You are on page 1of 11
Asian Englishes ISSN: 1348-8678 (Print) 2331-2548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20 Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic

Asian Englishes

Asian Englishes ISSN: 1348-8678 (Print) 2331-2548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20 Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic

ISSN: 1348-8678 (Print) 2331-2548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan

To cite this article: Ariane Macalinga Borlongan (2016): Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model, Asian Englishes, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067

  • Published online: 10 Oct 2016.

  • Submit your article to this journal

Asian Englishes ISSN: 1348-8678 (Print) 2331-2548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20 Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic
  • View related articles

View related articles
  • View Crossmark data

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reng20

ASI A N ENGLISH E S, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067

ASI A N ENGLISH E S, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067
ASI A N ENGLISH E S, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan

Center for Global Communication Strategies, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT

It has been claimed that Philippine English is in phase 3 of Schneider’s dynamic model, probably approaching phase 4. This paper argues that Philippine English has already met the parameters set for phase 4 and that this phase may be dawning in the development of Philippine English. Event X already took place in the development of Philippine English, the ratifcation and implementation of two inequitable Acts that were supposedly to be an aid in the post-war rehabilitation of the Philippines. Aside from this Event X, several incidents took place after that also contributed to the feeling of separation of the Philippines from the United States. The Philippines has long achieved its freedom and independence and has been self-governing since its independence from the United States. It has likewise formulated its own language policies without any external control. There seems to be general acceptance of an emerging local norm, though there remains residual linguistic conservatism. English has been in use in literature almost ever since the language was introduced in the Philippines. There are signs of structural stabilization both synchronically and diachronically. The English used in the country has already been homogenized to a point that codifcation is now possible through dictionaries and reference grammars.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 10 May 2016 Accepted 6 August 2016

KEYWORDS

Philippine English; dynamic model; history and development of English; nativization; endornormative stabilization

1. Introduction

Te theorizing done by Braj B. Kachru (summarized in his 1992 paper) regarding the spread of English around the world subsequently labeled ‘the world Englishes paradigm’ is a generally well-recognized thought in linguistics. Te paradigm has been invoked and, quite expectedly, further developed and sometimes even refashioned by other scholars. Te representation of the spread of English in terms of three concentric circles (Kachru, 1985) has exceptionally attracted many but a particularly recent and acknowledged development and modifcation of this representation is Schneider’s (2003, 2007) dynamic model of the evolution of new Englishes. 1 Tis paper argues that Philippine English has already met the parameters set for phase 4 and that this phase may be dawning in the development of Philippine English. Te dis- cussion that follows shall cite proofs of the attainment of the parameters set by Schneider (2003, 2007) for phase 4. 2

CONTACT

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan

ASI A N ENGLISH E S, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067 RESEARCH ARTICLE Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic

arianemacalingaborlongan@yahoo.com

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 A. M. BO RLONG A N 2. Schneider’s dynamic model In his model, Schneider (
  • 2 A. M. BO RLONG A N

    • 2. Schneider’s dynamic model

In his model, Schneider (2003) proposes, ‘there is a shared underlying process which drives the formation of New Englishes, accounts for many similarities between them, and appears to operate whenever a language is transplanted’ (p. 241). He further explains:

Te evolution of PCEs [postcolonial Englishes] is understood as a sequence of characteristic stages of identity rewritings and associated linguistic changes afecting the parties involved in a colonial-contact setting. Ultimately, the force behind this process is the reconstruction of the group identities as to who constitutes ‘us’ or the ‘other’ by both settlers and indigenous residents in a given territory, refected by associated sociolinguistic and linguistic processes. (Schneider, 2007, p. 29)

Schneider (2003, 2007) describes the evolution of new Englishes in terms of fve phases, namely foundation, exonormative stabilization, nativization, endonormative stabilization, and diferentiation. Foundation initiates contact between the English settlers and the indige- nous population. Tere is limited language contact on the part of the settlers while a minority of the indigenous people may become bilingual in English at this stage. Lexical borrowing and incipient pidginization may take place in this stage. As soon as a stable colonial status is established, English is also accorded ofcial status in government and education. Te norms of the settlers are adopted while English spreads among the elite of the indigenous group. Lexical borrowing and pidginization still continue at this stage. Once political independence from the colonizers has been attained, nativization starts to take place and variations and innovations start to appear from the level of phonology to lexicon to grammar to discourse. Endonormative stabilization, the fourth stage, is typically afer what Schneider refers to as Event X. At this stage, local norms begin to emerge and there is positive attitude accorded to it though residual conservatism might still be present. Te localized English is aimed at codifcation, particularly through dictionaries and grammars. Te last stage is diferentia- tion, when nation-internal, group-specifc dialects are born. Schneider (2003, 2007) claims that Philippine English is in phase 3, probably approach- ing phase 4, in his dynamic model of the evolution of postcolonial Englishes, and he adds, ‘Signs foreshadowing codifcation in phase 4 can be detected, though they remain highly restricted’ (Schneider, 2007, p. 143). Te body of local literature in English is growing and attempts to codify and standardize Philippine English are increasing – including its adoption as the pedagogical model – but, as Schneider said, this remains highly restricted. He ends what he has for the case for Philippine English by saying:

Te Philippines appears to be an example of a country where the in-built developmental trends of the Dynamic Model get overruled by changing external conditions, thus coming to a halt. […] Te situation is ‘quite stable at present’ (Sibayan & Gonzalez, 1996, p. 160), with Filipino established as a national language and English being strong in certain functional domains but showing no signs of proceeding any further. [emphasis added] (Schneider, 2007, p. 143)

Schneider (2003, 2007) sets the parameters for each developmental phase in his dynamic model; for phase 4, he mentions (1) post-independence and self-dependence, possibly afer Event X (historical and political), (2) membership in the newly-founded nation that is territory-based (identity construction), (3) acceptance of a local norm and positive atti- tude towards it and literary creativity in the new English (sociolinguistics of contact/use/ attitudes), and (4) stabilization, homogeneity, and codifcation of the new English (linguistic developments/structural efects).

A SIA N ENG LISHES

A SIA N ENG LISHES 3 3. History and politics: post-independence and self-dependence, possibly after Event

3

  • 3. History and politics: post-independence and self-dependence, possibly

after Event X

Te United States granted the Philippines independence on July 4, 1946. However, as early as June 12, 1898, the Philippines already declared its independence (from Spain, its former colonial ruler). Te United States had to grant the Philippines promised independence because of the consequences of the American colonial rule over the Philippines and World War II. It goes without saying that the Philippines is unquestionably in post-independence and possibly self-dependence at present. Schneider (2003, p. 250) clarifes:

But it appears that in some cases political independence, which may have been achieved con- siderably earlier, by stage 3, is not enough for this stage [4] to be reached. While the transition may be smooth and gradual, it is also possible that the transition between stages 3 and 4 is caused by some exceptional, quasi-catastrophic political event which ultimately causes the identity alignment of STL-strand [colonizer-strand] speakers to switch from a self-association with the former mother country, however distant, to a truly independent identity, a case of ‘identity revision’ triggered by the insight that one’s traditional identity turns out to be ‘man- ifestly untrue’ or at least ‘consistently unrewarding’ (Jenkins, 1996, p. 95).

Schneider (2007, p. 49) points to a very specifc event that transitions an English-using state or territory from phase 3 to phase 4 – that which he names as Event X:

I call this ‘Event X’ – typically it is 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 (as when Australia was lef unsupported against attacks in World War II). Event X may frequently cause STL strand immigrants to feel a sense of isolation and being lef alone at frst, but it will then cause them to reconsider and redefne their position and future possibilities, to remember their own strength, and to reconstruct a radically new, locally based identity for themselves.

For the case of the Philippines, the ratifcation and implementation of two post-World War II Acts may serve as Event X in the development of Philippine English. Trough the Tydings Rehabilitation Act of 1946, US$620,000,000 was to be given to those victimized by war and thus the American congress was supposed to give fnancial aid to the Philippines for post-war rehabilitation. However, this was on the condition that a free trade agreement in the form of the Bell Trade Relations Act of 1946 would be agreed upon by the presidents of the Philippines and the United States. Te Bell Trade Relations Act allowed free trade between the Philippines and the United States. Only a fve-percent tarif was introduced year by year until the hundredth-percent would have been reached by 1974. However, the Act also gave Americans the right to unlimited use of the natural resources with no special privileges given to Filipinos. Filipinos later realized that the two Acts worked only to the advantage of the United States as the two acts excessively prioritized the United States in Philippine trade and also gave the United States control over the Philippine economy. Prominent political personalities in the Philippines at that time – senator and famous nationalist Claro M. Recto and president Sergio Osmeña who himself was a known supporter of the Americans – condemned the curtailment of the rights of Filipinos to their own country with the passage of the two Acts. Needless to say, the Acts were thoughtless of the difcult situation the Philippines was in afer the recently gained post-war independence in which the two Acts ought to help. Two historiographers bemoan:

4 A. M. BO RLONG A N It is obvious that the United States would help
  • 4 A. M. BO RLONG A N

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. Te 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 given [sic] the right to live with his friend’s wife in exchange for his fnancial help. (Agoncillo & Alfonso, 1960, p. 497)

Tere may be one incident that will clearly let the colonized know that they have already been detached from the mother country but there may also be post-Event X incidents that may also be contributory to the ‘inverse misrelationship 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’ (p. 49) and ‘sense of isolation and abandonment’ (p. 49) that Schneider (2003) considers as consequences of the so-called Event X. And as in historiography, resulting situations and/or conditions cannot be attributed solely to a single cause, it is important to add to Schneider’s (2003, 2007) theorizing and conception of phase 4 that it may well be necessary to also make mention of post-Event X incidents that also contribute to – and even help Event X itself make the colonized feel – detachment from the mother country. For the Philippines, one post-Event X incident might be the Philippine Senate’s rejec- tion of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States in 1991, which led to the withdrawal of American military installations by 1992. A more recent post-Event X incident would be the recalling of a small humanitarian contingent in Iraq in July 2004 in response to the kidnapping of overseas Filipino worker Angelo de la Cruz. Te Philippines was condemned by many states, most especially the United States, because of the action taken by the Philippine government in response to terrorist demands. Unsound though it may seem, the pullout of the troops initially sent as a support for the United States-led coalition against global terrorism following the September 11, 2001 attacks demonstrates the Philippines’ prioritizing of (intra)national interests over the maintenance of pleasant relationship with other countries, most especially with the United States, and good standing in the community of nations.

  • 4. Identity construction: membership in the newly-founded nation that is

territory-based

Te Philippines as a nation and state has already taken steps towards self-government and independent policy-making even from long ago. Filipinos’ clamor for independence or, at least, freedom dates back to the when the Spanish were still ruling the Philippines as its col- ony. Filipinos’ self-proclaimed independence was realized on June 12, 1898 and, from then on, a government for the citizenry was put up to manage afairs of the state. Te American colonization of the Philippines committed any existing government to colonial supervision but Filipinos nevertheless aspired for self-government which Americans promised to grant Filipinos later. Filipinos were quite aware that language could serve as a crystallization of their then newly-found nationhood. And so in the area of language planning and sociolinguistic engi- neering in particular, as early as the 1935 Constitution, language policies were already being formulated; an institute for a national language was put up to identify a language that could symbolize the Filipino people and nationhood. It was in the 1972 Constitution that they

A SIA N ENG LISHES

A SIA N ENG LISHES 5 were f rst able to name the national language as

5

were frst able to name the national language as Pilipino, which became Filipino in the 1987 Constitution. Naturally, language-in-education policies follow the general language plan- ning done by the government; two policies on bilingual education were framed and imple- mented, one in 1974 and the subsequent revision dated 1987. At present, there is an ongoing debate on the passing of a bill for the implementation of mother tongue-based multilingual education. And in all those language planning situations, English has been appropriated a prominent position in Filipino society. For a long period in Philippine history, language choices were made by the colonial rulers: Spanish insisting on Spanish government and education but vernacular evangelization, Americans promoting English-medium education, and Japanese glorifying Tagalog. But now, it can be said that the Philippines is already able to decide on its own in matters of language. And being able to do so is a pre-requisite to phase 4 (Schneider, 2003, 2007). It bears pointing out that the Philippines’ goal is to become a nation bilingual in English and a Philippine language, and not to be monolingual in English, in contrast to the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand that have already reached phase 5, and possibly Singapore which appears to be on the verge of becoming a monolingual-in-English country, too (cf. accounts of the development of these Englishes in Schneider, 2007).

  • 5. Sociolinguistics of contact/use/attitudes: acceptance of a local norm and

positive attitude towards it and literary creativity in the new English

Schneider (2003, 2007) posits acceptance of a local norm and positive attitude towards it in the progression of an English from phase 3 to phase 4. Bautista (2001a, 2001b) reports the attitudes of the English language faculty of several Philippine universities, including those that got the distinction Center of Excellence in English Language from the Philippine Commission on Higher Education, and she had a common fnding from two diferent sets of surveys: Teachers agree to the fact that there now exists a variety of English called Philippine English and they are content that the variety is as legitimate as the more estab- lished ones. Tey are not embarrassed or ashamed that they are using that variety, and not the exonormative standard variety; however, they are still not open to accepting specifc con- structions that are putatively Philippine English, even those that are ofen used by educated Filipinos themselves. Borlongan (2009) has encouraging fndings to report about younger Filipinos’ attitudes towards Philippine English: Along with other Philippine languages and even Chinese languages, they use and would want to use Philippine English more ofen, in more domains and communicative activities. Tey have positive attitudes towards the variety and they say that, like Filipino, which remains their choice national language, it can similarly symbolize their being a Filipino. Borlongan believes that these reported attitudes of the university students he surveyed might be a telling sign of the success of the bilingual education policy implemented. Tough the participants of their surveys do not necessarily represent the Filipino popu- lation and, in fact, may capture only those in the higher socio-economic classes of Filipino society, the participants more or less represent what could be considered as the native speakers of Philippine English. Terefore, based on the language attitude surveys of Bautista (2001a, 2001b) and Borlongan (2009), it can be said that a localized English is accepted by Filipinos. Tere is a sense of contentment in knowing that they already have their own variety of English. Tough

6 A. M. BO RLONG A N a segment of the society remains ambivalent about what
  • 6 A. M. BO RLONG A N

a segment of the society remains ambivalent about what to do with obvious deviations from the exonormative standard which has been in place a long time, everything that Bautista and Borlongan stated about Filipinos’ attitudes towards Philippine English fts perfectly the description of Schneider (2003) on the sentiments towards local norms in phase 4 – ‘some insecurity remains (residually fostered by conservative members of a society who still long for old times and old norms)’ (p. 250). But even in Singapore, which Schneider (2003, 2007) considers as having already reached phase 4, Schneider reports the ongoing dilemma of Singapore English scholars on what to do with the emerging local norms but ‘In any case, a local linguistic norm, positively evaluated by many, is an undeniable reality, and its formal recognition is called for (Ooi, 2001, p. xi) and envisaged (Foley, 1988, p. xiii–xiv; 2001, p. 32)’ (2007, p. 160). But what is more compelling is this claim made as early as the 1960s regarding attitudes towards English and the acquisition of English in the Philippines:

Contrary to predictions, positive attitudes towards Americans were not crucial in the Filipinos’ desire to learn English. Rather, feelings of satisfaction with the Philippine community were associated with the integrative motive and English language achievement. Tis association suggests that English is perceived in part as a Philippine language, and the integrative motive to learn English in the Philippines derives from an identifcation with a set of Filipinos, and this particular set is believed to constitute a Filipino English speaking community. (Santos, 1969, p. 47)

Philippine literature in English, without doubt, is fourishing. Works of Filipino writers have come out almost ever since Filipinos started speaking the language. Abad ( 2004) writes, ‘If at frst our [Filipino] writers wrote in English, later they wrought from it’ [emphasis original] (p. 170); Filipino writers in English, one example of whom is F. Sionil Jose whose works have been translated to more than 20 languages, have received international acclaim. A Philippine English literary canon has been developed by Gruenberg (1985).

  • 6. Linguistic developments/structural efects: stabilization, homogeneity,

and codifcation of the new English

As was earlier pointed out, the case of the Philippines is diferent from that of the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand in terms of the linguistic repertoire and lan- guage choices available. Again, the Philippines (and, in this case, also Singapore) departs from these monolingual-in-English countries in that the original colonizers are no longer existent in the contemporary society and what is lef is only the language English. Te homo- geneity between the colonizers and the colonized that Schneider (2003, 2007) is thinking of cannot be possibly established in the case of the Philippines (and Singapore). Perhaps, the closest equivalent of the case of homogenization for Philippine English would be the evening out of substratal accents of Filipinos, most especially when a Filipino is speaking in more formal Philippine English and his/her ethnolinguistic grouping can no longer be identifed. Tis homogenization of substratal accents is documented by Alberca (1978), Gonzalez and Alberca (1978), and Gonzalez (1985) even as early as the pre-corpus linguis- tics period of Philippine English scholarship. Recent corpus-based studies of Philippine English (synthesized in Borlongan & Lim, 2012) suggest some degree of stability in terms of lexicon and grammar, or at least much less idiosyncratic than, take for example, Hong Kong and Indian Englishes.

A SIA N ENG LISHES

A SIA N ENG LISHES 7 Schneider ( 2003 , 2007 ) also says that the

7

Schneider (2003, 2007) also says that the substitution of the label English of X by X English is a symbolic expression of transition from phase 3 to phase 4. He quotes Braj B. Kachru in an interview with Prendergast (1998) who said that the two labels are ‘two distinct ways of conceptualizing language use and its nativization and identity with the language’ (p. 229). As early as Llamzon’s pioneering work on Philippine English in 1969, the label Filipino English and more recently and more consistently Philippine English has been in use. Lastly, works towards the codifcation of Philippine English through dictionaries and grammars have been initiated and are ongoing. Schneider (2003) rightly predicts that dic- tionaries come frst before reference grammars. He says that grammatical changes are fewer and much harder to accept as correct given that there is the so-called common core of English grammar (Quirk et al., 1985) earlier mentioned. Bautista and Butler’s (2000, 2010) dictionary came out frst before more extensive corpus-based grammatical analyses (syn- thesized in Borlongan & Lim, 2012) were done and the grammars of the verb and noun systems in Philippine English prepared and written (Bengco, 2014; Borlongan, 2011a, 2016; Morales, 2016). An inventory of the features of Philippine English has been drawn up by Borlongan and Lim (2013). Work towards defning 'Standard Philippine English' has also been done (Bautista, 2000; Borlongan, 2007). Also, Philippine English words have con- sistently been added in recent updates of the Oxford English Dictionary (Salazar, 2015). Quite importantly, exonormative stabilization in terms of grammar is well-documented even across time (Borlongan & Dita, 2015; Collins, 2015; Collins, Borlongan, & Yao, 2014; Collins, Borlongan, Lim, & Yao, 2014; Collins, Yao, & Borlongan, 2014). Indeed, a foreign scholar makes a comment as early as the 1990s that Philippine English is among the most well-documented Southeast Asian Englishes (Tay, 1991). A pedagogical model for teaching Philippine English has already been developed by Bernardo (2013).

7. Conclusion

Te forgoing discussion conjectures that Event X already took place in the development of Philippine English, the ratifcation and implementation of two inequitable Acts that were supposedly to be an aid in the post-war rehabilitation of the Philippines. Aside from this Event X, several incidents took place afer that also contributed to the feeling of separation of the Philippines from the United States. Te Philippines has long achieved its freedom and independence, initially from Spain and later on from the United States, and has been self-governing since its independence from the United States. It has likewise formulated its own language policies without any external control. Tere seems to be general acceptance of an emerging local norm, though there is still residual insecurity most especially for those who are linguistically conservative. English has been in use in literature almost ever since the language was introduced in the Philippines. Tere are signs of structural stabilization of the variety both synchronically and diachronically. Finally, the English used in the country has already been homogenized to a point that (initial) codifcation is now possible through dictionaries and reference grammars. Accordingly, it can be said that Philippine English is at the dawn of endonormative stabilization – phase 4 in Schneider’s (2003, 2007) dynamic model of the evolution of postcolonial Englishes. It is interesting to see how, not if, Philippine English will progress in Schneider’s model.

8 A. M. BO RLONG A N Notes 1. A recent update of Schneider’s theorizing on
  • 8 A. M. BO RLONG A N

Notes

  • 1. A recent update of Schneider’s theorizing on the evolution of Englishes was made in a 2014 publication, and it was meant to include what was traditionally called the ‘Expanding Circle Englishes’. He refers to the general evolution of Englishes (to include the aforementioned type of Englishes) as ‘transnational attraction’. Te earlier version of this paper was cited in the said Schneider publication as among those which provided suggestions and modifcations on the model he proposed.

  • 2. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the International Association for World Englishes (IAWE) held in November 2011 in Melbourne, Australia. Hence, a number of citations of this paper appears as Borlongan (2011b). In the course of the writing of this paper, discussions with and comments from Ma. Lourdes Bautista and Edgar Schneider have been particularly constructive and helpful. It must be mentioned here that another account of the development of Philippine English has been subsequently published, that of Martin (2014).

Disclosure statement

No potential confict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Abad, G. H. (2004). Filipino poetry in English: A native clearing. World Englishes, 23, 169–181. Agoncillo, T. A., & Alfonso, O. M. (1960). A short history of the Filipino people. Quezon City, the Philippines: University of the Philippines. Alberca, W. L. (1978). Te distinctive features of Philippine English in the mass media (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines. Bautista, M. L. S. (2000). Defning standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features. Manila, the Philippines: De La Salle University, Inc. Bautista, M. L. S. (2001a). Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading Philippine universities towards Philippine English. Asian Englishes, 4, 4–32. Bautista, M. L. S. (2001b). Attitudes of selected Luzon University students and faculty towards Philippine English. In M. Lourdes G. Tayao, T. P. Ignacio, & G. S. Zafra (Eds.), Rosario E. Maminta in focus: Selected writings in applied linguistics (pp. 263–273). Quezon City, the Philippines: Philippine Association for Language Teaching. Bautista, M. L. S., & Butler, S. (Eds.). (2000). Anvil-Macquarie English Dictionary of Philippine English for high school. Pasig, the Philippines: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Bautista, M. L. S., & Butler, S. (Eds.). (2010). Anvil-Macquarie Philippine English dictionary (Revised ed.). Pasig, the Philippines: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Bengco, C. A. C. (2014). Adjectives in Philippine English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines. Bernardo, A. S. (2013). Toward an endonormative pedagogic model for teaching English in Philippine higher education institutions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines. Borlongan, A. M. (2007). Innovations in Standard Philippine English. In C. Mann (Ed.), Current research on English and applied linguistics: A De La Salle University special issue (pp. 1–36). Manila:

De La Salle University-Manila, Department of English and Applied Linguistics. Borlongan, A. M. (2009). A survey on language use, attitudes, and identity in relation to Philippine English among young generation Filipinos: An initial sample from a private university. Te Philippine ESL Journal, 3, 74–107. Borlongan, A. M. (2011a). A grammar of the verb in Philippine English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines.

A SIA N ENG LISHES

A SIA N ENG LISHES 9 Borlongan, A. M. ( 2011b , November). Relocating Philippine English

9

Borlongan, A. M. (2011b, November). Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the International Association for World Englishes (IAWE), Melbourne, Australia. Borlongan, A. M. (2016). A grammar of the noun in Philippine English (New Ph.D. Research Project). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines. Borlongan, A. M., & Dita, S. N. (2015). Taking a look at expanded predicates in Philippine English across time. Asian Englishes, 17(3), 1–8. Borlongan, A. M., & Lim, J. (2012, May). Distinctive features of Philippine English: A meta-synthesis of corpus-based grammatical studies. Poster presented at the 33rd International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME) Conference, Louvain, Belgium. Borlongan, A. M., & Lim, J. (2013). Philippine English. In B. Kortmann, & K. Lunkenheimer (Eds.), Te electronic world atlas of varieties of English. Leipzig, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from the Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English website http://www.ewave-atlas.org/ Collins, P. (2015). Recent diachronic change in the progressive in Philippine English. In P. Collins (Ed.), Grammatical change in English world-wide (pp. 271–296). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:

John Benjamins Publishing Co. Collins, P., Borlongan, A. M., Lim, J. H., & Yao, X. (2014). Te subjunctive mood in Philippine English:

A diachronic analysis. In S. E. Pfenninger, O. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, M. Hundt, & D. Schreier (Eds.), Contact, variation, and change in the history of English (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Collins, P., Borlongan, A. M., & Yao, X. (2014). Modality in Philippine English: A diachronic study. Journal of English Linguistics, 42, 68–88. Collins, P., Yao, X., & Borlongan, A. M. (2014). Relative clauses in Philippine English: A diachronic perspective. In L. Vandelanotte, K. Davidse, C. Gentens, & D. Kimps (Eds.), Recent advances in corpus linguistics: Developing and exploiting corpora (pp. 125–146). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:

Rodopi. Foley, J. (Ed.). (1988). New Englishes: Te case of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Gonzalez, A. (1985). Studies on Philippine English. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Gonzalez, A., & Alberca, W. (1978). Philippine English of the mass media (Preliminary ed.). Manila, the Philippines: De La Salle University, Research Council. Gruenberg, E. V. (1985). Te perceived canon of Philippine literature (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines. Jenkins, R. (1996). Social identity. London: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codifcation and sociolinguistic realism: Te English language in the outer circle. In H. Randolph Quirk, G. Widdowson, & Y. Cantú (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14. Ooi, V. B. Y. (Ed.). (2001). Evolving identities: Te English language in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Times Academic Press. Martin, I. P. (2014). Beyond nativization?: Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. In S. Buschfeld, T. Hofmann, M. Huber, & A. Kautszsch (Eds.), Te evolution of Englishes: Te dynamic model and beyond (pp. 70–85). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Morales, M. M. (2016). A grammar of the adjunct adverbial in Philippine English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines. Prendergast, D. (1998). Views on Englishes: A talk with Braj B. Kachru, Salikoko Mufwene, Rajendra Singh, Loreto Todd, and Peter Trudgill. Links and Letters, 5, 225–241. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, UK: Longman Group Limited. Salazar, D. (2015). Release notes: New Filipino words. Retrieved from the Oxford University Press website http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/ release-notes-new-flipino-words/ Santos, E. H. (1969). A study of the roles of aptitude, attitudes and motivation in second language acquisition (Unpublished master’s thesis). Philippine Normal College, Manila, the Philippines.

10 A. M. BO RLONG A N Schneider, E. W. ( 2003 ). T e dynamics
  • 10 A. M. BO RLONG A N

Schneider, E. W. (2003). Te dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79, 233–281. Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the world. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press. Sibayan, B. P., & Gonzalez, A. (1996). Post-imperial English in the Philippines. In J. A. Fishman, A. W. Conrad, & A. Rubal-Lopez (Eds.), Post-imperial English: Status change in former British and American colonies (pp. 139–172). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schneider, E. W. (2014). New refections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes. World Englishes, 33, 9–32. Tay, M. W. J. (1991). Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world:

Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 319–332). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.