Ideologies underlying language policy and planning in the Philippines

The paper addresses the gap in comprehensive, historically grounded analyses of language policy and planning (LPP) and their underlying ideologies in the Philippines, an ethnolinguistically diverse postcolonial nation. While previous work has focused on education or discrete historical fragments, this study asks: what ideologies have underpinned Philippine LPP from the Spanish colonial period to the present, and how have they shaped language use, status, and rights? Positioning the work within neocolonialism and globalization, the authors argue that analyzing LPP through Cobarrubias’ taxonomy can illuminate how policies have mediated tensions between indigenous languages and powerful colonial or global languages and can inform more inclusive, effective policy-making.

The study adopts Cobarrubias’ (1983) taxonomy of language ideologies—linguistic assimilation, vernacularization, linguistic pluralism, and internationalization—as a structured framework widely used in LPP scholarship. The taxonomy helps classify beliefs and goals guiding language planning, is applicable across postcolonial and multilingual contexts, and supports historical analysis of policy impacts on linguistic diversity and rights. Prior studies (e.g., Johnson, 2016; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) use this framework to analyze links among language, culture, and politics. The authors also note limitations: the four categories may be too simple to capture dynamic, multi-layered sociopolitical factors; potential extensions include subcategories such as language sustainability (under pluralism) and localization (as a by-product of internationalization, e.g., Philippine English).

The authors conduct a historical and policy analysis using Cobarrubias’ taxonomy to classify ideologies embedded in major Philippine language policies across periods: Spanish colonial rule; American colonial rule; the Commonwealth era; Japanese occupation; post-independence policies including the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) and the Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) policy. Sources include constitutions, decrees, administrative orders, education acts, and secondary scholarship. For each period, they identify policy instruments, implementation strategies (e.g., education medium of instruction, official status), and outcomes, then map these to assimilation, vernacularization, pluralism, and internationalization. The analysis emphasizes how legislation and administration facilitated policy implementation and language status shifts.

- Linguistic assimilation has historically dominated Philippine LPP, typically enforced through legislation and administrative measures. - Spanish colonial LPP failed to achieve broad assimilation due to inconsistent implementation by missionaries, limited educational access, and local resistance; fewer than 3% of the population could use Spanish proficiently before American influence. - American colonial LPP successfully established English as dominant via a centralized public school system, English-only MOI, imported teachers and materials, and incentives; at independence, over 35% of the population had mastered English, which became a lingua franca in government, schools, and society, reflecting assimilation and internationalization. - The Commonwealth era initiated vernacularization by selecting and standardizing Tagalog as the national language; however, pluralism was limited as non-Tagalog languages remained unequal. - Japanese occupation continued vernacularization by elevating Tagalog for government affairs, aiming at assimilation around a single indigenous language, while other indigenous languages were sidelined. - Post-independence, the BEP allocated complementary MOI roles to Filipino (Tagalog-based) and English, reflecting coexisting ideologies: assimilation (nation-building via Filipino), internationalization (continued centrality of English), and limited pluralism (auxiliary roles for regional languages). Educational outcomes revealed challenges in subjects taught in English and persistent dissatisfaction among teachers and communities. - MTB-MLE (from 2009) embodies vernacularization and linguistic pluralism by incorporating mother tongues into early education to improve cognition and achievement; as of 2022, 19 major vernaculars are recognized as learning areas and MOI. Implementation is constrained by resources (materials, teacher training, management) and sociocultural attitudes. - Multiple ideologies can coexist within a single policy and across periods; shifts correspond to changing governance, sociopolitical goals, and economic conditions. - Cobarrubias’ framework is analytically useful and transferable to similar multilingual, postcolonial contexts.

Applying Cobarrubias’ taxonomy shows how policy-driven assimilation—first via English and later via Tagalog/Filipino—has structured language status, educational practice, and national identity in the Philippines. The findings address the research question by tracing how legislation and administration enabled language status shifts, while revealing that vernacularization (Tagalog/Filipino and later MTB-MLE) and internationalization (English) have coexisted with limited pluralism. The coexistence of ideologies explains persistent tensions: nation-building and global competitiveness versus linguistic equity and maintenance. The analysis underscores that policy design must negotiate these trade-offs and that inclusive, plurilingual approaches (e.g., MTB-MLE) require sustained resources and community buy-in. The framework’s comparative potential can inform LPP in other multilingual, postcolonial settings facing globalization, guiding balanced policies that value diversity while addressing practical needs for international communication.

Cobarrubias’ taxonomy illuminates Philippine LPP as shaped predominantly by assimilation, complemented by vernacularization (notably Tagalog/Filipino and MTB-MLE), internationalization (English), and partial pluralism. Legislation and administrative measures have been pivotal to effectuating assimilation. The study affirms that ideologies can coexist within policies and across periods, shifting with governance, development goals, and language attitudes. While English supports global competitiveness, it risks reinforcing colonial legacies; vernacularization empowers cultural identity yet can marginalize non-dominant indigenous languages if narrowly applied. The authors argue the framework can guide LPP in similar contexts and suggest extending it (e.g., language sustainability, localization) to better capture contemporary dynamics. Future work should refine ideology categorizations, evaluate policy implementation at scale (including resource and attitudinal factors), and develop models that balance internationalization with robust linguistic pluralism and maintenance.

- Conceptual: Cobarrubias’ four-category taxonomy may be too coarse to capture dynamic, multi-layered interactions among linguistic, social, cultural, political, and economic factors; proposed extensions include a subcategory of language sustainability (under pluralism) and recognition of localization as a by-product of internationalization (e.g., Philippine English). - Implementation constraints: MTB-MLE faces significant resource limitations (materials production, teacher training, management) and variable stakeholder attitudes, limiting full realization across 180+ languages; some smaller languages cannot be taught due to resource scarcity. - Equity concerns: Even under pluralist policies, hegemonic official languages (English, Filipino) can continue to marginalize minority languages without sustained maintenance and community empowerment. - Evidence scope: The study is a historical-policy analysis relying on documentary sources; it does not present new empirical, large-scale outcome data across regions or languages.