Chapters and Appendices

Kalinga State University
College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences

Dagupan Weste, Tabuk City, Kalinga
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study
The world’s linguistic diversity is undeniably
professing the existence of varieties of languages spoken
around the planet, may it be minor or major languages or may
it be spoken by small or large groups. Subsequently, the
world is also culturally diverse as thousands of cultural
groups represent their own language of identity.
Today, expert linguists estimated that there are about
7,111 known living languages on Earth (Eberhard et al.,
2019). Waltner (2019) cited that Chinese is the most spoken
language with about 1.3 billion native speakers while
English is just number 3 with only 379 million native
speakers. Besides, as far as “ethnologue” – the catalogue of
all the known living languages in the world – is concerned,
it is Papua New Guinea that has the most languages in the
world with 840 languages to be exact. Along the top 10 are:
Indonesia with 710 languages, Nigeria with 524, India with
453, United States with 335, Australia with 319, China with
BA in Political Science
1
305, Mexico with 292, Cameroon with 275, and Brazil as top
10 with 228 languages. These actual numbers only attest that
multilingual societies are common across the globe (Desmet
et al., 2008).
Drawing closer, the Philippines is one of the most
culturally diverse countries in the world as evidenced by
more than 100 ethno-linguistic groups in the country, each
having diverse cultures and distinct native tongues. Based
on the data of International Work Group for Indigenous
Affairs 2019, it is between 10 to 20% of the 102.9 million
national population of the Philippines belong to Indigenous
Groups. These ethno-linguistic groups in the Philippines are
mainly concentrated in the Cordillera Administrative Region
in Northern Luzon, comprising 33%, and in Mindanao with 61%,
while others are found in Visayas (UNDP-Philippines, 2013).
The Indigenous Peoples in the northern Luzon(Cordillera) are
collectively known as Igorots and those at the southern part
of Mindanao as Lumads.
Eventually, Kalinga is one among the diverse ethno-
linguistic groups in the Cordillera region, and it is with
its multilingual diversity that it is often referred to as
the “Babel of the Philippines.” It is being likened to the
2
“Tower of Babel;” wherein, the only single language uniting
the people was captured by God, causing them to speak
different languages. This significant feature of the Kalinga
indigenous languages is explicated for in spite of the
number of indigenous languages spoken by the tribe members,
and while speaking in distinct tongues, they still can
understand one another.
Moreover, Kalinga province is located in the central
part of the Cordillera Administrative Region, which is
significantly known to be arrayed with different unique
cultures, including varieties of languages. The region is
known to exhibit a colorful ethnicity as it, up to present,
is portraying diverse ethnic tribes besides the fact that
the people are encapsulated into a single appellation
Igorots, meaning “mountaineers.”
Most of the linguistic and cultural diversities are
found in the province of Kalinga. In Kalinga alone, there
are about 46 distinctive sub-tribes distributed across the
eight municipalities, including Tabuk City. However, as to
languages spoken in Kalinga, Himes(1997) identified in his
study Reconstruction in Kalinga Itneg the enthologue of the
8 Kalinga languages, citing: (1)Butbut Kalinga; (2)Limos
3
Kalinga; (3)Lubuagan Kalinga; (4)Mabaka Valley Kalinga;
(5)Majukayang Kalinga; (6)Southern Kalinga; (7)Tanudan
Kalinga; and (8)Banao Itneg. The same data is posted in the
Summer Institute for Linguistics (SIL), which is the basis
of a lot of researchers interested in studying languages.
Conversely, the identified 46 Kalinga sub-tribes would
suggest that there are other Kalinga ethnic languages that
are not yet identified by researchers in the field, and that
is based on the fact that SIL just depends on the data
gathered through field studies.
Drawing back to the anthropological derivation of the
Kalinga ethnic languages, it can be traced that these
originated from the Proto-Central Cordilleran group of
languages which include: Itneg (spoken in Abra), Bontok
(spoken in Mt. Province), Kankanay (spoken in the west of
Mt. Province and in Benguet), Balangaw (spoken in the east
of Mt. Province), Ifugao (spoken in Ifugao), and Isinai
which is spoken in Nueva Vizcaya (Reid, 1974). Accordingly,
this Proto Central group of languages can also be traced
that it is in lineage with the Malayo-Polynesian or
Austronesian family of languages, as polygenetic theory of
4
the world’s linguistic diversity is concerned (Robert Andrew
Blust, ed., Britannica Enclyclopedia).
Further, the name Kalinga /ka-liƞg-ga/ should be well
differentiated from the tagalog term /ka-li-nga/, which
means care. When people of other localities hear the word,
the connotation is always “headhunter.” The term was derived
from the Ibanag and Gaddang noun “kalinga” which means
“enemy,” “fighter,” or “headhunter” (Lambrecht, 1981).
According to the I-Kalinga folks, headhunting was
indeed a part of their history. During the early days, heads
were hunted by the Kalinga warriors and were believed to
bring them glory and to the whole tribe as well. The heads
were preserved and worshipped in rituals. As written by
Bigornia (2012), the warriors attained leadership and
respect through headhunting.
With the rich illustration of Kalinga culture, many
foreign authors wrote about its variations as to cultural
practices, natural resources, indigenous laws, and its
people – e.g. Krutak (2009) on Whang-od as the last
traditional tattoo artist in the Philippines; Shedden (2012)
on Kalinga Binaliwon blankets of Northern Luzon,
5
Philippines; Hong & James (2010) on the six new earthworms
of the genus Pheretima from Balbalan, Kalinga; Shedden
(2008) on Kalinga rice rituals and the conflation of
traditions; Stark & Skibo (2007) on the history of Kalinga
ethnoarcheological project; Graves (1981) on ethnoarcheology
of Kalinga ceramic design and in 1994 on Kalinga social and
material culture boundaries; Scott (1958) on the economic
and material culture of the Kalingas of Mandukayan; Longacre
and Skibo (1994) on Kalinga ethnoarch and other studies.
However, only few made an attempt to document the
linguistic structures of the Kalinga dialects or trace the
linguistic variations among the Kalinga dialects. A major
study conducted was that of Reid (1971) when he identified
220 basic vocabulary of the Kalinga dialects that only
include the varieties of Guinaang and Lubuagan. Other
varieties like Tinglayan, Tanudan, Limos, Salegseg, among
others were not cited. Another of which is the group
research of Baggay, Melad, and Empedrad (2016) which looked
into the lexical, phonological, and morphological
differences and similarities in the Kalinga languages; but
it only involved the Tulgaw and Dannaw tribes in the Upper
Kalinga and the Limos and Cal-Owan in the Lower Kalinga.
6
Other related studies include Ferreirinho’s (2015) “Selected
Topics in the Grammar of Limos Kalinga, the Philippines”
which only focused on the grammatical structure of the Limos
Kalinga dialect, and that of Gonzales’ (2013) “Dialect
Perception in Pasil, Kalinga” which delved into the
perceptions of the sub-tribe members on their dialect
Pinasil.
Thus, this study will be pursued to unravel the common
ground that holds the similarities and variations among the
indigenous languages of Kalinga. With that, it will further
provide a documentation of the Kalinga languages before
people would tend to forget their distinctiveness.
Some people may not know yet, but the Latin language is
now extinct – no longer in use for language contact. Other
known extinct languages include Sanksrit, Akkadian,
Sumerian, Coptic, Old Norse, Ancient Greek (Oxenham, 2016).
Taking a look at the historical background of the once
renowned Latin language, the dissolution had inevitably
arisen because there were no more native speakers, and it
was no longer commonly used. This is just one of the
significant reasons why this study must be pursued.
7
As commonly observed nowadays, people are becoming
fonder of foreign languages such as Korean, Mandarin,
Nihongo, among others; as they are also becoming avid fans
of Korean, Chinese, and Japanese movies, music, food and
customs.
Subsequently, in most cases today, parents tend to
speak to their children in Tag-Lish (Tagalog-English) for
the purpose of preparing them for their future communication
environment – when people extensively use English in their
workplaces. That is why these native languages are losing
their authenticity because they are sometimes diversified
with Tagalog and English.
More so, Ikalingas, especially those staying in Tabuk
City (the melting pot in the province), are observed to
mostly make use of Ilocano language as the lingua franca.
Indeed, it is still cannot be denied that Ilocano dominates
the northern Luzon. Data tells that Ilocano is the third
most widely used language in the Philippines with 1,327,211
numbers of households, Tagalog being the first and Bisaya as
the second (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2018).
8
Hence, these Kalinga indigenous languages must be
documented before they would be forgotten. As key results to
this study, it will help preserve the distinctiveness of the
Kalinga indigenous languages through documentation and
mapping. On the other hand, Mother-tongue teachers lack
instructional materials which is seen as a major problem in
implementing the program (Bernardo, Aggabao, and Tarun,
2018). Thus, this study will provide basis or reference for
Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in
Kalinga.
Theoretical Framework
This study foregrounds on the theory of genetic
relationship (in linguistics) which generally points that
languages are categorized according to their common
ancestors and common linguistic features that distinguish
them from other groups of languages.
This theory was brought about in 1786 by Sir William
Jones on his discovery of cognates – similarities of words
in different languages. Conformingly, Vakkilainen (2016)
also posited that some languages have a lot in common
because they are genetically related. The same is true with
9
McKenzie (2016) that genetic relationship is observed when
two languages share at least one ancestor variety.
Later after this discovery, linguists Rasmus Rask and
Franz Bopp in 1818, suggested that comparison between
languages should not be limited to lexicon or vocabulary.
Hence, the structure or grammatical features of languages
should also be compared.
It is with the theory that led Renfrew (1994) to the
illustration of the Indo-European family of languages. That
contributes to the evolution of comparative linguistics
which became known in Europe in the early 18 th century due
to the discovery of Sanskrit, having similar with related
languages such as Latin, Greek, and English, among others
(Beekes, 2011).
In linguistics, genetic relationship refers to “the
relationship that exists between languages that are members
of the same language family,” (Academic Dictionaries and
Encyclopedia, 2010).
Campbell (1997) further explicated that genetic
relationship relies on three sources: (1)similarities in
basic vocabulary, (2)shared structural/grammatical
10
properties (especially morphological), and (3)sound
correspondence (phonological).
Furthermore, the same is observed as to the present
Kalinga dialects. There are undeniably specific linguistic
similarities between and among the Kalinga dialects that
needs to be unravelled. The distinct Kalinga dialects are
phonologically, lexically and morphologically related as
observed and as studied by several authors – i.e. Baggay, et
al. (2016); Gonzales(2013); Ferreirinho(2015); Reid (1971).
Summer Institute of Linguistics (2019) have identified
eight(8) Kalinga dialects, and these are: Lubuagan, Butbut,
Mangali, Tinglayan, Souther Kalinga, and Northern or Limos
Kalinga. In fact, there are a lot more Kalinga dialects in
actual as compared to what are identified in the Ethnologue-
SIL Internation, known as an accurate source of information
on the living languages of the world. One significant reason
is that SIL only depends on the findings of field studies
(Verzola, 2015). That is why this study will also disclose
the actual number of present Kalinga dialects.
In the case of the Kalinga indigenous languages, these
native tongues belong to the same culture and location, but
11
differences in linguistic features such as lexical,
phonological, morphological are observed. Baggay, et al.
(2016) further noted that these linguistic variations are
determined according to the speakers’ geographical
locations.
However, the good side about the abovementioned
variations is that Kalinga people, though actually speaking
in different variations, still understand one another. There
are certain aspects in the native languages that are
somewhat similar to the other. Like the counting numbers in
English: one, two, three, could be translated in Pinukpok-
Kalinga or Lower Kalinga ethnic languages as osa, duwa,
tulu, while these are translated in Upper Kalinga,
particularly in Tinglayan, as osa, chugwa, turu.
Thus, this study will draw insight from the
abovementioned theory and concepts that there are common
ancestors and linguistic features among the Kalinga ethnic
languages. Subsequently, it will further unravel the
linguistic similarities and variations among Kalinga ethnic
languages that may lead to understanding on what aspects
among the Kalinga languages are diverse and what aspects are
common.
12
The interrelationship of the concepts as explained in
the previous discussions is illustrated in Figure 1. The
Input will draw insights from the indigenous language in
Kalinga and the linguistic features of the indigenous
languages of Kalinga such as lexical, morphological, and
syntactic features. These inputs will be processed as to
comparative-linguistic approach which will give result to
the map of linguistic cognates of Kalinga.
Figure 1 is illustrated on the next page.
13
INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUT
 Indigenous
languages of
Tinglayan,
Kalinga Lexical
Cognate
 Lexical Profiles of
Categories of Indigenous
the indigenous Comparative Languages of
languages of linguistic Tinglayan,
Tinglayan, approach Kalinga
Kalinga
Glossary of
 Counting Indigenous
Numbers Languages of
 Pronouns Tinglayan,
 Body Parts Kalinga
 Living Things
 Non-living
Things
 Kinship
 Time
 Theory of
genetic
relationship
Figure 1. Research Paradigm of the Study
14
Statement of Objectives
This study will explore on the lexical cognates among
the indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga.
Specifically, it will seek answers to the following
objectives:
1. to determine the lexical resemblances among the
indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga in terms of the
following:
1.1 Counting Numbers;
1.2 Pronouns;
1.3 Body Parts;
1.4 Living Things;
1.5 Non-living Things;
1.6 Kinship; and
1.7 Time.
2. to identify the lexical cognate profiles of the
indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga as to living
things.
15
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined operationally within
the context of the study for better understanding:
Comparative linguistics. This refers to the field that
studies the comparisons between and among languages,
specifically noting and analyzing their linguistic features.
Cognates. These refer to the words that closely
resemble each other in terms of spelling, pronunciation, and
use.
Kalinga. It is the province situated in central part
of the Cordillera Administrative Region that comprises 7
municipalities, including the city of Tabuk, namely: Rizal,
Pinukpuk, Pasil, Lubuagan, Tinglayan, Tanudan, and Balbalan.
Tinglayan indigenous languages. These refer to the
native or ethnic languages used by the people of Tinglayan,
Kalinga, which varies as used by the 7 identified sub-tribes
in Tinglayan, Kalinga.
Language. This is referred in this study as the means
of communication of a particular group in order to extend
16
their forms of expressions in culture, traditions, arts,
religion, thoughts and principles, and the like.
Lexical features. These are observed through the
resemblances in counting numbers, pronouns, or nouns among
the Kalinga indigenous languages.
Lexicography. This refers to the study of lexicon or
set of words or vocabulary in a particular language.
Lexicostatistics. This is a method introduced by
Shwadesh (1955) which is used to classify cognates between
and among languages.
Linguistic cognates. These are referred in this study
as the words that denote resemblances or similarities
between and among the Kalinga indigenous languages as to
their linguistic features: a) lexical; b) morphological; and
c) syntactic.
Linguistic categories. These are referred in this study
as the aspects of language that denote differences or
similarities between or among languages compared such as
pronouns, counting numbers, time, kinship, among others.
17
Significance of the Study
This study is beneficial to the following:
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP-
Kalinga). The agency will find this study beneficial as they
will have this as basis in updating their data on the
indigenous languages of Kalinga. Hence, this study will help
them in mapping out language policies and programs that will
preserve the distinct indigenous languages of Kalinga.
Administrators/Officials of Kalinga Province. This
study will open awareness to the administrators of the
province on the essence of valuing one’s native language.
Hence, this will serve as their basis for mapping out
programs and language policies that will ensure the choice
and use of indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga in all
aspects of cultural expressions for their preservation as
part of cultural heritage of Kalinga. More so, they will
find significance in documenting the distinct Kalinga
dialects that will eventually help preserve the cultural
heritage of the province, and will be sustained for the
generations to come.
18
Indigenous Peoples of Kalinga. They are the number one
beneficiaries of this study as they will take pride of their
native languages when significantly patronized in all sorts
of cultural expressions of Tinglayan, Kalinga. Thus, the
written accounts that will be published regarding the
indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga will also provide
them bases to continuously teach the young generations of
their colorful native tongues.
Teachers. This study will serve as reference to the
teachers, especially those teaching mother tongues in
elementary grades, when it comes to teaching the diverse
linguistic features of the Kalinga indigenous languages.
Therefore, it will make the teaching-learning process easier
and more productive.
Students. They will also benefit from this study as
they will have reference on the diverse linguistic features
of the indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga. Hence,
they will not only become aware of the structures in
Filipino, English, or foreign languages, but more
importantly, in their distinct native languages also.
19
Researchers. The result of this study will continue to
serve as basis for the researcher to continuously record the
significant linguistic features of the indigenous languages
of Tinglayan, Kalinga. Through this, there will be more to
discover and unravel about Kalinga.
Future Researchers. The result of this study will serve
as a reference for parallel or replicate researches in the
future.
Scope and Limitations
This study will only focus on the indigenous languages
of Tinglayan, Kalinga, Philippines which include: 1) Bangad;
(2) Basao; (3) Butbut; (4) Dananao; (5) Sumadel; (6)
Tongrayan; and (7) Tulgao.
It will foreground on the theory of genetic
relationship which explicates that similarities in languages
are observed through its basic vocabulary, shared
structural/grammatical properties (especially
morphological), and sound properties between and among
languages (Campbell, 1997).
Hence, the study will be limited to the lexical
resemblances of the Kalinga indigenous languages in
20
Tinglayan, which consider categories of counting numbers,
pronouns, body parts, living things, non-living things,
kinship, and time.
It will further be limited to the responses of the
participants on the questionnaires administered. As such,
the study will only involve the Tinglayan sub-tribe members
(by blood and by birthplace) who have ample knowledge of the
indigenous languages of Tinglayan (who can read and write
using their native tongue).
Moreover, it will only consider responses of the
participants on the questions posted in the instrument,
which include their profile such as name (optional), age,
ethnic affiliation, first language, and other languages
spoken.
Finally, this study will make use of the Ilocano and
English languages as the base languages for translation to
indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga. Thus, further
explanations and definitions of the identified Ilocano and
English words in this study by the researchers weill be
assumed if necessary and in order for the participants to
understand better.
21
Chapter 2
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This section presents the research design, location of
the study, population of the study, instrumentation, data
gathering procedure, and the data analysis to be employed in
the study.
Research Design
This study will make use of a mixed methods research
design, employing exploratory sequential approach.
Exploratory sequential design is the gathering first of
qualitative data and is followed up with quantitative data
collection.
As for the exploratory sequential design, the
researchers will specifically employ a comparative-
lexicostatistical approach, which this study considered as
combination of comparative method (comparative linguistics)
and lexicostatistical method as these found answers to the
similarities of the indigenous languages of Tinglayan,
Kalinga as to lexical categories of counting numbers,
22
pronouns, body parts, living things, non-living things,
kinship, and time.
Hence, it will start gathering qualitative data through
the direct answers of the participants on their local terms
of selected words as posted in the instrument. There, the
researchers will note on the lexical resemblances of the
identified indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga. This
will then be followed with a quantitative approach, known as
lexicostatistical approach; which is the computation of
percentages of cognates among the indigenous languages of
Tinglayan, Kalinga.
Further, in the field of comparative linguistics, it is
significant to note that if genetic links are already
established, comparison may be done in order to identify
cognates among languages are undeniably related with each
other because of the observed cognates or resemblances among
them. In addition, the comparative method will gather
quantitative data on the similarities among the Kalinga
indigenous languages, which will be based on the answers of
the participants on the questionnaires.
23
On the other hand, lexicostatistical approach clearly
points out the use of lexicostatistics, which literally
pertains to combined words lexis (set of words) and
statistics (analysis of data). According to Shwadesh (1955),
lexicostatistics is used to classify cognates between and
among languages. This will be employed in order for the
study to classify the cognate profiles of the indigenous
languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga.
Locale of the Study
The study will be conducted in the municipality of
Tinglayan, Kalinga.
Figure 2. Map of Kalinga
24
Tinglayan is a cradle of 7 Kalinga sub-tribes, which
include: (1) Basao; (2) Bangad; (3) Butbut; (4) Dananao; (5)
Sumadel; (6) Tongrayan; and (7) Tulgao. Each sub-tribe
represents their own variation of the Kalinga indigenous
languages. As noted by Baggay, et al. (2016), variations are
observed according to the speakers’ geographical locations.
Moreover, the study will note on the resemblances of
the identified indigenous languages according to location of
groups of speakers.
Participants of the Study
The study will employ purposive random sampling,
involving 20 members of each of the different sub-tribes in
Tinglayan, Kalinga, specifically those who have ample
knowledge about their indigenous language – those who were
born and reared in Tinglayan, Kalinga and can speak and
write using their native language. In total, the study will
involve 140 participants, 20 from each of the 7 sub-tribes.
At most, the study will consider 30 years old and above
as they are in their mid-life and still have higher
authenticity level on their use of their indigenous language
compared to the younger ones. That is for the reason that
25
many young ones today are into social media craze that they
tend to imitate the language and dispositions of what is
trending today. They are fond of Korean, Chinese, and
Japanese movies that leads to even trying to learn and speak
the languages from these movies, giving more interest to
these compared to their native languages. Also, parents
today prefer teaching their young children to speak in
English or Filipino rather than on their native tongue. That
is why the authenticity of one’s native tongue could
alleviate due to the previously-mentioned reasons.
Therefore, the researchers will particularly choose
participants at ages 30 and above.
Moreover, the study is very much particular on the
rights of the participants for non-disclosure of information
within their knowledge. Hence, ethical considerations will
be reflected in this study.
Instrumentation
In gathering data on the linguistic cognates among the
indigenous languages of Kalinga, the researchers will make
use of a questionnaire as the primary tool.
The questionnaire is sufficed by the following content:
26
The preliminary part of the questionnaire includes the
letter to respondents and the personal data of the
participants as to their name (optional), age, sex, ethnic
affiliation, first language (L1) and other languages spoken.
However, this part is not be the basis for soliciting
answers to the questions posted in the study, but the
solicited information will be kept confidential for the
purpose of knowing the significant details about the
participants only. It was clearly noted in this study that
their information will be kept confidential and will be
treated as the purpose of the study only.
The following are the significant parts of the
questionnaire as these gathered data on the questions posted
in this study:
Part 1 solicited answers on the lexical resemblances of
the indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga. It is
divided into seven categories, specified as follows:
A. Counting numbers. It includes 30 items (1-21, 30
40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, and 1000);
B. Pronouns. It includes 15 items (I, you, he, she,
it, we, us, they, them, their, me, his, her, your, and our);
27
C. Body parts. It consists of 10 items;
D. Living things. It comprises 25 items;
E. Non-living things. It included 19 items;
F. Kinship. It consists of 15 items; and
G. Time. It includes 5 items.
Some of the items on the categories of counting
numbers, body parts, living things, and non-living things
were partly adapted from the study of Baggay, Melad, &
Empedrad (2016), while most of the items on all categories
were adapted from the Dep-Ed’s MTB-MLE Teacher’s Guide for
Mother Tongue - Ilocano, which is used by grade 1 teachers
in teaching Mother Tongue - Ilocano.
As to the validity of the instrument, the researchers
sought the assistance of two language experts and one
Mother-tongue teacher. They validated first the instruments
before seeking approval from the Research Adviser.
Data Gathering Procedure
Figure 3 illustrates the procedure of gathering data
that will be undertaken in this study.
28
Approval of Administering of Analysis and

Questionnaire Questionnaires Interpretation
Figure 3. Procedure of Gathering Data
In order to give results to the objectives posted in
this study, the following steps will be undertaken:
A. Approval of Questionnaire. The researchers will
seek first the approval of the questionnaire from the
adviser and the research professor. The purpose of this is
for final checking of the questionnaire and for
incorporation of suggestions, should there be any.
B. Administering of Questionnaires. After permit was
granted, the researchers administered the questionnaires to
the participants.
C. Analysis and Interpretation. This will be undertaken
just after retrieving the questionnaires in order to keep
the details intact and still fresh in the mind of the
researchers. Analysis will make use of comparative-
lexicostatistical method. Comparative method documented the
lexical resemblances among the indigenous languages of
Tinglayan, Kalinga.
29
Moreover, it is in this step that data will be
quantitatively treated with the use lexicostatistics in
order to find answers to problem number 2, which is on the
percentages of linguistic resemblances or cognate profiles
of the indigenous languages of Tinglayan.
Ethical Considerations
Further, ethical considerations will be accentuated.
Hence, the participants will not be forced to undertake in
the study or answer the questionnaires unless they are
willing. More so, even after the conduct of this study, the
researchers nor the research assistants and translators
shall not use any information of the participants unless
permitted.
Data Analysis
The data from the retrieved questionnaires will be
analyzed and interpreted according to the objectives posted
in this study.
Subsequently, the answers of the participants will be
treated strictly to determine the lexical resemblances among
the indigenous languages of Tinglayan, Kalinga, including
30
the percentages of cognates among the indigenous languages
of Tinglayan. The data to be gathered on the lexical
resemblances among the indigenous languages of Tinglayan
will be subjected for lexicostatistics before determining
their cognate profiles.
The use of lexicostatistics, which was first introduced
by Swadesh (1955), will be simplified in this study in order
to find answers to the needed data.
This study will make use only of the first two steps of
lexicostatistics as identified by Gudschinsky (1956), to
wit: 1) collect comparable word lists from the relatively
stable core vocabulary; and 2) determine the probable
cognates. Hence, computing for time depth and range of error
were not considered anymore as these did not hold any
bearing to the study.
Thus, the simplified lexicostatistics will be employed
in order to identify cognates and the percentages of
similarities among the indigenous languages of Tinglayan,
Kalinga.
In classifying whether lexical cognates, the following
descriptions will be used:
31
Symbol Descriptive Descriptions

Words
S Similar This means that words compared in both

Tinglayan, Kalinga varieties are at
least 95% similar, meaning phonetics
and symbols are obviously related.
Resemblances are obvious and difference
may just be a hyphen or spacing.
D Dissimilar This means that words compared are far

from related. Say, similarity in one
phonetic sound will not be considered.
Resemblances are hard to find.
As to computing for the percentage of similarities,
simple lexicostatistics will be undertaken with the use of
the following formula:
Cognate
X 100
N
Cognates refer to the similar terms common to both or
among languages compared, N stands for the total number of
word list. Hence, if there are 8 cognates between two
languages or dialects compared and there are 80 in the word
list. The computation would be 8 divided by 80 multiplied by
100 would be equal to 10% similarity between the languages
compared.
32
REFERENCES
Anttila, R. (1989). Historical and Comparative Linguistics.

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. John Benjamins
Publishing Company. https://books.google.com.ph/
Arita, T and Koyama, Y. (1998).Evolution of Linguistic

Diversity in a Simple Communication System. Artificial
Life. Vol. 4, Issue 1: pp. 109-124. January 1998.
https://doi.org/10.1162/106454698568477
Atkinson, Q. (2011). Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial

Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa.
Science 332, 346 (2011).
www.sciencemag.org.DOI:10.1126/science.1199295.
Baggay, HCL, Melad, TP, and Empedrad, L.(2016).

Lexicography of Kalinga Dialects. Bannag: A Journal of
Local Knowledge, Vo. 3, No.1, 2016. ISSN: 2423-1347
Bigornia, M. (2012, February 7). The Kalinga People. Ethnic

Groups of the Philippines.
https://www.ethnicgroupsphilippines.com
Blust, Robert Andrew(ed). Austronesian Languages. 2019

Enclyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com
Campbell, L. (1997). Genetic Classification, Typology, Areal

Linguistics, Language Endangerment, and Languages of
the North Pacific Rim, Vol. 2, ed. By Osohito Miyaoka
and Minoru Oshima, 172-242. Kyoto: University.
Carroll, S.(1992). On Cognates. Second Language Research.

Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht), Volume: 8
issue: 2, page(s): 93-119. Issue published: June 1,
1992. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800201
33
Dyen, I. (2018). Linguistic Subgrouping and

Lexicostatistics, Vol. 175. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co
KG. https://www.books.google.com.ph
Appendix A
(Letter to Authority)
May 18, 2021
Hon. Sacrament Gumilab

Mayor, Municipality of Tinglayan
Dear Sir:
The undersigned are currently undertaking a study

entitled, “LEXICOGRAPHY OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES OF
TINGLAYAN, KALINGA.”
In lieu with this, may we solicit your permission on

allowing us to conduct this study among your constituents?
This will gather data from 20 each sub-tribe of Tinglayan,
Kalinga.
Rest assured that your information and your answers to

the questions will be disclosed for the purpose of the study
only.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration of this

earnest request.
Researchers,
Oliver B. Edas
Jennifer E. Mangao
Rosalie Marngo
Glaymie S. Pacia
Mickey Joy B.Andres
34
Noted by:
Juan Dela Cruz

Adviser
Appendix B
(Letter to Participants)
May 18, 2021
Dear Participants:
The undersigned are currently undertaking a study

entitled, “LEXICOGRAPHY OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES OF
TINGLAYAN, KALINGA.”
In lieu with this, may we solicit your honest and

candid responses to all the items in this questionnaire?
Rest assured that your information and your answers to

the questions will be disclosed for the purpose of the study
only.
Thank you very much for your utmost cooperation.
Researchers,
Oliver B. Edas
Jennifer E. Mangao
Rosalie Marngo
Glaymie S. Pacia
Mickey Joy B. Andres
Noted by:
35
Juan Dela Cruz

Adviser
Appendix C
(Questionnaire)
36

Chapters and Appendices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapters and Appendices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kalinga State University

College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences

Background of the Study

The world’s linguistic diversity is undeniably

professing the existence of varieties of languages spoken

around the planet, may it be minor or major languages or may

it be spoken by small or large groups. Subsequently, the

world is also culturally diverse as thousands of cultural

groups represent their own language of identity.

Today, expert linguists estimated that there are about

7,111 known living languages on Earth (Eberhard et al.,

2019). Waltner (2019) cited that Chinese is the most spoken

language with about 1.3 billion native speakers while

English is just number 3 with only 379 million native

speakers. Besides, as far as “ethnologue” – the catalogue of

all the known living languages in the world – is concerned,

it is Papua New Guinea that has the most languages in the

world with 840 languages to be exact. Along the top 10 are:

Indonesia with 710 languages, Nigeria with 524, India with

10 with 228 languages. These actual numbers only attest that

multilingual societies are common across the globe (Desmet

Drawing closer, the Philippines is one of the most

culturally diverse countries in the world as evidenced by

more than 100 ethno-linguistic groups in the country, each

having diverse cultures and distinct native tongues. Based

on the data of International Work Group for Indigenous

Affairs 2019, it is between 10 to 20% of the 102.9 million

national population of the Philippines belong to Indigenous

Groups. These ethno-linguistic groups in the Philippines are

mainly concentrated in the Cordillera Administrative Region

in Northern Luzon, comprising 33%, and in Mindanao with 61%,

while others are found in Visayas (UNDP-Philippines, 2013).

The Indigenous Peoples in the northern Luzon(Cordillera) are

collectively known as Igorots and those at the southern part

Eventually, Kalinga is one among the diverse ethno-

linguistic groups in the Cordillera region, and it is with

its multilingual diversity that it is often referred to as

the “Babel of the Philippines.” It is being likened to the

“Tower of Babel;” wherein, the only single language uniting

the people was captured by God, causing them to speak

different languages. This significant feature of the Kalinga

indigenous languages is explicated for in spite of the

number of indigenous languages spoken by the tribe members,

and while speaking in distinct tongues, they still can

understand one another.

Moreover, Kalinga province is located in the central

part of the Cordillera Administrative Region, which is

significantly known to be arrayed with different unique

cultures, including varieties of languages. The region is

known to exhibit a colorful ethnicity as it, up to present,

is portraying diverse ethnic tribes besides the fact that

the people are encapsulated into a single appellation

Igorots, meaning “mountaineers.”

Most of the linguistic and cultural diversities are

found in the province of Kalinga. In Kalinga alone, there

are about 46 distinctive sub-tribes distributed across the

eight municipalities, including Tabuk City. However, as to

languages spoken in Kalinga, Himes(1997) identified in his

study Reconstruction in Kalinga Itneg the enthologue of the

8 Kalinga languages, citing: (1)Butbut Kalinga; (2)Limos

Kalinga; (3)Lubuagan Kalinga; (4)Mabaka Valley Kalinga;

(5)Majukayang Kalinga; (6)Southern Kalinga; (7)Tanudan

Kalinga; and (8)Banao Itneg. The same data is posted in the