1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2543-3164
  • E-ISSN: 2543-3156
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This analysis interrogates one of the most highly recognizable, but little understood metalinguistic descriptors of language in the contemporary Philippine linguistic scene: the concept of “deep language.” Here, “deep language” is explored as a complex, polysemous term generally used to describe homegrown conceptualizations of “pure” forms of Philippine-type languages and speakers. The contemporary understanding of “deep language” in the Philippines is theorized to have been informed by a complex combination of folk and academic discourses that have percolated throughout shared ideologies and conceptualizations of language since national independence at mid-20th century. The metric of “depth” in the analysis of language is shown to function centrally as a conceptual metaphor that enables everyday speakers to theorize person-types and the passage of time in a folk chronotope reckoned through the sign of language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lcs.20008.osb
2021-06-18
2021-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    2005 “Voice, Footing, Enregisterment.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology15(1): 38–59. 10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Edited byMichael J. Holquist, translated byCaryl Emergson and Michael Holquist. University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bautista, Maria Lourdes S.
    (1980 [1974]) “The Filipino Bilingual’s Linguistic Competence: A Model Based on an Analysis of Tagalog-English Code Switching.” PhD diss. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blommaert, Jan
    2005Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610295
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610295 [Google Scholar]
  5. Constantino, Renato
    1966 “The Miseducation of the Filipino.” Journal of Contemporary Asia1(1): 20–36. 10.1080/00472337085390031
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472337085390031 [Google Scholar]
  6. Felicida, Joshua Mariz B.
    2014 “The Emergence of Taglish as a Socio-Cultural Phenomenon in the Light of Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge.” Talisik: An Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy1(1): 50–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Florez, Abraham R.
    2011 “Toward the Intellectualization of Ilokano: Practices and Philosophies.” Explorations: A Graduate Student Journal of Southeast Asian Studies11(1): 51–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Garvida, Mignette Marcos
    2012 “Conyo Talk”: The Affirmation of Hybrid Identity and Power in Contemporary Philippine Discourse.” Lingue e Linguaggi8: 23–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2019 “La Plasticidad de la Lenga Española en Algunos Giros Filipinos.” Revista Filipina6(2) 29–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gonzalez, Andrew
    1980Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience Thus Far. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2002 “Language Planning and Intellectualisation.” Current Issues in Language Planning3(1): 5–27. 10.1080/14664200208668034
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200208668034 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2003 “Language Planning in Multilingual Countries: The Case of the Philippines.” Plenary Talk at theConference of Language Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Minority Communities in Asia. 6–8 November, Bangkok.
  13. Hanson, Allan
    1989 “The Making of the Maori: Culture Invention and its Logic.” American Anthropologist91(4): 890–902. 10.1525/aa.1989.91.4.02a00050
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1989.91.4.02a00050 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hau, Caroline S.
    2000Necessary Fictions: Philippine Literature and the Nation, 1946–1980. Ateneo University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hidalgo, Cesar A.
    1974 “On Morphological and Syntactic Relations in a Southeast Asian Language.” South-East Asian Linguistic Studies1: 25–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hill, Jane H.
    1985 “The Grammar of Consciousness and the Consciousness of Grammar.” American Ethnologist12(4): 725–737. 10.1525/ae.1985.12.4.02a00080
    https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1985.12.4.02a00080 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1992 “Today there is no respect”: Nostalgia,“respect” and oppositional discourse in Mexicano (Nahuatl) language ideology.” Pragmatics, 2(3), pp.263–280. 10.1075/prag.2.3.09hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.3.09hil [Google Scholar]
  18. 2002 “Expert Rhetorics” in Advocacy for Endangered Languages: Who is Listening, and What do They Hear?” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology12(2): 119–133. 10.1525/jlin.2002.12.2.119
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2002.12.2.119 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hill, Jane H., and Kenneth C. Hill
    1986Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. University of Arizona Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Irvine, Judith and Susan Gal
    2000 “Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation.” InRegimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, edited byPaul V. Kroskrity, 35–83. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keane, Webb
    2003 “Self-Interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthropology: Reflections on a Genealogy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History45(2): 222–248. 10.1017/S0010417503000124
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417503000124 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kulick, Don
    1992 Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socialization, Self,and Syncretism in a Papua New Guinean Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Llamzon, Teodoro A.
    1971 “The Use of Deep Structure in Error and Style Analysis.” Working Papers in Linguistics3(4): 173–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lorente, Beatriz
    2019 Dismantling the Colonial Structure of Knowledge Production. Language, Culture and Society1(1): 152–156. 10.1075/lcs.00012.lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00012.lor [Google Scholar]
  25. Maminta, Rosario E.
    1969 “An Investigation on the Language Structures in Beginning Readers Compared with the Language Structures Taught for Oral Proficiency in the Teaching of English as a Second Language in the Philippines.” PhD diss.University of British Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McFarland, Curtis
    2004 “The Philippine Language Situation.” World Englishes23(1): 59–75. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2004.00335.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2004.00335.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, Isabel Pefianco
    2019 “Philippine English in Retrospect and Prospect.” World Englishes38(1–2): 134–143. 10.1111/weng.12367
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12367 [Google Scholar]
  28. Osborne, Dana
    2018 “Ay, Nosebleed!”: Negotiating the Place of English in Contemporary Philippine Linguistic Life.” Language & Communication58: 118–133. 10.1016/j.langcom.2017.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Peralta-Pineda, Ponciano Bendiola
    1967 “Tagalog Transformational Syntax: A Preliminary Statement.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Philips, Susan U.
    2001 "Power." InKey Terms in Language and Culture, edited byAlessandro Duranti, 190-192. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pigg, Stacy Leigh
    1996 “The Credible and the Credulous: The Question of “Villagers’ Beliefs” in Nepal.” Cultural Anthropology11(2): 160–201. 10.1525/can.1996.11.2.02a00020
    https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1996.11.2.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rafael, Vicente L.
    2015 “The War of Translation: Colonial Education, American English, and Tagalog Slang in the Philippines.” The Journal of Asian Studies, 283–302. 10.1017/S0021911814002241
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021911814002241 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ramos, Teresita V.
    1974 “The Case System of Tagalog Verbs.” PhD diss., The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rappa, Antonio and Lionel Wee
    2006Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, Singapore the Philippines and Thailand. New York: Springer. 10.1007/0‑387‑32186‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-32186-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Reyes, Angela
    2017 “Inventing Postcolonial Elites: Race, Language, Mix, Excess.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology27(2): 210–231. 10.1111/jola.12156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12156 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sibayan, Bonifacio P.
    1991 “The Intellectualization of Filipino.” International Journal on the Sociology of Language88(1): 69–82. 10.1515/ijsl.1991.88.69
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1991.88.69 [Google Scholar]
  37. Singer, Milton
    1980 “Signs of the Self: An Exploration in Semiotic Anthropology.” American Anthropologist82(3): 485–507. 10.1525/aa.1980.82.3.02a00010
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1980.82.3.02a00010 [Google Scholar]
  38. Smolicz, Jerzy J.
    1984 “National Language Policy in the Philippines: A Comparative Study of the Education Status of “Colonial” and Indigenous Languages with Special Reference to Minority Languages.” Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science12(2): 51–67. 10.1163/080382484X00157
    https://doi.org/10.1163/080382484X00157 [Google Scholar]
  39. Smolicz, Jerzy J., and Illuminado Nical
    1997 “Exporting the European Idea of a National Language: Some Educational Implications of the Use of English and Indigenous Languages in the Philippines.” International Review of Education43(5–6): 507–526. 10.1023/A:1003098223423
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003098223423 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tupas, Ruanni
    2007 Go Back to Class: The Medium of Instruction Debate in the Philippines. InLee Hock Guan & Leo Suryadinata (eds.), Language Nation and Development, 17–38. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 10.1355/9789812304834‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1355/9789812304834-006 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2015 “The Politics of ‘p’ and ‘f’: A Linguistic History of Nation-Building in the Philippines.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development36(6): 587–597. 10.1080/01434632.2014.979831
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.979831 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wierzbicka, Anna
    2008 “Why There are No ‘Colour Universals’ in Language and Thought.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute14(2): 407–425. 10.1111/j.1467‑9655.2008.00509.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2008.00509.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lcs.20008.osb
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lcs.20008.osb
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): deep language; folk chronotope; ideologies of language; modernity; Philippines; time
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