, the Philippines was left on its
own, and, though the US has constantly presented itself as
a reliable ally, the US has nonetheless been helpful only in
a manner which ensured certain benefits for itself and not
much sacrifices for the other.

8. Though primarily a pretext to sociolinguistic
conditions, the clamor for a ‘national language’
should be seen as an effort toward the crystallization
of national consciousness. Efforts toward the
formation of a national language took a major turn
when it was named ‘Filipino’ in the 1973
constitution. The implementing 1987 constitution
also puts English at par with the national language
in terms of being languages of official
communication in the Philippines.

9. A condition which Schneider (2007) indicates as
characteristic of the third stage seems to be felt more
in the fourth stage: Though the American colonizers
have been demographically removed, their presence is
replaced by the persistent desire to maintain contact
with the former colonial power. The Philippines still
often prides itself as being “America’s oldest ally in
Asia, and one of America’s most valued friends in the
world”, in the words of former US president George
W. Bush to the Philippine Congress in 2003.

10. Sociolinguistic Conditions: Increasing Acceptance of
a Local Norm and Literary Creativity
English continued to be the most widely known language;
7,156,420 or 37.2% of the population indicated in the 1948
census that they can use the language to a communicative level,
an increase of 10.6% from 1939 figures. Men know English
more than women with the ratio of 1.1:1. Tagalog was known to
a close number—7,126,913 or 37.1%—and Spanish had waned
to 345,111 or 1.8%. The bilingual education policies of 1974
and 1987 have, by and large, been successful in producing
generations of Filipinos bilingual in English (cf. Borlongan,
2009; Gonzalez & Sibayan, 1988).

11. Albeit the residual linguistic conservatism (which is also characteristic of
endonormative stabilization), it can be confidently stated that PhE is
acceptable to Filipinos, and it can even carry their identity as a Filipino
(Bautista, 2001; Borlongan, 2009; also Rentillo, this handbook). And while
there remains, too, associations of English with the educated and/or the elite,
there is no questioning that Filipino society has accepted English as a
(crucial) part of their lives, and even identities. Indeed, the educated and/or
the elite use English in more domains and verbal activities than the rest of
the population but that is not to say that English has not deeply penetrated
different levels of Filipino society, which has led Filipinos to be able to
identify with the language as their own, too. And as early as the 1960s, the
acquisition and learning of English among Filipinos have been perceived as
an integration to the Philippine society, which shows that Philippine is
already perceived as a Philippine language (Santos, 1969).

12. And an enduring and esteemed tradition of local literature in
English is flourishing, and the Philippines has had its share
of contributions to literature in English which have also been
read not only by Filipinos but also by other English users
around the world. Gruenberg in 1985 developed the canon of
Philippine literature in English. “If at first our [Filipino]
writers wrote in English, later they wrought from it”
[emphasis original] (Abad, 2004) as such, even in literary
creativity, there has already been the Filipino claim to the
ownership of the language.

13. Linguistic Effects: Linguistic Independence and
Standardization
Grammatical descriptions of PhE (i.e. Borlongan, 2011) have been vigorously prepared.
Linguistic independence of PhE has been observed as evidenced in divergences from
American patterns of use in modal expressions, present progressives, expanded predicates,
among others (Borlongan & Collins, this handbook; Collins & Borlongan, 2017). A
pedagogical dictionary (Bautista & Butler, 2000, 2010) has been published for a time now
and new entries from PhE have been introduced in the Oxford English Dictionary (Salazar,
2017, this handbook). And all these efforts are in the hope that standardization of PhE will
soon be completed (e.g. Bautista, 2000; Borlongan, 2007; cf. Borlongan, this handbook). In
consonance with Llamzon’s recommendation that standard PhE be the local model, a
template for teaching PhE has finally been made (Bernardo, 2013, 2017, this handbook).
Though residual linguistic conservatism exists incessantly yet expectedly, no one would
argue against the acceptance and legitimization of PhE. And indeed, the publication of this
handbook is an important and critical step toward the codification of PhE.

14. Stage 5: Differentiation
(1986?–Present?)

15. Sociopolitical Background: Intense Nationalism, Internal Political
Fragmentation
From September 21, 1972, to January 17, 1981, then president Ferdinand Marcos placed
the entire Philippines under military rule. Marcos’ staunch critic Benigno Aquino Jr. was
assassinated upon his return to the country on August 21, 1983, after years of exile with his
family in the US. Internal political fragmentation peaked at the People Power Revolution of
1986, which unseated Marcos and gave rise to the Corazon Aquino presidency. The
revolution is commemorated and remembered with much valor; Aquino herself is often
feted as a quasi-prophet, and Time magazine’s headline on her death in 2009 so fittingly
captures the honor given to her—‘The Saint of Democracy’. While democracy, or the pale
imitation of it, has been regained since then, the nation has been strife with so much
political crisis with two more street revolutions put up and several coups d’état staged.
Indeed, a sense of nationalism has been achieved but, at the same time, whose brand of
nationalism will take the country to a better state remains a question which no answer could
be given in the foreseeable future.

16. Identity Constructions: Social and Cultural Diversity
A blush of social and cultural diversification may be seen when one looks at the
Philippine society at present with a trajectory toward countrywide heterogeneity.
While the nation has been so proud of its major and minor accomplishments,
whether achieved collectively or individually, social differentiation is also beginning
to be born. More than ever, there has been much appreciation of the cultural diversity
in the country, including the multilingualism which comes along with it (with 183
living languages). Indeed, the Christian north is vastly different from the Muslim
south and ways of life grossly vary among tribes in the highlands, communities in
the plains, and settlements in the seaside. Various social groupings have been formed
whether positively or negatively—there remains rather privileged access to quality
education (access to elementary education in school year 2010–2011 at 95.9% and
secondary education at 64.3%) and the gap between the rich and the poor is still
widening (Gini index estimate for 2015 at 40.1).

17. Sociolinguistic Conditions: ‘Circles of Philippine English’
Martin (2014) asserts that, in the same way as Kachru (1985)
drew his three concentric circles of Englishes, there could be
circles within PhE, too. She identifies an inner circle composed
of the educated elite promoting and using it, an outer circle using
English but not necessarily promoting its use, and an expanding
circle needing English but not having the skills to use it very
well. And a fourth circle could be added, those belonging to
hard-toreach groups who totally do not know English and whose
lives have been disadvantaged because of their lack of
knowledge of the language (Lee & Borlongan, this handbook).

18. Linguistic Effects: Stylistic, Social, and, to a Lesser Extent, Regional
Variation
Nation-internal diversifications and distinctions of language use relative to
sociolinguistic groupings have been emerging recently (cf. Lee & Borlongan, this
handbook). This is most apparent in sociolects like conyo English (Borlongan, 2015) at
one end and yaya English (Bautista, 1982) at the other end. And then, distinct
ethnolinguistic groups have also come up with their own hybridizations (cf. Gonzales,
2016, this handbook). Contrary to an earlier observation made by Gonzalez (1991),
there is now evidence to prove that PhE is able to distinguish appropriate styles across
registers and genres (cf. Lee & Borlongan, this handbook). Villanueva (2016) though
observed that regional variation is less apparent in grammar and lexicon, which
somehow validates Llamzon’s claim in 1969 that, even though there would have been a
number of substratal languages to influence PhE (187 languages, as mentioned earlier),
the phonology of Philippine-type languages is fairly similar throughout such that any
substratal influence would have been evened out.

19. THANK
YOU!