See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259189348

BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING AS A RESOURCE FOR LEARNING

AND TEACHING: ALTERNATIVE REFLECTIONS ON THE LANGUAGE
AND EDUCATION ISSUE IN THE PHILIPPI....

Chapter · January 2005

CITATIONS READS
25 26,810

1 author:

Allan B. I. Bernardo
De La Salle University
180 PUBLICATIONS   2,846 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Worldviews and Well-being in Asia View project

Social and cultural dimensions of achievement motivation and learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Allan B. I. Bernardo on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING AS A RESOURCE
FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING: ALTERNATIVE
REFLECTIONS ON THE LANGUAGE AND
EDUCATION ISSUE IN THE PHILIPPINES
ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO
De La Salle University
Manila, Philippines

Bilingualism has a long history in the Filipino people’s

experience. However, there has been much ambivalence about
bilingualism’s role in the educational process. In particular, there is a
general negative sentiment towards the use of code-switching in formal
education. In this paper I attempt to take a more careful look at the
role of code-switching in Philippine education by rethinking many of
the arguments and propositions that have been made regarding the
relationship between language and education. I first examine some of
the fundamental assumptions underlying the various positions on the
role of language in education. I argue that these assumptions may not
be tenable particularly in a multilingual global context. I then briefly
survey some research on linguistic characteristics of code-switching.
Finally, I discuss the possibilities for using code-switching as a
resource for attaining the various goals of formal education.

1. Introduction

Language discourse amidst globalization has tended to emphasize

the growing importance of English as the language of globalization. What
is not being noticed is that this emergence of English as the global lingua
franca is in effect creating more and more bilinguals and multilinguals.
We could even say that true mark of globalization in the language
environment is that a growing proportion of the world’s population is now
either bilingual or multilingual. Bilingualism is increasingly the normal
language state in the globalizing world.
Bilingualism and multilingualism have long been rooted in the
Filipino people’s experience. Generally, however, there has been much
ambivalence about what role bilingualism and multilingualism should play
in the educational process. Since the start of the 20th Century, there has
been much debate on the medium of instruction issue in the Philippines
and the various positions often advocate for the use of one language --
either Filipino, English, or the other vernaculars. In 1973, a compromise
 BERNARDO

Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) was promulgated by the Department of

Education and Culture (DEC, 1974). This policy stipulates the use of
English as the medium of instruction for English, Mathematics, and
Science, and Filipino as medium for all other subjects. In 1988, an
evaluation of the BEP was published by Gonzalez and Sibayan (1988) and
one of the key findings was that there was a clear decline in learning
achievement levels of students after eleven years of the BEP, however,
this decline is most likely due to the overall decline in other educational
inputs and not simply to the implementation of the BEP (Sibayan, et al.
1988). Today however, the BEP is still being blamed for the deteriorating
English proficiency of Filipino students, as well as the poor proficiency in
the Filipino language. Indeed, the BEP is being lamented as having
produced a generation of semi-linguals (Sibayan 2000). All things
considered, although Filipinos realize the value of being bilingual or
multilingual, there is strong skepticism about the role of bilingualism in
education.
This skepticism on bilingualism seems to be extended to some
forms of bilingual language behaviors. The research literature typically
identifies two language behaviors characteristic of bilingual
communication: code-switching and translation (Gumperz 1982, Poplack
1980). However, the goals, uses, and demands of the two language
behaviors are different from each other (Malakoff and Hakuta 1991). This
difference was stated by Malakoff and Hakuta (1991:146) as follows:

Translation typically involved replacing an utterance in the

source language with an equivalent utterance in the target
language to enhance communication to monolingual
speakers of the target language. Translation aims to
reproduce as closely as possible in the target language the
meaning of an utterance (or text) in the source language.
Code-switching on the other hand, is used to enhance or
complement communication to bilingual speakers. It does
not seek to reproduce what has already been said, but to
enhance what is being said. Code-switching takes
advantage of a larger bilingual vocabulary, playing on
subtle differences between the two languages in
connotative, denotative, or sociolinguistic meaning. Thus,
while translation takes advantage of similarities across two

152
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

languages, code-switching takes advantage of the

differences.”

In the Philippine educational context, the perceptions of these two

language behaviors are likewise distinct. On the one hand, translation is
generally perceived as a positive development, and on the other code-
switching is thought of quite negatively.
Much has been written about the important role of translation in
enabling Filipinos to access the wealth of knowledge of human
civilizations, particularly those that are written in the various foreign
languages (e.g., Almario 1997, Zafra 2002). Particularly emphasis has
been given to the important role of translations in modernizing and
intellectualizing the Philippine languages. Although the specific
frameworks and processes of translation has been subject to extensive,
even highly emotional and political, debates (Almario 1997), much
success has been attained in systematizing efforts at translating into
Filipino (e.g., Zafra, et al. 2004).
Code-switching has not enjoyed the same respect. Indeed, code-
switching, referred to in popular parlance as the use of Taglish, is often
blamed for the deterioration of language skills of Filipinos. Among
certain sectors of the Philippine scholarly community, code-switching or
language mixing has been perceived as a less than ideal language
behavior. For example, Sibayan (1985) laments that Filipino and English
have not been kept separate in schools. His objection to language mixing
is in reference to the supposed ideal type of bilingualism, which involves
language switching according to appropriate changes in the speech
situation (Arong 1988, Sibayan 1999). Within this type of bilingual ideal,
code-switching is seen as evidence for low levels of bilingual language
proficiencies.
That there are different attitudes towards translation and code-
switching is not unique to the Philippines. Malakoff and Hakuta (1991)
observed that in various studies on bilingual language behaviors,
translation is thought of as manifesting linguistic separation, and therefore,
also of linguistic control. On the other hand, they observed that code-
switching is treated as demonstrating the lack of linguistic differentiation,
that code-switching is assumed to be an unintentional and unconscious
activity that indicates lack of linguistic control. Weinrich (1953), for
example, characterized code-switching as evidence for the bilingual

153
 BERNARDO

person’s inability to control and maintain the separation between the two
languages.
These perceptions regarding code-switching seem to be premised
on the notion of coordinate bilingualism was set as the ideal form of
bilingualism by Weinrich (1953). However, such notions of bilingualism
have been quite extensively criticized in the research literature (e.g.,
Grosjean 1992). Others like Hakuta (1986) and Skutnabb-Kangas (1981)
have traced these attitudes about bilingualism to a fundamental distrust of
bilingualism. In particular, they noted how monolingual Western cultures
tend to be ignorant of bilingual cultures and to hold negative stereotypes
about such cultures. Lo Bianco (2000) and Phillipson (1992) even noted
how the dominant monolingual cultures in different types of multicultural
contexts curtail bilingualism by imposing monolingual language policies.
Fortunately, systematic research on bilingualism and code-switching now
provides us a more objective understanding of this bilingual language
phenomenon.
In this paper I attempt to take a more careful look on the possible
role of code-switching in Philippine education by rethinking many of the
broad and specific arguments and propositions that have been made
regarding the nature of the relationship between language and education. I
first examine some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the various
positions on the role of language in education. I argue that these
assumptions may not be tenable particularly in a multilingual global
context. I then briefly survey some research on the linguistics
characteristics of code-switching. Finally, I discuss the possibilities for
using code-switching as a resources for attaining the various goals of
formal education, paying particular attention to prospects as well as the
challenges involved in doing so.

2. Rethinking assumptions on language and education

In another paper, I argued that globalization is transforming the

purposes and the nature of formal education systems all over the world,
particularly as the constituency of educational systems are become more
diverse, even linguistically speaking, within the context of globalization
(Bernardo 2004). In the same paper, I further argued that this
transformation requires the reexamination of some of the long-held
principles related to the language and education debates in the Philippines,
which I summarize in the following sections.

154
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

2.1 The language myth

The various positions on the role of language in education typically

assume that language is a fixed code for communication of meanings
within a community. Harris referred to this notion as the language myth
and asserted that this notion “reflects the political psychology of
nationalism, and [an] educational system devoted to standardizing the
linguistic behavior of pupils” (1981:9). Scholars like Le Page (1985) have
argued that this notion of language only make sense in the context of
prescriptive education. Instead of this view, Le Page and Tabouret-Keller
(1985) and Pennycook (1994) among others have suggested a more
“worldly” understanding of language, which locates language behaviors as
personal and social acts reveal personal and social identities, and that are
used to realize various personal and social functions.
This alternative way of understanding language makes the notion a
medium of instruction problematic. The use of language for learning and
teaching in schools is clearly a complex sociocultural process that is
continually being redefined by the bilingual and multilingual participants
of this process, who have varying degrees of language proficiencies in the
languages that may or may not be used in schools. The notion of a
medium of instruction presupposes that there is one fixed linguistic system
or code that can be assigned or appropriate to effectively realize all the
various processes in the educational environment. This presupposition
may not be tenable in a bilingual or multilingual context.

2.2 Functional fixedness of languages.

When solving problems in real life domains, including language

(e.g., Gerrig and Bernardo 1994), people tend to overlook the possible
usefulness of problem elements that are perceived to have some other
defined function (Duncker 1945). This lapse has been called functional
fixedness, and seems to be characteristic of the various positions on the
medium of instruction issue. In particular, it is often argued that each
language serves a different function: English has an instrumental role as
the language of learning in the important domains, while Filipino has a
symbolic role as unifying language and the language of nationhood
(Sibayan 1994, Sibayan and Gonzalez 1996, Tollefson 1991).

155
 BERNARDO

Notice that this account precludes the possibility of having

multiple educational functions for each of the languages. Those who speak
of English as the language of economic prosperity and social mobility, do
not refer to its unhealthy effects on learning and understanding of basic
and complex concepts, nor to its effect of perpetuating hegemonic (i.e.,
colonial, imperialist, feudal, capitalist, global) forces. Similarly, those
who harp on the expressive, educative, and liberating functions of Filipino
or the other Philippine languages often do not consider the present
pragmatic difficulties in using these languages to access much of current
advanced forms of knowledge that is coded in English, or its limited uses
in global communication. It seems that the discourse on language and
education in the Philippines has prescribed a rather restricted definition of
the function of language in the various aspects of education.

2.3 Monolingual assumption

Perhaps the most problematic notions underlying the discourse on

the roles of language relate to what I call a monolingual assumption, or
what Pennycook (1994) observed as the “belief in monolingualism as the
norm” (cf. 135, 168). This monolingual assumption has a number of
related postulates: the monolingual fallacy, the monolingual-based
standard, the code-separation position, and the subtractive-fallacy.
The monolingual fallacy was identified by Phillipson (1992) in
relation to the presupposition that English as a foreign language is best
taught monolingually. Phillipson notes how the monolingual
presupposition in teaching English as a second language fails to take
advantage of the rich scaffolding for second language learning – the
learner’s first or native language.
A different form of the monolingual assumption can be found in
relation to the emergence of English as the lingua franca of globalization.
Presently, there is a penchant for requiring or imposing monolingual,
native-speaker (i.e., American or British) norms or standards in using
English globally. Scholars like Cameron (1996) and Lo Bianco (2001)
suggest that this monolingual-based standard may be seen as a form of
“defense” against the various Englishes that are emerging in different parts
of the world (Kachru 1990, Marenbon 1987). This partiality for
monolingual-based standard is quite strong with some dominant sectors of
Philippine society, even as there are clear indications of the growth of a
Standard Philippine English (cf. Bautista 2000, 2001, Gonzalez 1997).

156
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

Another postulate of the monolingual assumption presumes the

need to preserve language purity and to avoid language mixing, most
especially in the formal educational context. This code-separation
postulate is best illustrated in the Bilingual Education Policy described
earlier where English and Filipino are assigned as media for instruction of
a distinct set of subjects. Sibayan (1985:110) noted, “it was thought that
language would be kept as separate codes,” and then lamented that this
goal of separating of the two languages has not been attained. The
concern seems to be about the difficulties that students would have to
learning in more than one language. The concern is related to Sibayan’s
(1996, 1999) observation that for most students, Filipino and English are
second and third languages, and that students would not be able to cope
with the requirements of learning in two non-native languages.
This particular position may be related to the notion that in
language learning, more is better. Dividing the students’ learning and
instructional resources (materials, time, attention, etc.) over two or three
languages would result in impairment of language learning – a notion that
Phillipson (1992) labeled as the maximum exposure fallacy. Some
scholars (cf. Hakuta 1986) have also noted fears that allowing the use of
more than one language in the important language domains like formal
education would result in the decline of one or more of the languages.
Phillipson (1992) refers to this assumption as the subtractive fallacy and
has pointed to several studies that indicate the fallacious elements of this
assumption, both at level of the individual and of the language
community.

2.4 Summary

In the preceding sections, I attempted to show that some of the

fundamental assumptions underlying much of the discourse on language
and education in the Philippines may be based on assumptions that are no
longer tenable. In particular, these assumptions do not seem to recognize
the “worldliness” and multidimensional and multilayered functionality of
language as it is used in bilingual and multilingual communities. Instead,
the assumptions are premised on the primacy of the structures of language
and the functional-specificity of languages. The assumptions also
preclude the possibility of harnessing the qualities of bilingual language
behaviors in the domain of formal learning. Instead, the assumptions are

157
 BERNARDO

premised on the normalcy of monolingual behaviors and standards in the

domain of formal learning.

3. Understanding Code-switching

A quick survey of the literature would indicate that code-switching

studies actually account for a rather small proportion of studies on
bilingualism. To a lesser extent, the same can be said about code-
switching studies in the Philippine context. Much of the research done on
code-switching in the Philippines draws from the foundational dissertation
of Bautista (1974/1980). Although there were a few earlier studies on
code-switching (see review of Bautista, 1991), Bautista’s disseration was
the first truly systematic analysis of Tagalog-English code-switching using
a very extensive linguistic corpus. In this work, Bautista characterized the
linguistic characteristic and constraints of Tagalog (now Filipino)-English
code-switching. Subsequently, some other researchers pursued the same
line of inquiry related to defining the linguistic constraints in the code-
switching behaviors of difference bilingual communities in the Philippines
(e.g. Sadicon 1978, on Tagalog (now Filipino)-Visayan code-switching;
Palines 1981, on Waray-English code-switching, Bautista 1990, 1998,
Lorente 2000, and Sobolewski 1982, all on Tagalog/Filipino-English
code-switching). All these studies point to the conclusion that code-
switching in Filipino bilinguals is rule-governed.
This conclusion is consistent with similar types of code-switching
studies in other bilingual communities in other countries (e.g. Grosjean
1982, Sridhar and Sridhar 1980) and support models of linguistic
constraints on code-switching (e.g. Perecman 1989, Pfaff 1979, Poplack
1980) and challenges the traditional view that code-switching indicates
lack of control over the need to maintain separation between the two
languages that was noted earlier in this paper.
Bautista (1999) also attempted to begin describing the functional
dimensions of Filipino-English code-switching. However, her analysis
focused on the linguistic functions and used Gumperz (1982) as a
framework for studying the pragmatics of code-switching. Code-
switching researchers in other countries have also explored the social
functions of code-switching and have identifies different functions of
code-switching as a sociolinguistic strategy. For example, Malakoff and
Hakuta (1991:146) reported that “code-switching is used for signaling
group boundaries, conveying emphasis, role playing, and establishing

158
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

sociocultural identity. It is also used to redefine an interaction…, to signal

the level of intimacy… or emotional charge.”
One of the more significant functions of code-switching relates to
goal of expressing connotative or denotative meaning in more precise
ways using words or phrases from one or the other languages. Research
on the bilingual’s memory for words strongly suggests that bilinguals have
a singular or shared conceptual representation of meanings but two distinct
linguistic/semantic representations (see review of Francis 1999, French
and Jacquet 2004). As such, the semantic units (i.e. words and phrases) in
one language may combine conceptual features in different ways
(Perecman 1989). Such cases can make true and exact translations
difficult between two languages. But for a bilingual person, these two
distinct semantic representations provide for a wider range of options for
expressing concepts and ideas in more precise ways. In these cases, code-
switching may result to a more definite rendering of a complex idea that
would otherwise be imprecise or vague when expressed in just one
language.
The bilingual’s flexibility and effectiveness in harnessing the
elements of the two languages is also manifest at the syntactic level. In
her studies that aim to model the Filipino-English bilingual’s linguistic
competence, Bautista (1974/1980) found that there are code-switched
sentences that cannot always be identified as either Filipino (i.e. Tagalog
in her report) or English. In such cases, however, the sentential units can
be more or less identified as either Filipino or English. This observation
suggests that the Filipino-English bilingual might be drawing from and
applying two sets of phrase structure rules to construct the code-switched
sentences.
As further testament to the flexibility in how Filipino-English
bilinguals draw from the linguistic elements of the two languages, Bautista
(1974/1980) suggests that part of the Filipino-English bilingual’s
competence involves knowledge about the use of “short cuts.” Bautista
writes, “[i]t seems that the Filipino bilingual knows the short cuts, so that
there are instances when his code switching seems to involve not the
whole apparatus of phrase marker, deep structure, transformation, etc., but
only ready-made, prefabricated surface structure constituents.”
The studies briefly described in this section show that code-
switching should not be construed as a process that merely reflects the
lack of control that the bilingual has over the separation of the two
languages or the lack of proficiency in the second language. Instead, the

159
 BERNARDO

studies indicate that code-switching is a rule-governed and functionally

specific language behavior that the bilingual may use to attain various
communicative and social goals. The studies also suggest that the
linguistic competencies underlying code-switching behavior consist of
systematic and complex knowledge and skills that involve working within
and across two language systems. Thus, we can conceive of code-
switching as a reasonable high-level linguistic skill that can be
appropriated for different purposes.

4. Code-Switching as Language of Education: Prospects

Can code-switching be appropriated for educational purposes?

Previously, some arguments have been made to underscore the importance
of general bilingual language competencies in learning. There is already
rather extensive research evidence on the positive consequences of
bilingualism on the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge (cf. Bialystok
1991, Cromdall 1999, Eviatar and Ibrahim 2000, Galambos and Goldin-
Meadow 1990). Many scholars of second language learning (e.g.,
Cummins 1991, Phillipson 1992) have argued that the first language can
be a very important resource for learning a second language. Researchers
have come to call this phenomenon positive transfer, when bilingual
persons use elements of their linguistic knowledge in their first language
in learning a second language (e.g. Gholamain and Geva 1999, Koda
2000, Schoonen, Hulstijn, and Bossers 1998, Upton and Lee-Thompson
2001). Yet, none of these studies explicitly point to the usefulness of
code-switching for language learning or other educational purposes.
In the Philippines, some inexplicit calls have been made to this
effect. For example, according to Sibayan (1985), Dr. Ponciano B.
Pineda, the former Director of the Surian ng Wikang Pambansa, had
encouraged the mixing of English and Filipino because this helps towards
the growth and intellectualization of the Filipino language. More recently,
in his assessment of the prospects for bilingual education in the
Philippines, Gonzalez (1999:13) calls for “maximum flexibility in the
media of instruction, flexibility not only in the medium of instruction
across the curriculum, but flexibility in traching and the offering of
choices to parents and children.” Although, Gonzalez does not explicitly
advocate the use of code-switching in schools, the spirit of his plea seems
to suggest that he will have no problems if students and teachers code-

160
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

switch as they attempt to collaboratively construct their understanding of

the various knowledge and skills that the curricula have defined.
In some respects, Gonzalez’s plea can be thought as being
unnecessary, as code-switching actually already a prevalent activity in
almost all Philippine classrooms. But Gonzalez’s call is actually directed
towards those sectors of the Philippine educational system that seek to
define in most explicit terms what and how languages should be used in
schools. (Indeed, it is those sectors that think of the language and
education issue in those terms that have been questioned in the previous
sections.) In effect, his appeal is that our explicit policy for language in
education should be to have as much flexibility and tolerance as possible.
We should note that Gonzalez’s entreaty is based on the explicit
acceptance of the less than ideal inputs and processes characteristic of
Philippine education. Thus, the “open” stance as regards the language of
education issue can be seen as a call to compromise, given that the ideal
conditions may never be obtained. It is quite obvious in Gonzalez’s
exposition that he sees the ideal situation for bilingual education as
involving separation of and respect for Filipino and English, the use of
English for the controlling domains of language, and the development of
coordinate bilinguals who are equally proficient in using both languages
separately.
I would like to propose that we consider code-switching not as a
compromise or fallback option, but as a positive option for language in
education. Filipinos are most certainly bilingual persons. We need to
understand this bilingual status not in fractional terms (e.g. two halves of
two monolinguals, etc.), but as whole persons with complete language
competencies that draw from two distinct language systems that share a
common conceptual representation system. Code-switching is an
important part of the Filipino bilingual’s language competencies. We now
know that code-switching is a rule-governed, linguistically complex, and
functionally specific language behavior that can be applied to attain
various types of communicative, social, personal, and even cognitive goals
within the bilingual community. In some cases, code-switching might
help attain such goals more effectively compared to either Filipino only or
English only. Thus, code-switching may be a viable and even potent
medium which student learners and teacher facilitators can use as they
collaborate towards developing and constructing knowledge in the
different domains of learning, particularly as both students and teachers
are bilinguals. Indeed, code-switching is a language that students and

161
 BERNARDO

teachers share that can be their resource in their mutual pursuit of

knowledge and understanding.
But is it not likely that the use of code-switching would result in
students attaining lower levels of language proficiencies in both
languages? The answer to this question should reflect the complexity of
the language competencies and realities of the Filipino bilingual. Yes, it is
possible that code-switching would result in Filipinos with lower
proficiencies both in Filipino and English. But this construal very clearly
stems from the various monolingual assumptions that view the bilingual in
fractional terms that repudiate the linguistic competencies of the bilingual
as such, even if such linguistic competencies can enable the bilingual to
better learn the different types of knowledge in the various domains of
school learning.
However, I do not wish to dismiss the value of separate
proficiencies in Filipino and English. We should keep in mind that code-
switching is functional and effective as long as the Filipino bilingual is
engaging other Filipino bilinguals. However, when Filipinos engage
monolingual Filipino or monolingual English speakers (or texts), the
efficacy of code-switching is lost. Thus, there will still be a need for
Filipino bilinguals to develop separate proficiencies in the two languages.
But I also think that it is not necessarily the case the code-switching would
result in the development of lower levels of Filipino and English
proficiencies. Indeed, the results on code-switching among Filipino
bilinguals reveals quite adequate levels of linguistic knowledge of both
language, enough to effectively draw from both for various
communicative, cognitive, social and personal purposes. There is no
reason why these levels of knowledge cannot be enhances, strengthened,
and/or fine-tuned for both languages. Thus, we can see code-switching as
a possible scaffold upon which higher levels of linguistic competencies
can be developed for each of the two languages.
At this point, I should also make it clear that I am not suggesting
that we being undertaking wholesale efforts to officialize code-switching.
I am not suggesting that we begin publishing textbooks written with code-
switching, and such. Instead, I propose that bilingual teachers and
students be allowed to use their natural bilingual competencies as they
work together towards building understanding in the different learning
areas.

162
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

5. Conclusion

Code-switching has gotten a bad rap, so to speak, in Philippine

educational discourse. It has been identified as a problem that reflects
poor linguistic knowledge, and also the cause for the deteriorating
language skills of Filipinos. On the whole, code-switching is seen as a
form of bilingual language behavior that would be harmful in the formal
educational context.
In this paper, I questioned the assumptions that underlie this
characterization of code-switching. These assumptions draw from and
impose the monolingual perspectives, and discount the legitimacy and
potency of bilingual language competencies. I then briefly summarized
research on code-switching that shows how it is a complex, rule-governed,
and functionally specific activity that demonstrates the linguistic
proficiency and facility of bilinguals. Finally, I argued for why code-
switching can be a legitimate and potent resource for learning and
teaching for bilingual students and teachers, and how we should relax our
language prescription in formal school environments to allow students and
teachers to benefit from the use of this efficacious resource of developing
knowledge and understanding.
The challenge I pose here is really a non-challenge, since teachers
and students in many Filipino classrooms are already implementing my
suggestion, as teachers and students have probably done so for the past
decades. The challenge is more appropriately directed to language
scholars, educational policy makers, and similar stakeholders of the
Philippine educational system who still see the problem of language and
education from the perspective that presupposes the normalcy of
monolingualism. These sectors of the Philippine community should begin
understanding the language situation and language competencies of
Filipinos in their own terms, and not in terms of deficits in relation to
some abstract ideal. Once we can see the phenomenon from the
perspective of competent bilinguals, we can begin appreciating the beauty
and power of these language competencies that monolingual persons will
never have.

163
 BERNARDO

Author Notes
I consider it a great privilege to contribute to the Festschrift for Ma. Lourdes S.
Bautista, who is an admired scholar, a supportive mentor, a trusted colleague, a most
cherished friend, and a truly beautiful person.

Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the Bro. Arthur Peter Graves
Distinguished Professorial Chair in Education awarded to the author by De La Salle
University-Manila. Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to the
author at De La Salle University-Manila, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila. Email may be sent
to bernardoa@dlsu.edu.ph.

REFERENCES

Almario, Virgilio S. 1997. Tradisyon at wikang Filipino. Quezon City:

UP Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
Arong, Jose 1988. Measuring Pilipino bilingualism. Evaluating bilingual
education in the Philippines (1974-1985), ed. by Andrew Gonzalez
and Bonifacio P. Sibayan, 63-70. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 1974. The Filipino bilingual’s competence: a
model based on an analysis of Tagalog-English code-switching.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ateneo de Manila Univresity-
Philippine Normal College Consortium.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 1980. The Filipino bilingual’s competence: a
model based on an analysis of Tagalog-English code-switching.
Canberra: The Australian National University.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 1990. Tagalog-English code-switching revisited.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics 212.15-29.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 1991. Code-switching studies in the Philippines.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 88.19-32.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 1998. Another look at Tagalog-English code-
switching. Pagtanaw: essays on language in honor of Teodoro A.
Llamzon, ed. by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, 128-146. Manila:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 1999. An analysis of the functions of Tagalog-
English code-switching: data from one case. The Filipino
bilingual: multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. by Ma. Lourdes S.
Bautista and Grace O. Tan, 19-31. Manila: Linguistic Society of
the Philippines.

164
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 2000. Defining Standard Philippine English: its

status and grammatical features. Manila: De La Salle University
Press
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. 2001. Studies of Philippine English: implications
for English language teaching in the Philippines. Journal of
Southeast Asian Education 2.71-95.
Bernardo, Allan B. I. 2004. Language in Philippine education: rethinking
old fallacies, exploring new alternatives amidst globalization.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bialystok, Ellen. 1991. Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language
proficiency. Language processing in bilingual children, ed. by
Ellen Bialystok, 113-140. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cameron, Deborah. 1996. Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.
Cromdal, Jakob. 1999. Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills:
analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied
Psycholinguistics 20.1-20.
Cummins, Jim. 1991. Interdependence of first- and second-language
proficiency in bilingual children. Language processing in bilingual
children, ed. by Ellen Bialystok, 70-89. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Department of Education. 1974. Implementing guidelines for the policy
on bilingual education Department Order No. 25, S. 1974. Manila:
Department of Education.
Duncker, Karl. 1945. On problem solving. Psychological Monographs
58.270.
Eviatar, Zohar, and Raphiq Ibrahim. 2000. Bilingual is as bilingual does:
metalinguistic abilities of Arabic-speaking children. Applied
Psycholinguistics 21.451-471.
Francis, Wendy S. 1999. Cognitive integration of language and memory
in bilinguals: semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin
125.193-222.
French, Robert M., and Maud Jacquet. 2004. Understanding bilingual
memory: models and data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 82.87-93.
Galambos, Sylvia Joseph, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 1990. The effects
of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness.
Cognition 34.1-56.
Gerrig, Richard J., and Allan B. I. Bernardo. 1994. Readers as problem-
solvers in the experience of suspense. Poetics 22.459-472.

165
 BERNARDO

Gholamain, Mitra, and Esther Geva. 1999. Orthographic and cognitive

factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in
English and Persian. Language Learning 49.183-217.
Gonzalez, Andrew. 1997. Philippine English: A variety in search of
legitimation. Englishes around the world, vol. 2: Carribean,
Africa, Asia, Australasia, ed. by Edgar W. Schneider, 201-212.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Gonzalez, Andrew. 1999. Philippine bilingual education revisited. The
Filipino bilingual: a multidisciplinary perspective, ed. by Ma.
Lourdes S. Bautista, and Grace O. Tan, 11-15. Manila: Linguistic
Society of the Philippines.
Gonzalez, Andrew and Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.) 1988. Evaluating
bilingual education in the Philippines (1974-1985). Manila:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Grosjean, François 1992. Another view of bilingualism. Cognitive
processing in bilinguals, ed. by Richard J. Harris, 51-62.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hakuta, Kenji. 1986. The mirror of language. The debate on
bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Harris, Roy. 1981. The language myth. London: Duckworth.
Kachru, Braj J. 1990. World Englishes and applied linguistics. World
Englishes 9.3-20.
Koda, Keiko. 2000. Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological
awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics 21.297-320.
Le Page, Robert B. 1985. Language standardization problems of Malaysia
set in context. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 13.29-39.
Le Page, Robert B., and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of identity.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2000. Multiliteracies and multilingualism.
Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures,
ed. by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, 92-105. London: Routledge.
Lorente, Beatriz P. 2000. Revisiting Taglish na naman: a congruence
approach to Tagalog-English code-switching. Philippine Journal
of Linguistic 311.25-37.

166
BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

Malakoff, Margaerite, and Kenji Hakuta. 1991. Translation skill and

metalinguistic awareness in bilingual. Language processing in
bilingual children, ed. by Ellen Bialystok, 141-166. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marenbon, John. 1987. English, our English: the new orthodoxy
examined. London: Centre for Policy Studies.
Palines, Godelia Afable. 1981. An analysis of code-switching in Pilipino
short stories and some sociolinguistic implications for Pilipino and
English language development. Unpublished Master’s thesis,
Philippine Normal College, Manila.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The cultural politics of English as an
international language. London: Longman.
Perecman, Ellen. 1989. Language processing in the bilingual: Evidence
from language mixing. Bilingualism across the lifespan: aspects
of acquisition, maturity and loss, ed. by Kenneth Hyltenstam, and
Loraine K. Obler, 227-244. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pfaff, Carol. 1979. Constraints on language mixing: intrasentential code-
switching and borrowing in Spanish/English. Language 55.291-
318.
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y
termino en español: toward a typology of code-switching.
Language 18.581-618.
Sadicon, Ma. Phoebe S. 1978. An analysis of code-switching between
Tagalog and Looc-Romblon languages. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Philippine Normal University, Manila.
Schoonen, Rob, Jan Hulstijn, and Bart Bossers. 1998. Metacognitive and
language-specific knowledge and foreign language reading
comprehension: an empirical study among Dutch students in
Grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning 48.71-106.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. 1985. Teaching for communicative competence in a
second language. Communicative language teaching, ed. by
Bikram K. Das, 106-119. Singapore: University of Singapore
Press.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. 1996. Some problems of bilingual education in the
Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education 75.18-20, 70-71.

167
 BERNARDO

Sibayan, Bonifacio P. 1999. Difficult tasks in teaching Filipino children in

two or three languages: Some suggested solutions. The Filipino
bilingual: a multidisciplinary perspective, ed. by Ma. Lourdes S.
Bautista and Grace O. Tan, 4-10. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. 2000. Resulting patterns of sociolinguistic,
socioeconomic, and cultural practice and behavior after more than
four hundred years of language policy and practice in the
Philippines. Parangal cang Brother Andrew. Festschrift for
Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday, ed. by Ma. Lourdes S.
Bautista, Teodoro A. Llamzon, and Bonifacio P. Sibayan, 247-261.
Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P., and Gonzalez, Andrew. 1996. Post-imperial
English in the Philippines. Post-imperial English: status change in
former British and American colonies, 1094-1990, ed. by Joshua
A. Fishman, Andrew W. Conrad, and Alma Rubal-Lopez, 139-172.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P., Andrew Gonzalez, Jose Arong, Fe T. Otanes, and
Luke Moortgat. 1988. Measuring achievement and its factors after
eleven years of bilingual schooling. Evaluating bilingual education
in the Philippines (1974-1985), ed. by Andrew Gonzalez, and
Bonifacio P. Sibayan, 5-61. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 1981. Bilingualism or not: the education of
minorities. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sobolewski, Frank A. 1982. Some syntactic constraints in Tagalog-
English language mixing. Philippine Journal of Linguistics
132.35-62.
Sridhar, S. N., and Kamal K. Sridhar. 1980. The syntax and
psycholinguistics of bilingual code-mixing. Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences 10.203-215.
Tollefson, James Q. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality:
language policy in the community. London: Longman.
Upton, Thomas A., and Li-Chun Lee-Thompson. 2001. The role of the
first language in second language reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 23.469-495.
Weinrich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.

168
 BILINGUAL CODE-SWITCHING

Zafra, Galileo S. 2002. Pushing national language development through

translation. Sanghaya 2002: Philippine arts-culture yearbook, ed.
by Bienvenido L. Lumbera, 111-117. Manila: National
Commission for Culture and the Arts.
Zafra, Galileo S., Roberto T. Añonuevo, Romula P. Bacquiran, Jimuel C.
Naval, and Jona S. Guarin. 2004. Gabay sa editing sa wikang
Filipino tuon sa pagbaybay. Quezon City: UP Sentro ng Wikang
Filipino-Diliman.

Citation for this paper:

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005). Bilingual code-switching as a resource for

learning and teaching: Alternative reflections on the language and
education issue in the Philippines. In D. T. Dayag & J. S. Quakenbush
(Eds.), Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and
beyond: A Festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (pp. 151-
169). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

169

View publication stats