1887
Volume 35, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Manila variety of Philippine Hybrid Hokkien (PHH-M) or is a contact language used by the metropolitan Manila Chinese Filipinos; it is primarily comprised of Hokkien, Tagalog/Filipino, and English elements. Approaching PHH-M as a mixed language, we investigate linguistically and socially conditioned variation in the monophthongs of PHH-M, focusing on the extent to which the vowel systems of the three source languages have converged. This analysis draws on data gathered from 34 native speakers; Pillai scores are calculated to assess the degree of merger. Contrary to certain predictions of prior work on mixed languages, PHH-M is found to have a unified, eight-vowel inventory distinct from any of its sources. Older women use more stable vowels across source languages, suggesting that they have led in the development of PHH-M as a mixed code; however, signs of change among younger women suggest either the endangerment of the code or its evolution in response to the community’s shifting identity. We contextualize our conclusions in relation to the sociohistory and language ecology of metropolitan Manila’s Chinese Filipino community.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00061.won
2020-10-01
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ang See, Teresita
    1990The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives (Volume1). Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2004The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives (Volume3). Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakker, Peter
    1997‘A Language of our Own’: The genesis of Michif – the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2003 Mixed languages as autonomous systems. InYaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 107–150. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Balukas, Colleen, & Koops, Christian
    2015 Spanish-English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism19(4): 423–443. 10.1177/1367006913516035
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913516035 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bautista, Lourdes S. & Bolton, Kingley
    2008Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 10.5790/hongkong/9789622099470.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622099470.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
    2017 Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.31, Retrieved21 August 2017fromwww.praat.org/
  8. Chu, Richard T.
    2010Chinese and Chinese Mestizos of Manila. Leiden, the Netherlands & Boston, MA: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004173392.i‑452
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004173392.i-452 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chua, Amy
    2003World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chua, Dorothy Ang
    2004 From Chinese to Filipino: Changing identities of the Chinese in the Philippines. Unpublished MA thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
  11. Deterding, David
    1997 The formants of monophthong vowels in standard Southern British English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association27: 47–55. 10.1017/S0025100300005417
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300005417 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2007 The vowels of the different ethnic groups in Singapore. InDavid Prescott, Andy Kirkpatrick, Isabel Martin & Azirah Hashim (eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Literacies, Literatures and Varieties, 2–29. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Doeppers, Daniel F.
    1986 Destination, selection and turnover among Chinese migrants to Philippine cities in the nineteenth century. Journal of Historical Geography12(4): 381–401. 10.1016/S0305‑7488(86)80176‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-7488(86)80176-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eckert, Penelope
    1989 The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change1(3): 245–267. 10.1017/S095439450000017X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000017X [Google Scholar]
  15. Fabricius, Anne H., Dominic Watt, & Daniel Ezra Johnson
    2009 A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change21:413–435. 10.1017/S0954394509990160
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990160 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gijn, Rik van
    2009 The phonology of mixed languages. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages24(1): 91–117. 10.1075/jpcl.24.1.04gij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.24.1.04gij [Google Scholar]
  17. Golovko, Evgenij V.
    1994 Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut: an Aleut-Russian mixed language. InPeter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 113–121. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gonzales, Wilkinson Daniel Wong
    2016 Trilingual code-switching using quantitative lenses: An exploratory study on Hokaglish. Philippine Journal of Linguistics47:109–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 Language contact in the Philippines: The history and ecology from a Chinese Filipino perspective. Language Ecology1: 185–212. 10.1075/le.1.2.04gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/le.1.2.04gon [Google Scholar]
  20. 2018 Philippine Hybrid Hokkien as a postcolonial mixed language: Evidence from nominal derivational affixation mixing. Singapore: National University of Singapore thesis.
  21. Gonzales, Wilkinson Daniel Wong & Mie Hiramoto
    2020 Two Englishes diverged in the Philippines? A substratist account of Manila Chinese English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages35(1): 127–161. 10.1075/jpcl.00057.gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00057.gon [Google Scholar]
  22. Gonzalez, Andrew
    1970 Acoustic correlates of accent, rhythm, and intonation in Tagalog. Phonetica22: 11–44. 10.1159/000259307
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000259307 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grosjean, François
    2010Bilingual. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674056459
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674056459 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grosjean, François, & Joanne L. Miller
    1994 Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual flexibility. Psychological Science5(4): 201–206. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.1994.tb00501.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00501.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Hall-Lew, Lauren
    2010 Improved representation of variance in measures of vowel merger. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics9: 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hay, Jennifer, Paul Warren, & Katie Drager
    2006 Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics34: 458–484. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Klöter, Henning
    2011The language of the Sangleys: A Chinese vernacular in missionary sources of the seventeenth century. Leiden, the Netherlands & Boston, NY: Brill. 10.1163/9789004195929
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004195929 [Google Scholar]
  28. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ladefoged, Peter & Keith Johnson
    2011A course in phonetics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lesho, Marivic
    2017 Philippine English (Metro Manila acrolect). Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA. 1–14. doi:  10.1017/S0025100317000548
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100317000548 [Google Scholar]
  31. Matras, Yaron & Peter Bakker
    2003 The study of mixed languages. InYaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 1–22. Berlin, Germany & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meakins, Felicity
    2012 Which mix – code-switching or a mixed language? – Gurindji Kriol. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages27(1): 105–140. 10.1075/jpcl.27.1.03mea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.27.1.03mea [Google Scholar]
  33. Meakins, Felicity & Jesse Stewart
    . In press. Mixed Languages. InSalikoko Mufwene & Anna Maria Escobar eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mous, Maarten
    2003The making of a mixed language: The case of Ma’a/Mbugu. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.26 [Google Scholar]
  35. Muysken, Pieter
    1994 Callahuaya. InPeter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 207–211. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nycz, Jennifer & Lauren Hall-Lew
    2013 Best practices in measuring vowel merger. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics20. 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. O’Shannessy, Carmel
    2005 Light Warlpiri: A new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics25(1): 31–57. 10.1080/07268600500110472
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600500110472 [Google Scholar]
  38. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLwww.R-project.org/
  39. Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes
    1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA, & London, the United Kingdom: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schuchardt, Hugo
    1884Kreolische Studien IV, Ueber das Malaiospaniche der Philippinen. Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-historischen der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 105.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Siu, Phila
    2019 Why are Chinese workers so unpopular in Southeast Asia? South China Morning Post, 2 Jun, 2019. [Retrieved fromhttps://www.asiaone.com/asia/why-are-chinese-workers-so-unpopular-southeast-asia, 19 November 2019].
  42. Smith, Ian
    1979a Convergence in South Asia: A creole example. Lingua, 48, 193–222. 10.1016/0024‑3841(79)90005‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(79)90005-6 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1979b Substrata versus universals in the formation of Sri Lanka Portuguese. InPeter Mühlhäusler (ed.), Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics2. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Starr, Rebecca L. & Brinda Balasubramaniam
    2019 Variation and change in English /r/ among Tamil Indian Singaporeans. World Englishes38(4): 630–643. 10.1111/weng.12357
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12357 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stewart, Jesse
    2014 A comparative analysis of Media Lengua and Quichua vowel production. Phonetica71:159–182. 10.1159/000369629
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000369629 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2018 Voice onset time production in Ecuadorian Spanish, Quichua, and Media Lengua. Journal of the International Phonetic Association48(2): 173–197. 10.1017/S002510031700024X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002510031700024X [Google Scholar]
  47. Tayao, Ma. Lourdes G.
    2004 The evolving study of Philippine English phonology. World Englishes23(1): 77–90. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2004.00336.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2004.00336.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Thomas, Erik R. & Tyler Kendall
    2007 NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting suite. [Online Resource: ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/]
  49. Thomason, Sarah Grey
    2003 Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. InYaron Matras & Peter Bakker, (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 21–40. Berlin, Germany & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman
    1988Language contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tsai, Huiming
    2017 A study of Philippine Hokkien language. Unpublished PhD dissertation: National Taiwan Normal University.
  52. Uytanlet, Juliet Lee
    2014 The Hybrid Tsinoys: Challenges of Hybridity and Homogeneity as Sociocultural Constructs among the Chinese in the Philippines. PhD dissertation. Asbury Theological Seminary.
  53. Watt, Dominic & Fabricius, Anne
    2002 Evaluation of a technique for improving the mapping of multiple speakers’ vowel spaces in the F1-F2 plane. InD. Nelson, ed.Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics9:159–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Watt, Dominic & Anne Fabricius
    2011 A measure of variable planar locations anchored on the centroid of the vowel space: A sociophonetic research tool. Proceedings of the 17th ICPhS. Hong Kong, SAR, People’s Republic of China. 2102–2105.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Winford, Donald
    2009 The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (review). Language85(1):223–228. 10.1353/lan.0.0088
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0088 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2013 Social factors in contact languages. InPeter Bakker and Yaron Matras (eds.), Contact languages: A comprehensive guide, 363–416. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513711.363
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513711.363 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00061.won
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00061.won
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error