Language ideology, as defined by Silverstein (1979), shapes beliefs about language and justifies its structure and use. This study addresses a gap in LPP scholarship regarding the Philippines, a multilingual, postcolonial nation with over 400 years of colonial history. While previous research has focused on specific historical periods or theoretical aspects, this study offers a comprehensive historical analysis of LPP in the Philippines, examining the interplay of different language ideologies. The Philippines, with its diverse linguistic landscape and complex history of colonization, provides a rich case study for understanding how language ideologies shape national policy. The study uses Cobarrubias’ (1983) taxonomy, which categorizes language ideologies into linguistic assimilation, vernacularization, linguistic pluralism, and internationalization, as a framework for analyzing the historical evolution of LPP in the Philippines. The study's purpose is to comprehensively analyze the historical development of language policies and planning in the Philippines and to explore the underlying language ideologies that have shaped these policies. This analysis provides valuable insights into the relationship between language, power, and identity in postcolonial contexts and contributes to a deeper understanding of language policy and planning in multilingual societies.

Existing literature on LPP in the Philippines often focuses on specific historical periods or theoretical aspects, neglecting a comprehensive historical analysis incorporating the evolution of language ideologies. Studies such as those by Dekker and Young (2005), Gonzalez (1998), Martin (2020), Ricento (2000), and Sibayan (2011) offer valuable insights into specific aspects of Philippine LPP, but lack a unifying framework for understanding the historical interplay of language ideologies. Bernabe (1987) is noted as the only study investigating the history of LPP in the Philippines, but explorations of the ideologies behind those policies are still rare. This study aims to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive historical analysis of the ideologies underlying LPP in the Philippines, utilizing Cobarrubias' (1983) taxonomy as a theoretical framework to structure this analysis.

This study employs a historical analysis approach, examining legislation, administrative measures, and educational policies related to language from the Spanish colonial period to the present day. The core methodological framework is Cobarrubias' (1983) taxonomy of language ideologies. This taxonomy provides four categories for analyzing the various approaches to LPP: linguistic assimilation, vernacularization, linguistic pluralism, and internationalization. Each historical period (Spanish colonial, American colonial, Commonwealth, Japanese occupation, and post-independence) is examined in detail, identifying the dominant language ideologies evident in the implemented policies. The study draws on a range of primary and secondary sources, including historical documents, legislation, educational materials, and scholarly literature on the Philippines' linguistic landscape. The analysis assesses the extent to which each of Cobarrubias' categories is reflected in each historical period and explores the interplay between these ideologies. For instance, the analysis considers how the promotion of English under American rule reflected both assimilation and internationalization, while the development of Tagalog/Filipino involved elements of vernacularization and assimilation. The study also considers how the different ideologies have coexisted and interacted throughout Philippine history.

The study's key findings reveal that linguistic assimilation, particularly the promotion of Spanish during the Spanish colonial period and English during the American colonial period, has been a persistent feature of LPP in the Philippines. However, the success of these assimilationist policies varied. While the Americans effectively disseminated English through their robust educational system, the Spanish faced significant obstacles, including inconsistency and resistance from missionaries. The rise of Tagalog/Filipino reflects the ideology of vernacularization, particularly fueled by nationalist sentiments during the Commonwealth period and Japanese occupation. Post-independence policies, including the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) and the Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) policy, demonstrate a complex interplay of ideologies. The BEP promoted Filipino as the national language alongside English, reflecting both assimilation and internationalization. The MTB-MLE policy, while aiming for linguistic pluralism, faces challenges in implementation due to resource constraints and varying stakeholder attitudes. A significant finding is the coexistence of multiple language ideologies within a single policy. For example, the BEP simultaneously promoted assimilation (through Filipino) and internationalization (through English), highlighting the complex and often contradictory nature of LPP. The study demonstrates how language policy is shaped not just by conscious planning but also by the interplay of various social, political, and economic factors.

The findings highlight the enduring impact of colonial legacies on LPP in the Philippines. The dominance of English and Filipino reflects both the historical influence of colonizers and the nation-building aspirations of post-colonial leaders. The study's findings suggest that language policies in the Philippines are not simply about the efficient allocation of linguistic resources, but also about power dynamics, cultural identity, and national unity. The continuous struggle between maintaining linguistic diversity and promoting a national lingua franca reflects the tensions inherent in managing multilingualism within a nation-state. The challenges faced by the MTB-MLE policy underscore the complex reality of implementing inclusive language policies in a context of unequal resources and varying stakeholder preferences. The study's insights contribute to ongoing discussions about the ethical considerations of LPP, particularly in multilingual, postcolonial contexts, emphasizing the need for more equitable and inclusive language policies.

This study demonstrates the enduring influence of linguistic assimilation in the Philippines’ LPP, yet reveals the dynamic interplay of various ideologies throughout history. The findings highlight the complex relationship between language planning, national identity, and the legacies of colonialism. The study's framework can inform LPP in other multilingual contexts, underscoring the need for inclusive policies that value linguistic diversity while considering the realities of globalization. Future research should investigate the long-term impact of the MTB-MLE policy, exploring how it shapes educational outcomes and linguistic practices. It could also benefit from an in-depth analysis of the role of language in other areas of Philippine society and economy.

The study primarily focuses on official language policies and may not fully capture the diversity of language practices in the Philippines. Furthermore, it relies heavily on official documents and scholarly literature, acknowledging a potential bias towards official narratives. The study also acknowledges the limitations of applying a static framework like Cobarrubias' (1983) taxonomy to dynamic historical processes. The complexity of the Philippine linguistic landscape and the fluidity of language use might necessitate more nuanced frameworks or a more granular level of analysis for future research.