A prevalent misconception among many Filipinos is the belief that Hiligaynon, Cebuano (Bisaya), and Waray-Waray, and many other regional distinct languages are mere dialects. This misunderstanding is perpetuated not only in everyday conversations but also within educational institutions across various levels (Sinupan, 2019).

The incorrect categorization of these languages as dialects diminishes their rich linguistic and cultural significance. This essay aims to debunk this myth by discussing the distinctions between languages and dialects, the creation and status of the Filipino language, and the broader implications of mislabeling these languages.

The Distinction Between Languages and Dialects

Linguistically, the terms “language” and “dialect” have specific definitions and implications. A language is a system of communication with its own set of rules for phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary, used by a particular community or country.

A dialect, on the other hand, is a regional or social variation of a language, characterized by distinct phonological, grammatical, and lexical features. The creation of a dialect often results from geographical, social, or political separation, leading to variations in speech patterns over time.

Understanding the difference between a language and a dialect is crucial for recognizing the nuances within a speech community. While a language encompasses a broader system of communication, dialects represent variations within that system. To further explore this distinction, it is essential to examine the key aspects of dialects that make them unique. By identifying these characteristics, one can better understand how dialects evolve and how they differ from one another, as well as from the language they stem from.

Key Aspects of Dialects

Mutual Intelligibility

The distinction between languages and dialects is often determined by the concept of mutual intelligibility, which serves as a primary criterion in linguistic classification. When speakers of different speech varieties can understand each other with minimal difficulty, these varieties are typically considered dialects of the same language. In contrast, if communication between these speakers is marked by significant challenges in comprehension, the varieties are generally regarded as distinct languages.

Standardization and Official Status

Another important factor in differentiating between languages and dialects is standardization and official status. Languages often undergo a process of standardization, which includes the creation of grammar books, dictionaries, and other educational resources that codify the language and establish norms for its use. This process is usually accompanied by the language being granted official status, which further solidifies its distinction from dialects, which typically lack such formal recognition and standardization.

Sociopolitical Factors

Sociopolitical factors also play a crucial role in the classification of speech varieties. The decision to label a particular variety as a language or a dialect is not purely linguistic; it is often influenced by considerations of national identity, historical context, and government policy. These factors can shape perceptions and classifications, sometimes elevating a dialect to the status of a language to reinforce national unity or identity, or conversely, relegating a language to the status of a dialect for political or ideological reasons.

Factors Leading to the Creation of Dialects

The development of dialects from a parent language is a complex process influenced by a variety of factors, each contributing to linguistic diversification in distinct ways.

Geographical separation plays a significant role, as physical barriers such as mountains, rivers, or vast distances can isolate communities, leading to the emergence of unique linguistic traits within each isolated group.

Social stratification further intensifies this divergence; variations in social class, occupation, or ethnic background create distinct speech patterns within the same geographical area, as different social groups often adopt or develop specific linguistic features that set them apart from one another.

Additionally, historical and political events have a profound impact on the evolution of dialects. For instance, colonization, migration, and the drawing of political boundaries can bring together or separate populations, influencing the language they speak and often leading to the formation of new dialects as different linguistic influences merge or divide. These factors, in combination, illustrate how dialects naturally evolve from a parent language, shaped by the intricate interplay of geography, society, and history.

The Misconception in Philippine Education

The misconception that Hiligaynon, Cebuano, and Waray-Waray, and many other langauges are dialects rather than languages is ingrained in the Philippine educational system. Some teachers at various educational levels continue to propagate this incorrect notion, which is reflected in outdated textbooks and curricula (Sinupan, 2019). These misconceptions are attributed to several factors.

Historical Influence of Colonialism

The historical influence of colonialism has played a significant role in shaping the perception of linguistic diversity in the Philippines. During both the Spanish and American colonial periods, there was a deliberate effort to downplay the multitude of languages spoken across the archipelago. Spanish, and later English, were promoted as the official languages of education and government, which led to the devaluation of local languages. These indigenous languages were often collectively labeled as “dialects,” a term that diminished their status by suggesting they were merely variations of a single language, rather than distinct languages in their own right.

Educational System Policy

The Philippine educational system has also been a key factor in perpetuating this misconception. For many years, the focus of education was heavily centered on English and Filipino, often to the detriment of regional languages. Textbooks, curricula, and teacher training materials commonly referred to regional languages as “dialects,” thus embedding this idea in the minds of both students and educators. This approach has contributed to the widespread misunderstanding of the linguistic diversity within the country.

Social Perception

Social perception further exacerbates this issue. There is a prevailing tendency to view languages spoken by smaller populations or in rural areas as “lesser” languages. This perception reinforces the idea that these languages are merely dialects of more dominant languages, such as Tagalog or Filipino. Consequently, the rich linguistic heritage of these communities is often undervalued.

Linguistic Complexity

the complexity of linguistic classification itself adds to the confusion. Understanding the distinction between a “language” and a “dialect” requires some knowledge of linguistic principles, which may not be emphasized in basic education. Generally, languages are defined by mutual unintelligibility—if speakers of two varieties cannot understand each other, they are considered separate languages. In contrast, dialects are mutually intelligible variations within a single language. However, many teachers may not have received adequate training to make these distinctions, further perpetuating the incorrect classification of languages as dialects.

National Language Policy

Finally, the creation of a national language, Filipino—primarily based on Tagalog—further contributed to this widespread misconception. The elevation of Filipino as the national language sometimes fostered the erroneous belief that other regional languages were simply “dialects” of Filipino or Tagalog. This view fails to recognize that these regional languages possess their own unique grammatical structures, vocabularies, and cultural significance, making them distinct languages rather than mere offshoots of the national language.

The Filipino Language: A Constructed National Language

The creation of the Filipino language as the official and national language of the Philippines raises an intriguing question: why was there a need to develop a constructed language rather than relying on a naturally evolved one?

Unlike natural languages that develop organically over time through the interaction of communities, Filipino is a constructed language, deliberately developed from Tagalog while incorporating elements from other Philippine languages. This deliberate construction aimed to address specific national goals.

The Filipino language was officially designated as the national language by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, with the primary objective of fostering unity and strengthening national identity in a linguistically diverse country. The process of creating Filipino involved several key steps designed to ensure that it could serve as a unifying national language.

First, selection was critical: Tagalog was chosen as the base language for Filipino due to its widespread use across the Philippines and its rich literary tradition, making it a practical and symbolic choice. Following this, standardization efforts were undertaken to develop a consistent grammar and orthography, ensuring uniformity in how the language would be taught, written, and spoken across different regions. Finally, the incorporation of words and expressions from other Philippine languages, as well as foreign languages, was essential in making Filipino a language that reflects the country’s diverse linguistic heritage. This incorporation was intended to create a language that, while based on Tagalog, would also resonate with speakers of other Philippine languages, thereby promoting inclusivity and national unity.

This carefully constructed process raises a broader question about the role of language in nation-building: Why was Filipino, as a constructed language, seen as necessary for achieving national unity in the Philippines?

Filipino vs. Other Philippine Languages

While Filipino functions as a unifying national language, it is important to recognize that it is far from the only language spoken in the Philippines. The country boasts a rich linguistic diversity, with over 180 languages spoken across its archipelago (Ethnologue, 2013). Each of these languages carries its own distinct identity, cultural significance, and historical value, reflecting the deep cultural and regional diversity of the Filipino people.

Mislabeling these languages as mere dialects not only diminishes their importance but also perpetuates the marginalization of both the languages and the cultures they represent. This misclassification undermines the rich linguistic heritage of the Philippines and contributes to the erosion of cultural identities that are intimately tied to these languages. Such linguistic marginalization can lead to a loss of cultural knowledge, traditions, and histories that are passed down through these languages, further marginalizing the communities that speak them.

Impacts of Mislabeling Languages as Dialects

The erroneous classification of languages such as Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Waray-Waray, and many others as mere dialects has far-reaching negative consequences that extend beyond linguistic inaccuracies.

One significant impact is cultural erasure, as this misclassification diminishes the rich cultural and historical heritage embedded within these languages. When languages are inaccurately labeled as dialects, the unique traditions, histories, and identities associated with them are often overlooked or undervalued, leading to a gradual erosion of cultural identity.

This misclassification also leads to linguistic marginalization, where speakers of these languages may feel undervalued or marginalized. Such marginalization can contribute to a decline in linguistic diversity, as speakers might abandon their native languages in favor of more dominant ones, resulting in the potential loss of these languages over time.

Furthermore, there are significant educational disadvantages associated with this misclassification. Students who speak these languages may not receive adequate education in their native tongues, which can negatively affect their learning outcomes and cognitive development. Research has shown that education in one’s native language can enhance understanding and retention, making the lack of native language instruction a critical issue.

Finally, these erroneous classifications have serious policy implications. Mislabeling languages as dialects can influence language policies, leading to inadequate resource allocation for the preservation and promotion of these languages. This, in turn, hinders efforts to maintain linguistic diversity and support the cultural communities that depend on these languages.

Conclusion

The misconception that Hiligaynon, Cebuano, and Waray-Waray are dialects rather than languages is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. Recognizing these varieties as distinct languages is crucial for preserving the Philippines’ rich linguistic and cultural diversity.

However, linguistic scholars and organizations such as the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF) recognize Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Waray-Waray, and other regional languages as distinct languages. Efforts to promote linguistic diversity and the use of mother tongues in education (Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education or MTB-MLE) are helping to correct this misconception.

It is imperative for educators, policymakers, and the general public to understand and respect the true nature of these languages. By doing so, we can foster a more inclusive and accurate representation of the Philippines’ linguistic landscape.

—

References and Further Readings

Bellwood, Peter. Man’s Conquest of the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Blust, Robert. Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 2013.

Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 2013. “Philippine Languages.” Ethnologue 17th ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International.

Fishman, Joshua A. “Sociology of Language.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2001, no. 150 (2001): 3-18.

Gonzales, Andrew. “Language Planning and the Socio-Political Realities of Multilingualism in the Philippines.” Language Problems & Language Planning 11, no. 2 (1987): 175-191.

McFarland, Curtis D. A Linguistic Atlas of the Philippines. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, 1983.

McFarland, Curtis D. The Philippine Languages: Survey of Basic Grammatical and Lexical Data. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 2012.

Nolasco, Ricardo M. “The Prospects of Multilingual Education and Literacy in the Philippines.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11, no. 6 (2008): 763-779.

Philippine Commission on Education, Culture, and Sports. “Executive Order No. 134.” Manila: Government of the Philippines, 1937.

Reid, Lawrence A. “Understanding Philippine Languages.” Journal of Philippine Linguistics 47, no. 2 (2013): 1-15.

Rubrico, Jessie Grace U. 2012. “The Filipino Language and Its Many ‘Dialects’.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 43 (2): 101-115.

Rubrico, Jessie Grace U. “The Making of a National Language: Filipino.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34, no. 1 (2013): 1-15.

Rubrico, Jessie Grace U. Philippine Dialects and Filipino Identity. Manila: Rex Book Store, 2006.

Schacter, Paul. 2013. “The Languages of the Philippines.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Sinupan.ORG. “Were Our Schools Wrong About Languages and Dialects?” Sinupan.ORG (blog). March 25, 2019.

Weinreich, Max. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton, 2012.

Wolff, John U. “The Cebuano Language and Dialects.” Oceanic Linguistics 11, no. 2 (1972): 407-453.