MAGUINDANAON LANGUAGE USE IN COMPUTER

MEDIATED COMMUNICATION: A STUDY

AMONG MAGUINDANAON STUDENTS
IN MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES

MANAP B. MANGULAMAS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
IN
LINGUISTICS

Payap University
January 2017
Title: Maguindanaon Language Use in Computer Mediated
Communication: a study among Maguindanaon students in
Mindanao, Philippines
Researcher: Manap B. Mangulamas
Degree: Master of Arts in Linguistics
Advisor: David M. Eberhard, Ph.D.
Approval Date: 27 January 2017
Institution: Payap University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

The members of the thesis examination committee:

1. _______________________________ Committee Chair

(Professor Somsonge Burusphat, Ph.D.)

2. _________________________________ Committee Member

(David M. Eberhard, Ph.D.)

3. _________________________________ Committee Member

(Robert Wyn Owen, Ph.D.)
Copyright © Manap B. Mangulamas
Payap University 2017
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher wishes to extend his utmost appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to the
people who contributed to the success of this study.

To Dr. David M. Eberhard, his main advisor, for the unconditional support, incessant
advice, noteworthy knowledge, time and effort, and the opportunity to work and
explore the researcher’s knowledge to make this research successful.

To Dr. Robert Wyn Owen, his committee member, for his valuable and motivational
advice, guidance in statistics, time and effort, and genuine assistance on the thesis
planning and analysis.

To Dr. Somsonge Burusphat, his thesis committee chair, for her remarkable
suggestions, comments, and inputs during the Thesis defense.

To Dr. Riceli Mendoza, his mentor, for her support, insightful ideas, and wisdom
about the topic and in the field of linguistics

To the faculty members of Linguistic Department chaired by Dr. Christopher Wilde,

for teaching us innumerable fields in linguistics that we can use and apply in our
future endeavors. The researcher owes so much gratitude to the shared knowledge,
time and effort, patience, understanding, and respecting our cultural and individual
differences.

The researcher would like to extend his earnest appreciation to the former Linguistic
Department chairman, Ajarn Art Cooper, and to his wife Pam Cooper, for their
endless instruction, guidance, care, and assistance. Also, special thanks to Terry Gibbs
for the assistance on the complicated computer and technical matters. And, to Yui for
her enormous support on the administrative-related matters.

The researcher would like express appreciation to his batch mate and other linguistic
students for the friendships and family-like environment. You guys make the learning
easy, innovative, treasurable and collaborative. Thank you.

i
The researcher would like to express his gratitude to his former Alma Mater, the
University of Southern Mindanao for the assistance on data gathering phase. To the
College of Arts and Sciences, especially to the faculty members of Department of
English Language and Literature, College of Education, College of Agriculture,
IMEAS Department, CDBEM Department for the support in the administration of
research instruments to the selected Maguindanaon students. The researcher would
like to thank the faculty and staff of Pikit National High School and Takepan National
High School for the assistance they rendered on the data gathering. Also, he would
like to extend his thankfulness to his friends, Norhamin Andik and Matabai Mustapha
for their insights about the Maguindanaon language.

The researcher dedicates this study to David Mushrow for the books and references,
and to the Maguindanaon speakers who voluntarily participated in data gathering
phase. This study would not be successful without your valuable support.

Above all, the researcher would like to extend his deepest thanks and gratitude to his
parents, brothers and sister, nephews and nieces, cousins, and other relatives for the
unconditional love, support, care, prayer, advice, encouragement, and for giving the
researcher’s strength to make this study worth treasuring.

The researcher’s highest praise to Allah for the wisdom, good health, guidance and
blessings. This research is far more accomplished without Him and His continuous
guidance to make everything possible in spite of adversity and hardships encountered
along the way.

Finally, to all who contributed for the accomplishment of this work, this research is
modestly dedicated to all of you.

Manap B. Mangulamas

ii
Title: Maguindanaon Language Use in Computer Mediated
Communication: a study among Maguindanaon students in
Mindanao, Philippines
Researcher: Manap B. Mangulamas
Degree: Master of Arts in Linguistics
Advisor: David Eberhard, Ph.D.
Approval Date: 27 January 2017
Institution: Payap University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Number of Pages: 155
Keywords: Maguindanaon, Language Use, Language Vitality, Domains of
Use, Sociolinguistics, CMC, Philippines.

ABSTRACT
This research investigates the Maguindanaon language use patterns in computer
mediated communication (CMC). It compares the patterns of younger and older
speakers in CMC. In addition, the research assesses the current language vitality of
Maguindanaon. The non-standard linguistic practices in CMC are also investigated.

The study concluded that the younger generation speakers were using lower
percentages of their L1 when texting, whereas the older generation demonstrated
higher percentages of Maguindanaon language use when texting in general. Age and
relationship were found to be the two crucial factors that significantly contribute and
affect the sustainable use and vitality of Maguindanaon. The familial relationship
seems to be the steadiest domain when it comes to sustainability, and can be
considered as a ‘sacred space’ in CMC in Maguindanao. Intra-sentential code-
switching, vowel deletions, shortenings, intentional misspellings, and the use of
extralinguistic features were found to be common types of non-standard practices by
Maguindanaon speakers in CMC.

iii
This study views texting as a ‘low’ function of literacy because of its unique
characteristics, ‘private’ and ‘delayed’. These characteristics strengthen the EGIDS
level 5 by providing domains for literacy. This paper proposes a level that indicates a
stronger level of EGIDS, namely level “5+”.

iv
 ชื่อเรื่อง: การใช้ภาษามากินดาเนาในการสื่อสารผ่านคอมพิวเตอร์ :
การศึกษาจากนักศึกษาชาวมากินดาเนาในเมืองมินดาเนา
ประเทศฟิลิปปินส์
ผู้วิจัย: มานัพ บี. มันกูลามัส
ชื่อปริญญา: ศิลปศาสตรมหาบัณฑิต (ภาษาศาสตร์)
อาจารย์ที่ปรึกษาวิทยานิพนธ์หลัก: ดร. เดวิด เอ็ม อีเบอร์ฮาร์ด
วันที่อนุมัต:ิ 27 มกราคม 2560
สถาบัน: มหาวิทยาลัยพายัพ จังหวัดเชียงใหม่ ประเทศไทย
จานวนหน้า: 155
คาสาคัญ: ภาษามากินดาเนา การใช้ภาษา พลังชีวิตของภาษา แวดวง
ของภาษา ภาษาศาสตร์เชิงสังคม การสื่อสารที่ใช้
คอมพิวเตอร์เป็นสื่อกลาง ประเทศฟิลิปปินส์

บทคัดย่อ
งานวิ จั ย นี้ มี วั ต ถุ ป ระสงค์ เ พื่ อ ตรวจสอบรู ป แบบการใช้ ภ าษามากิ น ดาเนา ในการสื่ อ สารที่ ใ ช้
คอมพิวเตอร์เป็นสื่อกลาง และเปรียบเทียบรูปแบบการใช้ภาษาของวัยรุ่นและวัยสูงอายุใน CMC
นอกจากนี้ยังมีการประเมินพลังชีวิตปัจจุบัน ของภาษามากิน ดาเนา และวิเคราะห์ลักษณะ การใช้
ภาษาที่ไม่ได้มาตรฐานใน CMC อีกด้วย

ผลการศึกษาสรุปว่า ผู้พูดที่มีอายุน้อยกว่าใช้ภาษาแม่น้อยกว่าในการส่งข้อความหาบุคคลอื่น ในขณะ

ที่ผู้พูดที่มีอายุมากกว่าแสดงให้เห็นถึงเปอร์เซ็ นต์ที่สูงกว่าในการใช้ภาษามากิ นดาเนา เพื่อส่งข้อความ
โดยทั่วไป อายุและความสัมพันธ์คือปัจจัยหลักที่ส่งผลและก่อให้เกิดการใช้ ภาษาอย่างยั่งยืนและพลัง
ชีวิตของภาษามากินดาเนา ความสัมพันธ์ในครอบครัวดูเหมือนจะเป็น แวดวงการใช้ภาษาที่มั่นคงที่สุด
ในแง่ของความยั่งยืน และยังถือว่าเป็น “พื้นที่ศักดิ์สิทธิ์” ของ CMC ในเมืองมินดาเนา นอกเหนือจาก
นี้ ในแง่ของการใช้ภาษาที่ไม่ได้มาตรฐาน พบว่าผู้พูดภาษา มากินดาเนาใน CMC มีการสับเปลี่ยนของ
ภาษาภายในประโยค การตัดเสียงสระ การสั้นลงของเสียง การสะกดผิดแบบตั้งใจ และการใช้ลักษณะ
เพิ่มเติมของภาษา

การศึ ก ษาครั้ ง นี้ ถื อ ว่ า การส่ ง ข้ อ ความ มี ห น้ า ที่ เ ชิ ง “ต่ า” ในการอ่ า นออกเขี ย นได้ เนื่ อ งด้ ว ย
ลักษณะเฉพาะของ “ความเป็นส่วนตัว ” และ “ความหน่วงเวลา” ลักษณะเฉพาะนี้ทาให้เกิด ความ
แข็งแกร่งใน EGIDS ระดับ 5 โดยเพิ่มอาณาเขตการอ่านออกเขียนได้ งานวิจัยนี้นาเสนอ การอ่านที่
เป็นตัวบ่งชี้ระดับที่แข็งแรงยิ่งขึ้นใน EGIDS ซึง่ ก็คือระดับ “5+”

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... i
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii
บทคัดย่อ ........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xi
List of Abbreviations and Symbols............................................................................ xiii
Glossary ....................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Language Use in CMC.................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Maguindanaon Language Family.................................................................. 3
1.1.3 Geography ..................................................................................................... 4
1.1.4 History and Culture ....................................................................................... 6
1.2 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 7
1.3 Objectives of the Thesis Research ....................................................................... 7
1.4 Hypothesis of the Research .................................................................................. 8
1.5 Limitations of the Research ................................................................................. 8
Chapter 2 Literature Review .......................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Maguindanaon Language ..................................................................................... 9
2.3 Language Ecology ............................................................................................. 10
2.4 Language Use..................................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Gender, Age, and Social Class .................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Domains of Language Use .......................................................................... 13
2.4.3 Bilingualism and Multilingualism .............................................................. 14
2.4.4 Code-Switching........................................................................................... 18
2.5 Language Vitality............................................................................................... 20
2.5.1 Sustainable Use Model (SUM) ................................................................... 25
2.5.2 FAMED Conditions .................................................................................... 26

vi
 2.6 Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) .................................................... 28
2.6.1 Texting (txtng) ............................................................................................ 29
2.6.2 Facebook ..................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 3 Maguindanaon Sociolinguistic Overview ................................................... 34
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 34
3.2 Maguindanaon Ethnolinguistic Ecology ............................................................ 34
3.3 Maguindanaon Speech Community ................................................................... 36
3.4 Maguindanaon Language Use Domains ............................................................ 43
3.5 Literacy .............................................................................................................. 44
3.6 Orality ................................................................................................................ 46
Chapter 4 Methodology ............................................................................................... 48
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 48
4.2 Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaires, ISLQ .............................................. 48
4.3 Site Selection ..................................................................................................... 49
4.4 Subject Selection ................................................................................................ 50
4.5 Sampling Design ................................................................................................ 50
4.6 Data Collection .................................................................................................. 51
4.6.1 Preliminary Survey ..................................................................................... 51
4.6.2 Text Messaging ........................................................................................... 52
4.6.3 Facebook Instant Messaging ....................................................................... 53
4.6.4 Direct Observation ...................................................................................... 54
4.6.5 Interviews .................................................................................................... 54
4.7 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 55
Chapter 5 Language Use Patterns ................................................................................ 56
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 56
5.2 Language Use Patterns in Texting ..................................................................... 58
5.2.1 Language Use and Age ............................................................................... 59
5.2.2 Language Use and Gender .......................................................................... 64
5.2.3 Language Use and Relationship .................................................................. 66
5.2.4 Language Use and Education ...................................................................... 78
5.2.5 Language Use and Topic............................................................................. 82
5.2.6 Language Use and Geography .................................................................... 85
5.2.7 Summary of Language Use in Texting ....................................................... 87

vii
 5.3 Language Use Patterns in Facebook .................................................................. 88
5.3.1 Language Use and Age ............................................................................... 89
5.3.2 Language Use and Gender .......................................................................... 93
5.3.3 Language Use and Relationship .................................................................. 95
5.3.4 Language Use and Education ...................................................................... 98
5.3.5 Summary of Language Use in Facebook ................................................... 99
5.4 Summary of Language Use Patterns in CMC .................................................. 101
Chapter 6 Language Vitality ...................................................................................... 103
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 103
6.2 General Maguindanaon Language Vitality ...................................................... 103
6.2.1 Defining General EGIDS level of Maguindanaon .................................... 104
6.2.1.1 Persistence .............................................................................................. 105
6.2.1.2 Predictable.............................................................................................. 107
6.2.1.2 Prevalence .............................................................................................. 107
6.3 Maguindanaon Language Vitality in CMC...................................................... 109
6.3.1 Sustainability in CMC – Age Group and Diachronic Use ....................... 110
6.3.2 Sustainability in CMC - Relationship ...................................................... 113
6.3.3 FAMED Conditions ................................................................................. 114
6.3.4.1 Function ................................................................................................. 115
6.3.4.2 Acquisition ............................................................................................. 118
6.3.4.3 Motivation .............................................................................................. 121
6.3.4.4 Environment ........................................................................................... 129
6.3.4.5 Differentiation ........................................................................................ 132
6.4 Summary of Maguindanaon Language Vitality ............................................... 137
Chapter 7 Non-Standard Practices in CMC ............................................................... 139
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 139
7.2 Code-Switching and Mixing ............................................................................ 140
7.2.1 Inter-Sentential Code-Switching .............................................................. 140
7.2.2 Intra-Sentential Code-Switching .............................................................. 143
7.2.3 Intra-word and Tag Code-Switching ........................................................ 144
7.3 Non-Formal Spelling ....................................................................................... 145
7.3 Paralinguistic Features ..................................................................................... 148
7.4 Summary of Non-Standard Practices in CMC ................................................. 150

viii
Chapter 8 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 152
8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 152
8.2 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 1) .......................... 152
8.3 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 2) .......................... 153
8.4 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 3) .......................... 154
8.5 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 4) .......................... 154
8.6 Recommendations for further study................................................................. 155
Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 156
Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 163
Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 170
Appendix C ................................................................................................................ 181
Resume....................................................................................................................... 188

ix
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Fishman's GIDS (Fishman, 1991) .............................................. 21
Table 2 UNESCO Framework (adapted in 2009) ........................................................ 22
Table 3 Ethnologue Vitality Categories (Lewis, 2009) ............................................... 22
Table 4 Expanded GIDS (adapted from Fishman's GIDS, 1991) ................................ 23
Table 5 FAMED Conditions (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 159). ...................................... 27
Table 6 FAMED and EGIDS Interpretative Table (Lewis & Simons, 2015) .............. 28
Table 7 Distinctions of Spoken and Written (Crystal, 2001)....................................... 29
Table 8 Contractions and Clippings (Crystal 2008; Thurlow, 2003)........................... 31
Table 9 Nonstandard Spelling in Texting (Crystal 2008; Thurlow 2003) ................... 31
Table 10 Shortenings in Texting (Crystal 2008; Thurlow 2003) ................................. 32
Table 11 Maguindanaon Language Use Domains ....................................................... 43
Table 12 ISLQ Information ......................................................................................... 48
Table 13 Age and Gender Distribution of Respondents (Texting) .............................. 51
Table 14 Age and Gender Distribution of Respondents (Facebook IM) ..................... 51
Table 15 Maguindanaon Language Use and Age Groups ........................................... 59
Table 16 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender ................................................... 65
Table 17 Maguindanaon Language Use and Peer Relationship .................................. 68
Table 18 Maguindanaon Language Use and Familial Relationship ............................ 70
Table 19 Maguindanaon Language Use and Formal Relationship .............................. 73
Table 20 Maguindanaon Language Use and Intimate Relationship ............................ 75
Table 21 Maguindanaon Language Use and Informal Relationship ........................... 76
Table 22 Maguindanaon Language Use and Education .............................................. 79
Table 23 Maguindanaon Language Use and Geography ............................................. 85
Table 24 Maguindanaon Language Use and Age ........................................................ 89
Table 25 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender ................................................... 94
Table 26 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relationship .......................................... 96
Table 27 Maguindanaon Language Use and Education .............................................. 98
Table 28 Oralcy and Literacy in CMC (modified from Crystal, 2001) ..................... 117
Table 29 Summary of findings of FAMED Conditions............................................. 138
Table 30 Non-Formal Spelling in CMC .................................................................... 146
Table 31 Truncated Maguindanaon Words in CMC.................................................. 147
Table 32 Paralinguistic Features in CMC .................................................................. 149

x
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Maguindanaon Language Family (modified from Ethnologue, 2016) ........... 4
Figure 2 Mindanao Map (Mindanao Trust Fund, 2016) ................................................ 5
Figure 3 North Cotabato Map (North Cotabato Website, 2013) ................................... 5
Figure 4 Relationship between Diglossia and Bilingualism (Fishman 1967: 30) ....... 16
Figure 5: Sustainable Levels of Language Use (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 148) ........... 26
Figure 6 Ethnolinguistic Map of Mindanao (Ethnic Group Philippines, 2011) ......... 36
Figure 7 Maguindanaon Speech Community Legend (by the author) ........................ 38
Figure 8 Maguindanaon Speech Community (by the author) ..................................... 39
Figure 9 Site Selection Map ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 10 Software Used ............................................................................................. 53
Figure 11 Flow of Text Communication ..................................................................... 57
Figure 12 Maguindanaon Language Use and Younger Speakers ................................ 61
Figure 13 Maguindanaon Language Use and Middle Age Speakers ........................... 61
Figure 14 Maguindanaon Language Use and Older Speakers ..................................... 63
Figure 15 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender.................................................. 66
Figure 16 Maguindanaon Language Use and Peer Relationship ................................. 69
Figure 17 Maguindanaon Language Use and Immediate Family ................................ 71
Figure 18 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relatives .............................................. 72
Figure 19 Maguindanaon Language Use and Formal Relationship............................. 74
Figure 20 Maguindanaon Language Use and Intimate Relationship ........................... 76
Figure 21 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relationship Summary......................... 78
Figure 22 Maguindanaon Language Use by Employed Maguindanaon ...................... 80
Figure 23 Maguindanaon Language Use by Unemployed Maguindanaon ................. 81
Figure 24 Maguindanaon Language Use and Topic .................................................... 83
Figure 25 Maguindanaon Language Use and Location ............................................... 86
Figure 26 Maguindanaon Language Use and Younger Speakers ................................ 90
Figure 27 Maguindanaon Language Use and Middle Age Speakers ........................... 91
Figure 28 Maguindanaon Language Use and Older Speakers ..................................... 92
Figure 29 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender.................................................. 95
Figure 30 Maguindanaon Language Use and Peer Relationship ................................. 97
Figure 31 Maguindanaon Language Use and Familial Relationship ........................... 97
Figure 32 Maguindanaon Language Use and Education ............................................. 99
Figure 33 Maguindanaon Language in Language Cloud (Lewis & Simons, 2016) . 104
Figure 34 Maguindanaon Written Literatures............................................................ 108
Figure 35 Percentage of Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC (Younger) ............ 111
Figure 36 Percentage of Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC (Middle Age) ...... 112
Figure 37 Percentage of Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC (Older) ................ 113
Figure 38 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relationship (Sacred Space) ............. 114
Figure 39 Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC ..................................................... 116
Figure 40 Language Spoken By Parents to their Children ........................................ 119
Figure 41 Maguindanaon Language Texting Acquisition ......................................... 120
Figure 42 Maguindanaon in Texting and Facebook IMs ........................................... 122
Figure 43 Maguindanaon Speakers' Language Preferences in CMC ........................ 123

xi
Figure 44 Maguindanaon Speakers' Future Language Projection ............................. 124
Figure 45 Maguindanaon Language Usefulness in CMC .......................................... 125
Figure 46 Maguindanaon Speakers Interest in Writing Standardization ................... 127
Figure 47 Maguindanaon Speakers' Interest in Literacy Class .................................. 128
Figure 48 Maguindanaon Advantages on Standardized Writing System .................. 129
Figure 49 Maguindanaon Speakers Facebook Page .................................................. 131
Figure 50 Have you ever lived anywhere else for more than a year? ........................ 133
Figure 51 Maguindanaon Speakers' Bilingualism and Multilingualism .................... 134
Figure 52 Maguindanaon Speakers' Language use in CMC ...................................... 135
Figure 53 Maguindanaon Speakers' Topics in CMC Using Maguindanaon ............. 136
Figure 54 Maguindanaon Topics without Using Maguindanaon in CMC ................ 136

xii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
CAA Coolmuster Android Assistant
CMC Computer Mediated Communication
DepEd Department of Education

EGIDS Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

FAMED Function, Acquisition, Motivation, Environment,
Differentiation
FB Facebook
FTF Face-to-face communication
G2REAT Geography, Gender, Relationship, Education, Age
and Topic
GIDS Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale
GIF Graphic Interchange Format
GRAT Geography, Relationship, and Topic
H-variety High variety
IM/IMs Instant Message/Instant Messages
IP Indigenous People (also known as Lumad)
ISO International Organization for Standardization
K+12 Kindergarten + 1st through 12th grade
L1 First language or mother tongue
L2 Second language
L3 Third language
L-variety Low Variety
Mag L1 Maguindanaon as first language

MagTagLish Maguindanaon Tagalog English

MLE Multilingual Education
MP Malayo-Polynesian
MTB-MLE Mother tongue-based multilingual education
Netlish Internet English
NetSpeak Internet Speak (also known as Netlish)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization

xiii
OMA Office of the Muslim Affairs
PTCA Parent-Teacher-Community Association
SAT Speech Accommodation Theory
SMS Short Messaging Services
SONA State of the Nation Address
SUM Sustainable Use Model
TagLish Tagalog English
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
VSO Verb-Subject-Object
Weblish Website English
WMT Wondershare Mobile Trans

xiv
 GLOSSARY
Bilingualism This refers to having use or using of two languages especially
with the fluency characteristic of the native speaker or the
constant oral use of two languages (Webster Dictionary:
1961). Bloomfield (1935: 56) defines it as the native-like
control of two languages.

Chat This refers to the conversation to someone done either formal

or informal on Facebook and other social networking
platforms.

Code-switching This refers to the use of two or more languages alternately in a

single utterance.

Computer Mediated A communication that takes place between human beings via
Communication instrumentality of computers (Herring, 1996)

Diglossia This refers to the societal phenomenon where two varieties of

language exist side by side throughout the community, with
each having a different role to play. (Charles Ferguson: 1959).

Domain of language use Domain is an area of human activity in which one particular
speech variety or a combination of several varieties is
regularly used. Example is home domain

Dominant language This refers to the language spoken by the majority of the
population, either by the one speech community or by the
whole nation. Dominant language is considered the H-variety.
It can be the national language of a particular country and
used as language for instruction in all government and private
schools.

xv
Language Attitude This refers to the perception of on individual towards their
own language or other spoken languages that are known to
him. The language attitudes can either be positive or negative.

Language Community This is also known as language group that refers to identify a
community where group identity is clearly and tightly
associated with a particular language, or closely related
varieties that essentially function as a single language. (Lewis
& Simons, 2015)

Language Development It refers to the activities undertaken within a language

community specifically for the purpose of developing new
functions for its language or for restoring lost functions
(Simons, 2011).

Language Ecology This refers to the interaction between any given language and
its environment. Haugen (1972: 325) divided the term
‘ecology’ into two parts. First, psychological, an interaction
between the minds of bilingual and multilingual speakers.
Second, sociological, an interaction with the society in which
the function is a medium of communication.

Language Repertoire This refers to the total set of distinguishable code varieties
used by an individual or group in a particular speech
community, in a certain social context of communication.

Language Use It refers to the phenomenon in which members of a speech

community use the language or different languages in
different functions or domains of use.

Language Vitality The term describes the current status of a language based on
its use in various social context and specific purposes (SIL
2015). The language vitality is measured in a scale of 1-10
(EGIDS), in which the 1 is the highest (considered safest), and
the 10 is the lowest (considered extinct).

xvi
Multilingualism This refers to the ability of individual or communicate using
two or more languages.

Practical Significance This refers to looks at whether the difference is large enough
to be of value in a practical sense.

Non-dominant language This refers mostly to the minority languages or regional

languages that hold less functions in the society.

Speech Community The term refers to the group of people in the community with
shared linguistic repertoire, linguistic possessions, and
linguistic behaviors. (Lewis & Simons, 2015)

Texting Refers to the process of sending and receiving messages using

mobile phones/cellphones. Also known as short message
service (SMS)

Textism Refers to the language used in text messages,

characterized by the use of abbreviations, single letters

and symbols (Macmillan Dictionary).

Tri-People This term refers to the concept that depicts the people of
Mindanao – Christian, Muslim, and Lumad.

xvii
 Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Introduction
This research aims to investigate the language use patterns of Maguindanaon
speakers in computer mediated communication (Chapter 5), to determine the
current language vitality of Maguindanaon (Chapter 6), and to examine the non-
standard practices of Maguindanaon in CMC (Chapter 7).

This chapter will give the rationale and background of the research. Subsection 1.1.1
will present the overview of language use in CMC. The subsections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3
will provide the language family and geography of the Maguindanaon language,
respectively, while subsection 1.1.4 provides the brief history of Maguindanaon
language. Section 1.2 will present the theoretical framework use in this research.
Section 1.3 presents the objectives of the research. The research hypothesis is
presented in Section 1.4, and section 1.6 will discuss the limitations of the research

1.1.1 Language Use in CMC

Computer mediated communication is a rising phenomenon that greatly affects the
way people communicate. Texting and social media messaging create a virtual
means of communication around the world. People use this way of communication
for different purposes, personal, social, interactional, and even educational.
Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, (2004) refers CMC as “any human communication
achieved through, or with the help of, computer technology”. Herring (1996), then,
defines CMC as “a communication that takes place between human beings via
instrumentality of computers”.

The CMC has been around since the first electronic digital communication was
invented some time during World War II. The first recorded exchange of prototype
emails is in the early 1960s (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004). In addition, personal
computers caught the attention of the people around the world in 1990s. By that
time, the usage of computer is restricted mainly to information processing, data
transfer, and hardware design. It was in the mid-1990s that computers become
useful for emailing, chatting, and surfing. The birth of texting is almost parallel to

1
that of internet instant messaging, emailing, and surfing. Crystal (2008) states that
point-to-point short message service (SMS) becomes popular and commercialized.
Not until recently that short message service (SMS) or mobile texting has become
type of CMC, while technically not a computer-based, but technologically-mediated
communication or text-based that shared features of other types of CMC
(Bieswanger, 2008).

Crystal (2008) showed that, 12.2 billion text messages were sent in the UK and this
was doubled by 2004. This is one country alone. It was forecast to be 45 billion in
2007. In addition, in 2006, Christmas Day, over 205 million text messages went out
in the UK. The world figures went from 17 billion in 2000 to 250 billion in 2001.
And Gartner, the analysts, predict the total will reach 2.4 trillion in 2010. (Crystal,
2008). In the Philippines, it was reported that on the first quarter of 2001, there are
7.1 million cellphone subscribers in the Philippines, and has an average of 64.5
million text a day. And, in 2002, the cellphone subscribers rose to 10 million with
an average of 100 million text a day. In 2005, almost 32 percent of Philippine
population owned a mobile phone, and then it rose to 92% of the whole Philippine
population owned a mobile in 2011 (Uy-Tioco, 2013).

As of 2013, the mobile phone users reached over 106 million in the Philippines. It
was forecasted that in early 2015 the mobile phone users will grow up to 113
million, and 117 million at the end of 2016. Aside from texting, social media
platforms (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp, Viber, Skype, e-mail, etc.) change the dynamics
of communication, from the traditional face-to-face conversation to virtual
conversation. The survey conducted in 2014 showed that 70% of the netizen users
are under the age of 29, and 96% of these users were on social media. The internet
penetration, or actual number of internet users are only 39% out of 97 million
population, whereas mobile phone penetration reached 101%. This means that,
Filipinos have more than one mobile phone.

In addition, young, urban, and affluent people are enjoying the of use mobile
internet through their smartphones. Study shows that more than 80% of the mobile
internet population is under the age of 34, and smartphone users spend an average
of 5 hours a day, and 94% of those who use mobile internet are using the Facebook.
The average time in using the social media is 4 hours, in which 80% is using the
Facebook messenger (Philippines mobile internet trends, 2014).

2
There is no other digital communication other than mobile phone that caught the
attention of the Filipinos. According to the article written by Anthony Roman
(2006), “In 1999, mobile communication spread more than did personal computers
so much so that now the Philippines is called the ‘SMS or texting capital of the
world”. Ever since, mobile phone texting has become part of Filipinos lifestyle. In
more concrete view, based on observation and being member of the Maguindanaon
speech community, almost every household has at least two or more mobile phones
in use. Therefore, Maguindanaon people are not far from this digital communication
evolution epoch

The de facto is, people regardless of their age, gender, race, religions affiliations and
education communicate in many different domains. Thus, the use of the language
greatly depends on the domains in a particular conversational event. Parents
communicate to their children at home orally and virtually, with or without the use
of the mother tongue. Younger speakers may or may not use their L1 when texting
and chatting to their parents, or the other way around. Or both the parents and the
children may use multiple languages in CMC, texting and Facebook IMS. If they
don’t use their L1, children and the parents may use their L2 (Tagalog) and L3
(English or Cebuano) hen texting their

The gradual shifting from face-to-face to virtual communication has a great impact
on language use, and the way the information is transmitted from one person to
another. Computer mediated communication such as mobile texting and Facebook
instant messaging is, indeed, affecting the language use and the way Maguindanaon
speakers or other speakers’ communication.

1.1.2 Maguindanaon Language Family

Maguindanaon people are known as the ‘people of the flood plains’, they are part of
the wider Moro ethnic group situated in the southern Philippines, that constitutes
the sixth largest Filipino ethnic group. The estimated population is at 1.1 million
(Lewis & Simons, 2016). The Maguindanaon language belongs to Austronesian
language family (see Figure 1). The speakers of Maguindanaon are located in the
provinces of North Cotabato, Lanao del Sur, Sarangani, General Santos, Davao del
Sur, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Maguindanao, as well as in Metro
Manila.

3
 Austronesian

Formosan Malayo-Polynesian (MP)

Western MP Central/Eastern MP

Malay Chamorro Philippines Borneo Sulawesi

Northern Central Southern

Kapampangan Pangasinan Ilocano Tagalog Bisaya Bicol Subanen Manobo Danao

Cebuano Maguindanaon Maranao Iranun

Figure 1 Maguindanaon Language Family

(modified from Ethnologue, 2016)

1.1.3 Geography
The Maguindanaon speakers are densely populated the southern part of the
Philippines. Figure 2 shows that the majority of Maguindanaon are located in
Maguindanao province, and speak Maguindanaon language. Based on the Philippine
Statistic Authority (2015) portal, the Maguindanaon province has a population of
1.2 million, and 90% of these populations speak Maguindanaon language. Figure 3
shows the map of North Cotabato which has a population of 1.4 million, and 12%
comprises the Muslim tribe. The majority of the Maguindanaon speakers in North
Cotabato are located in the municipalities of Pikit and Kabacan. The rest of the
provinces of Mindanao can speak Maguindanaon language and its dialect, although
not as fluent as the Maguindanaon speakers located in Maguindanao and North
Cotabato provinces.

4
 Figure 2 Mindanao Map (Mindanao Trust Fund, 2016)

Figure 3 North Cotabato Map (North Cotabato Website, 2013)

5
1.1.4 History and Culture
The Maguindanaon people are situated in south-central Mindanao. They are also
known as the ‘people of the flood plains’ because they usually concentrated on the
shores and the flood lands of Pulangi-Mindanao river basin. Maguindanaon people
are mostly farmers and agriculture is the main source of livelihood. (Encyclopedia
Britannica).

Historically, Maguindanaon ancestors were converted and embraced Islamic religion

by Islam missionary Sharif Muhammad Kabungsuan from the southern tip of Malay
Peninsula in the 14th or early 15th century. Shortly after, the sultanate of
Maguindanaon was founded, which is now presently the Maguindanao province in
Mindanao. In 16th to 17th century, the sultanate was expanded to other places under
the influence and reign of another sultan named Sultan Kudarat. This province is
now presently named Sultan Kudarat. Raja Buayan, the rival of Sultan Kudarat
reigned and gained power after the death of Sultan Kudarat in the late 18th century,
and replaced Maguindanao as the dominant sultanate of southern Mindanao.
Curiously, Raja Buayan at present time is one of the municipalities that comprises
Maguindanaon province, and Maguindanao and Buayan remained among the most
prominent sultanates in southern Philippines. Nowadays, Maguindanaon speakers
are found in different provinces around the Philippines. In North Cotabato province,
12% of the population is Maguindanaon. Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat
provinces are predominantly Maguindanaon speakers.

Maguindanao society is stratified and family-oriented, with those who are able to
trace their ancestry directly to Maguindanao royalty accorded the highest rank.
Communities usually consist of closely related families and are headed by an
individual who bears the title of datu. At present time, the datu still exist, but is
more on the role of community leader.

Maguindanaon people embraced cultural ceremonies and festivities which are

accompanied by some sort of music. Among the most emblematic of Maguindanaon
musical traditions is the kulintang percussion ensemble. Kulintang sets constitute
heirloom property, and ownership of such instruments has remained a traditional
symbol of status. Both men and women may participate in the ensemble, and they
often engage in spirited competition on the gong row. Aside from instrumental
music, the Maguindanao perform a broad spectrum of vocal repertoire, ranging from
songs related to the recitation of the Qur’an to love songs and lullabies to epics and
other narrative forms.

6
The Maguindanaon people are also distinguished in the realm of visual art.
Historically, they have been renowned as metalworkers, producing the wavy-bladed
kris ceremonial swords and other weapons, as well as gongs. Their woven mats and
colourful fabrics, especially the malong tube skirts (similar to the sarongs of Malaysia
and Indonesia) are also admired throughout the region.

1.2 Theoretical Framework

Standard macro-sociolinguistics theory is the underlying foundation of this research.
Such studies assess the choices of language use in a community, and how these
choices are conditioned by sociolinguistic factors. In assessing the language use
patterns in CMC, it is important to consider both the dependent and independent
variables. The dependent variable concentrates on the language use patterns, while
the independent variables concern on the age, gender, religion, geographical
location, education, social classes, and economic status.

The Sustainable Use Model (SUM) and its component the FAMED Conditions was
used as the research theoretical framework. Specifically, the two central components
of the SUM, the EGIDS and the FAMED conditions, were used to analyze the current
vitality of Maguindanaon language.

1.3 Objectives of the Thesis Research

This research aimed to determine the language use patterns of Maguindanaon
speakers in Computer Mediated Communication in Mindanao, Philippines.
Specifically, this research sought to answer the following objectives with its
respective Research Questions:

1. What are the Maguindanaon language use patterns of Maguindanaon

students in CMC?
2. In what ways do the Maguindanaon language use patterns of Maguindanaon
students compare to those of older people in CMC?
3. How is the vitality of Maguindanaon language affected by CMC?
4. What evidence is there of shared norms among Maguindanaon CMC
practitioners for written forms that differ from the corresponding forms of
Maguindanaon language in writing?

7
1.4 Hypothesis of the Research
Based on the objectives above, the following are hypotheses to be tested.

1. Maguindanaon language use in CMC by the younger generation is substantial

particularly in the texting and Facebook instant messaging domains.
2. Older people use CMC less compared to younger people, in general, but they
use Maguindanaon language more than the younger ones in CMC.
3. Language vitality of Maguindanaon is being strengthened because of CMC.
4. Common abbreviations and simplifications of word forms and grammatical
structures are evident in Maguindanaon used in CMC.

1.5 Limitations of the Research

The text messages data were used in investigating only the Maguindanaon language
use patterns in CMC, and to assess the language vitality based on its current usage in
CMC functions. Therefore, this research does not cover the grammatical and
phonological aspects of the language.

In addition, the selected Maguindanaon speakers either have a minimal access to the
internet or have no access at all, therefore, data from social media communications
in Facebook was limited in terms of its numbers. Communication through e-mail and
other forms of CMC are not necessarily covered by this research.

The financial constraint was a factor in this research. Thus the administration of
research instruments is only be given to the university and high school students and
selected Maguindanaon speakers.

8
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the selected and related literatures of the language use in
computer mediated communication. Section 2.2 reviews the previous works done in
Maguindanaon language. Section 2.3 presents ecology of languages in Mindanao,
particularly in North Cotabato province. Previous studies on language use will be
presented on Section 2.4, and it is divided into gender, age, and social class (2.4.1),
domains of use (2.4.2), bilingualism and multilingualism (2.4.3), and code-switching
(2.4.4). Language vitality literature is discussed in section 2.5, and it is divided into
Sustainable Use Model (2.5.1) and its component the FAMED conditions (2.5.2).
Previous studies on computer mediated communication are reviewed in section 2.6,
and subdivided into texting (2.6.1) and Facebook (2.6.2).

2.2 Maguindanaon Language

Maguindanaon belongs to the Austronesian language family, and it is spoken by
more than 1.1 million speakers in the Philippines. The Maguindanaon language
follows the VSO word order (Lewis, Simons, & Fenning, 2016).

Maguindanaon language is considered as one of the dominant languages in the

southern Philippines, however, only few linguistic related studies were done. The
first written bilingual (Maguindanaon-English) dictionary was published, but not
circulated by Robert Sullivan (1986). This is to attest that the Maguindanaon
language lexicons had been already studied thoroughly by language practitioners (or
linguists)

Another known work in Maguindanaon language was done by Komisyon sa Wikang

Filipino (2006). This is simply a glossary of terms for English-Maguindanaon-
Filipino, and there is no in-depth definitions nor there were lexical classes included.

There were few written works on grammatical or phonological analysis in this

language. There was a written grammatical analysis for the lexical classes written by
Jacinto (1892). According to this work, Maguindanaon tongue is a union of words

9
used by the speakers to express their ideas, and the grammar of this tongue is the art
of speaking and writing it correctly. On the other hand, there is no in-depth
phonological analysis that discusses the phonology of Maguindanaon. The work of
Jacinto (1892), which later translated to English, contains letters and their
respective pronunciations. Based on the translated texts, Maguindanaon language
contains letters and sounds like of those found in Spanish language. There were
twenty consonants and four vowels that had been used in the Maguindanaon texts.
The eh, dz and ts of Spanish was found in this work (Jacinto, 1892). Based on this
translated work, the scarcity of written texts and the incorrectness of those that
exists in the Maguindanaon make the grammatical analysis more difficult and shall
not be full and perfect.

2.3 Language Ecology

Haugen (1972) defined language ecology as ‘a study of interaction between any
given language and its environment’. The term ‘language ecology’, like ‘language
family’ is a metaphor derived from study of living beings (Mühlhäusler, 1996). Thus,
language ecology follows the metaphor of an ecosystem in which all species should
ensure balance survival (Mora, 2014). He said, in the case of language, “Language
ecology approach analyzes power dynamics and issues of equity and human rights as
fundamental elements in the social use of languages.”

Mühlhäusler (1996) quoted the statement of Haugen as ‘the true environment of the
language is the society that uses it as one of its codes’. He also stated that study of
language ecology is a complex job as it is multidisciplinary. Haugen (1972) work
was focused on the ecology of the language more than on its sociological or speech
situations or contexts aspects. Mühlhäusler (1996) cited the catalogue of questions
from Haugen’s work that are relevant to the understanding of the ecology of the
language. The questions developed by Haugen (1972) is found in Appendix B.

2.4 Language Use

The language use section is divided into the following sociolinguistic factors,
domains, and other sociolinguistic characteristics.

2.4.1 Gender, Age, and Social Class

Language use largely differs in age, gender, and classes. Previous works on gender
differences suggested that asking questions are more common contributions of

10
women in dyadic interactions, whereas men are more on asserting or telling
audience to do something (Mulac et al., 1988). But, the work of Thomson and
Muracher (2001) contradicts the previous research and found that men and women
are likely similar in asking questions and apologies, offering compliments, giving
opinions, and even insulting net pal in the email communication study.

Lakoff’s (1973) research on gender differences have found that women were more
likely using specific types of phrases such as hedges (e.g. kind of) and tag questions
(e.g. wouldn’t you?) that can be inserted easily in the sentences, and using more
polite words. Carli (1990) reinforced Lakoff’s work and stated that ‘if gender
differences in language are related to status differences between the sexes, then
status characteristics other than gender should also affect language’.

Gender and sex as sociolinguistic variables had long been studied as early as 1970s
(Wodak & Benke, 1998). So how gender and sex differ? Wodak and Benke (1998:
158) quoted the definitions of gender and sex from the British sociologist Anthony
Giddens as he defines sex as “biological or anatomical differences between men and
women,” whereas gender “concerns the psychological, social and cultural differences
between males and females”.

Gender differences is not the only social variable that can influence language use.
Social class is another factor that contributes to the use of the language. Coates
(2007), mentioned the work of Kerswill stated that ‘age, gender, and classes are the
‘macro’ level when categorizing people in the society’. She further quoted that, ‘in
the Western societies, Britain for example, has three basic views of social
differentiation which exist alongside each other, and it was based on Parsonian
model of ‘class of hierarchy’, upper, middle, and lower classes. Labov (1966) work
concerns social differentiation of phonetic and grammatical features of speech
communities to determine the classes of the people. Labov (1966) conducted a social
stratification study at the Lower East Side in New York City stores regarding the
absence of consonantal [r] in postvocalic position in car, card, four, fourth, etc. The
results of the study clearly indicates the social stratification from the three stores.
The Saks store which has the presence of consonantal [r] postvocalic position
represents the upper class people, whereas the absence of [r] in postvocalic position
is common in S. Klein store which represents the lower class society. The Macy’s
store is for middle class people.

In the Philippines, social inequality is quite dominant, and social classes can be
determined based on social and economic strata. Manlove (1990) states that social

11
inequality is based on ethnicity, gender, land ownership, linguistic ability, and
religious affiliation. Inequality in social stratification is most pervasive in
interpersonal relations, economic arrangements, and political leadership (Marlove,
1990). Historically, de Loarca and Plasencia (1903) explained that pre-hispanic
Philippine society had mechanism on governing for effective governance. However,
de Loarca and Plasencia stated that Tagalog society has four estates. The datu (king)
stratum held the highest position followed by maharlika (noble-warriors), then
timawa (commoners), and the lowest member of the society is the alipin (slaves).

To this date, Maguindanaon people still maintained the datu as the highest member
of the society. Therefore, regardless of their gender and age, the lower class people
use polite words when they are engaging to educated people (e.g. imams and
ustadzes,), tribal leaders (e.g. datus and bais), government workers (e.g. teachers,
village officials, social workers, etc), and other upper class members of the society.
Muslim ethnic group (including Maguindanaon) still in the spectrum of patriarchal
society. The low status people, including women, characterized by powerless speech
style. This is supported by the work of Erickson, Johnson, Lind, & O’Barr, (1978) as
they stated that powerless speech style generally appeal to use intensifiers, hedges
and other linguistic devices to secure their social class positions.

In addition to gender and social class, age is another sociolinguistic factor that can
affect language use. According to Eckert (1998) ‘differences in age systems across
cultures can have important sociolinguistic implications. Cross-cultural differences
may show differences in life events, in the domains that are significant for the
definition of those events, in the relative importance of generation and birth order,
in the construction of cohorts’. This research is looking for the differences of
language use patterns in texting of younger, middle, and older speakers of
Maguindanaon. Eckert (1998) reiterated that ‘sociolinguistic research studies
overwhelmingly embody a middle-aged point of view, yielding a more static
treatment of middle-aged speech than of the speech of other age groups’.

In addition, computer mediated communication to which the face-to-face

conversation is being replaced by virtual communication, language use regardless of
gender, age, and social class is being used in more innovative ways. Tannen (1990)
states that, men’s discourse has more assertive and competitive features, whereas
women’s has more supportive and relational.

12
2.4.2 Domains of Language Use
Fishman (1965: 72-86) worked on the concept on the domains of language behavior
became broader especially when he taught students of language maintenance and
shift in a multilingual setting in Germany. Fishman defines domain as “a
sociocultural construct abstracted from topics of communication, relationship
between communicators, and locales of communication, in accord with the
institution, of a society and the area of activity of speech community in such a way
that individual behavior and social patterns can be distinguished from each other
and yet related to each other”. He exampled the German settlers and non-German
speaking populations were in contact and exposed to various kind of socio-cultural
changes. Furthermore, he cited the recommendations of Schmidt-Rohr regarding
domains of use which include family, playground and street, school, church,
literature, press, military, court, and government administration. Frey’s (1945)
worked on Amish ‘triple talk’ only analyzed the three domains in which the
language is being used – home, school, and church.

Domains of language use differs from person to person, gender to gender, setting to
setting, topic to topic, and etc. Thus, when a parent talk to their children, it is
possible that L1 is being used with a minimum insertion of other languages. In
contrast, for students and teachers possessing the same L1, in a school setting, L2
must be the medium of transferring information in accordance with school policy. In
the school setting, for example, students are obliged to follow the school policy
regarding language use and choice. Dawe (2014) cited the expulsion of the students
in Christian Academy in Laoag City, Philippines because they used vernacular
language, Iloko, inside the campus which has ‘English only’ policy.

The English policy contradicts to the nation’s institutionalized educational system.

Department of Education issued Order No. 74, s. 2009 ‘Institutionalizing Mother
Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), which in 2012 became a law.
Lapus (2009) explained that the MTB-MLE motivated by the mandates that ‘pupils
who have learned to read and write in their first language learn to speak, read, and
write in a second language (L2) and third language (L3) more quickly than those
who are taught in a second or third language first. Maguindanaon is one the 13
languages being piloted in accordance to the MTB-MLE educational system.

Fishman (1965) mentioned additional domains such as formality, informality,

intimacy, and intergroup. He said that, formal domain is bounded by religious and
ceremonial activities, whereas the intergroup domain was associated with economic

13
and recreational activities. Additionally, Fishman’s (1965) ‘governmental
administration’ domain are confined by the notion of purposes or a social nexus.
Role relation is part of the social nexus which Fishman had examined carefully in
multilingual society. According to Fishman, multilingualism often begins within the
family, and it gradually withdraws from family domain because it has been
displaced to other domains such as schools, churches or even in governmental
administrations.

2.4.3 Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Bilingualism, in layman’s term, is the ability of individuals to speak two languages,
whereas multilingualism is the ability to speak more than two languages.
Monolingualism, as opposed to bilingualism, is the ability to use only one language
(Wardhaugh, 2006). According to him, ‘people who are bilingual or multilingual do
not necessarily have exactly the same abilities in the languages (or varieties); in fact,
that kind of parity may be exceptional (Wardhaugh, 2006)’.

He cited an example from the work of Sorensen (1971) on the multilingual situation
among Tukano of the northwest Amazon, on the border between Colombia and
Brazil. This study revealed that multilingualism is common because Tukano man
must marry a woman outside of his language group, as man is not permitted to have
a relationship with a woman who speaks his language. This social arrangement
referred as linguistic exogamy, in when a member social group is only allowed to
marry someone outside of their social group. Linguistic endogamy (opposite of
exogamy) referred as member of a social group, clan or tribe that is only allowed to
marry someone within their social group. For Tucano tribe, marrying a woman
within the same language group is considered incest. Therefore, Tukano man should
marry a woman in the neighboring tribes, and who speaks another language. Thus
multilingualism is a norm in Tukano’s community (Wardhaugh, 2006). Switzerland
for example is a country that is multilingual. It has three official languages; German,
French, and Italian (Wardhaugh, 2006). Each of these languages is as a prestige
level. German has a strong constitutional protection, and thus considered as high
variety (H), and taught in school and used in official publications.

In the Philippines, almost every single citizen has an ability to speak more than two
languages. Language governmentality in the Philippines, as mentioned in the work
of Foucault (1991) linked to the nation. Thus, speaking of the national language in
both institutional and societal level should become linked with Philippine national
identity. The idea of language governmentality in the Philippines has a severe

14
impact on minority languages and its speakers (Dawe, 2014). Tagalog and English
remain the languages for instruction in school in the whole country.

It is not surprising that communities in the Maguindanaon language ecology are

multilingual since each barangay (village) comprised of at least two or more speech
communities. Hence, intermarriages, like the case of Tukano, are very evident,
except that a man can marry a woman within the language group particularly in
rural communities.

Diglossia or diglossic situation is the phenomenon when “two distinct languages

which show clear functional separation; that is, one code is employed in one set of
circumstances and the other in an entirely different set. Wardhaugh (2006: 89).
Furthermore, Ferguson (1959) summarized diglossia as follows.

“Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition

to primary dialects of the language (which may include standard or
regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often
grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large
and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in
another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education
and is used for most written and formal spoken purposed but is not used
by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation.”
Ferguson (1959: 435)

Fishman (1967) expanded Ferguson’s (1959) diglossic situation by emphasizing that

‘a diglossic speech community is not characterized by the use of two language
varieties only because there may be more than two language varieties used within a
diglossic community’. According to Fishman (1967), diglossia refers to all kinds of
language varieties which show functional distribution in a speech community. In the
Philippines, the work domain always full bilingualism with partial diglossia. Tagalog
is the language used for meetings, and other work related activities, while minority
language languages such Maguindanaon and Cebuano are more confined in personal
matters such as home, family, and friend’s domain. More so, Tagalog language is the
language of politics in a diglossic environment. This is because of the political
technical terms that commonly do not exist in minority languages. Diglossia, as a
consequence, describes a number of sociolinguistic situations, from stylistic
differences within one language or the use of separate dialects (Ferguson’s ‘standard-
with-dialects’ distinction) to the use of (related or unrelated) separate languages.

15
Schiffmann’s (1998) article, emphasized the characteristics of diglossia as
multilingual phenomenon in which both existing languages (and varieties) are not
genetically related. Thus, one is considered high (H) variety, and the other is low (L)
variety. The question on how to distinguish which language is considered (H), and
which is (L),

In connection to language shift, Schiffmann (1998) stated that, diglossia is one of

the factors in language shift, especially in speech communities in which majority
language (H) has a diglossic relationship to the minority language (L).

Fishman (1967) put emphasis on the cultural significance of the language. He

stressed that both attitude and value behaviors should be fully accepted as culturally
legitimate and complimentary. High (H) and Low (L) should have functional
separations; (H) will be utilized in more high culture aspect such as religion and
education, whereas (L) will be utilized in home and work. Ferguson (1959) spoke of
H and L as superposed languages. This means that, ‘superpose variety in diglossias
will be called the (H) ‘high’ varieties or simply (H), and the regional varieties will be
called (L) ‘low’ varieties or simply L’ (Ferguson 1959).

Gumperz (1962) explained that diglossic situation ‘exists not only in multilingual
societies which officially recognize several languages, but also in societies which are
multilingual in the sense that they employ separate dialects, registers or functionally
differentiated language varieties of whatever kind’.

Diglossia and bilingualism overlapped. In any given speech community, these two
linguistic related phenomena relationship should be characterized. Fishman (1967:
30) simplified the relationships between diglossia and bilingualism by means of four
fold table that is shown in Figure 4.

BILINGUALISM DIGLOSSIA

+ _
+ 1. Both diglossia and 2. Bilingualism
bilingualism without diglossia

_ 3. Diglossia without 4. Neither diglossia

bilingualism nor bilingualism

Figure 4 Relationship between Diglossia and Bilingualism (Fishman 1967: 30)

16
The first quadrant on Figure 5 refers to the speech communities in which both
diglossia and bilingualism occur (Fishman, 1967). But, not entirely the whole nation
can be both diglossic and bilingual except the case of Paraguay which almost the
entire population speaks both Spanish and Guarani (Fishman 1967: 31). Philippines,
for example, is a nation of multilingual population. Tagalog and English, generally,
are the language for school instruction so every citizen knows how to speak them.
Local languages such as Ilokano (in Luzon), Maguindanaon (in Mindanao), and
Cebuano (in Visayas) are spoken together with the national and official language of
the country. Thus to some extent, regional languages are only used for tribal,
religious ceremonies and rituals, and not for commerce and business. Tagalog is
considered to be the (H) language, and regional languages such as Ilokano,
Maguindanaon, and Cebuano are considered to be the (L) languages.

Bilingualism without diglossia (quadrant 2) describes the situation in which speech

communities only obtain bilingualism whereas diglossia is generally absent
(Fishman, 1967). This is the clear manifestation that bilingualism is characterized by
individual linguistic behavior whereas diglossia described the behavior of linguistic
organization in socio-cultural level (Fishman, 1967). Fishman stated this
relationship, in a rare occasion, might only occur in a speech community of a very
minority language or member of a very low class society. Schiffman’s (1998) article
reiterated the point of Fishman as follows;

“Bilingualism without diglossia tends to be transitional both in terms of

the linguistic repertoires of speech communities as well as in terms of
the speech varieties involved per se. Without separate though
complementary norms and values to establish and maintain functional
separatism of the speech varieties, that language or variety which is
fortunate enough to with the predominant drift of social forces tends to
displace the other(s).”
Fishman (1967: 39)

Additionally, diglossia without bilingualism (quadrant 3) implies that, “speech

communities are united religiously, politically or economically into a single
functioning unit notwithstanding the socio-cultural cleavages that separate them”
Fishman (1967). Thus, this characterized the speech communities as diglossic
without bilingualism. Fishman (1967) added that speech communities involved into
this situation, diglossic, had been marked by certain group boundaries – such as he
termed as ‘outsiders’. Thus, speech communities role access and linguistic access are

17
severely restricted, and “linguistic repertoire in one or both groups are limited due
to role specialization” (Fishman, 1967: 33).

Sociolinguists like Fishman (1967) and Gumperz (1962) both claimed that neither
diglossia nor bilingualism (quadrant 4) occupied only very small, isolated, and
undifferentiated speech communities. Neither diglossia nor bilingualism
characterized by speech communities which have no regular or significant contacts,
possesses certain ceremonies, and little role differentiation or compartmentalization.
These characterizations of neither diglossia nor bilingualism summed up by Fishman
(1967) as “all linguistic repertoires of the speech community, and certain terms that
are used differently by different subsets of speakers”.

2.4.4 Code-Switching
Myers-Scotton (1998) points out that speech communities which are “bilinguals,
fluent bilinguals sometimes engage in code-switching by producing discourses
which, in the same conversational turn or in consecutive turns, include morphemes
from two or more of the varieties in their linguistic repertoire”. This idea of Myers-
Scotton was supported by Wardhaugh (2006) by stating that, it is a norm for the
people throughout the world to speak several varieties of languages or mix codes
even within very short utterances.

Thus, code-switching (also called code mixing) is the ability to use two or more
codes in a conversational speech that can occur between sentences (inter-
sententiality) or within a single sentence (intra-sententiality), Wardhaugh (2006).
Gal (1988: 245-264) defines it as ‘a conversational strategy use to establish, cross, or
destroy group boundaries; to create, evoke or change interpersonal relations with
their rights and obligations.’

In the past three presidential State of the Nation’s Address (SONA), transcripts
delivered by the three presidents contained different styles of code-switching. The
English language is italized, while the Tagalog language is in bold.

Former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo speech during her state of the
nation address in 2009. In (1), it is a case of inter-sentential code-switching between
English and Tagalog. In (2), inter-sentential, intra-sentential, and intra-word code-
switching. Excerpt (3) contains both inter-sentential code-switching.

18
 1. Last June, it dropped to 1.5%. Paano nakamit ito? Proper policies
lowered interest rates, which lowered costs to business and consumers.
2. Samantala, umabot na sa halos lahat ng barangay ang
elektrisidad. We increased indigenous energy from 48% to 58%.
Nakatipid tayo sa dollars tapos malaki pa ang na-reduce pa
iyong oil consumption. The huge reduction in fossil fuel is the biggest
proof of energy independence and environmental responsibility.
3. And to the people of our good country, for allowing me to serve as
your President, maraming salamat. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas.

Another former president, Benigno Aquino, Jr. in his 2014 state of the nation’s
address also contains code-switching. Tagalog and English codes were mix in his
speech. He exercised the intra-sentential code-switching.

4. Gabi-gabi po, bago ako matulog, thank you at nakalampas pa

ako ng isang araw. Kung, sabi nga noong bata kami, “finish or
not finish, pass your paper” eh dumating na sa akin, palagay ko
naman, naramdaman na ninyo kung anong pagbabagong
karapatan ng bawat Pilipinong mangyari. At bahala na kayong
ituloy ito.

The newly elected president Rodrigo Duterte during his nation’s address last July
2016 has likely used two codes on his speech. Tagalog and English are the codes he
used during his SONA in 2016. Excerpt (5), is an example of inter-sentential code-
switching, where in (6) are both inter-sentential and intra-sentential code-switching.

5. On taxation, […. my creation]. We will lower personal and corporate

income tax rates and relax the bank secrecy laws. Eh na-Presidente
ako eh. Ayaw ko sana makialam dito sa mga ‘to. Alam mo na.
Well, anyway. May I continue?
6. Ayaw mo? Okay lang rin. Para makita namin kung gusto
ninyong madalian. If you give it, fine. If you don’t, we take the longer
route, slowly. And tanggapin ko ‘yung pag-mumura ninyo. ‘Wag
lang sa malapit. Eh ganun talaga eh. You’ve done it. It's an urgent
and immediate situation, solution. Gusto ninyo madali lang, okay.
Kapag ayaw naman ninyo, because baka sabihin niyo graft and
corruption eh ‘di okay. But I assure you - wala ito sa script - I assure
you, this will be a clean government.

19
Lastly, Myers-Scotton (1998: 156) states that ‘code-switching and borrowing
are clearly related in their motivations; in both, elements from one language
are inserted into the grammatical frame of another language because these
elements meet speakers’ expressive needs’.

2.5 Language Vitality

Ethnologue (Lewis, Simons, & Fenning, 2016) listed 7, 079 living languages in the
world. Approximately 32.4% (2,296) of these languages are situated in Asia. Thus,
based on the information from the Ethnologue, around 8% (187) of Asian languages
are spoken in the Philippines, and majority of these languages belong to the
Austronesian family (see Figure 1).

Lewis and Simons (2009) article, enumerated several frameworks to assess language
vitality. The first framework is the Fishman’s GIDS (Graded Intergenerational
Disruption Scale) that focuses on the key role of intergenerational transmission to
maintain language vitality. The framework put emphasis on the transmission of the
language from parents to their children. Thus, when parents do not transmit the
language to their children, there is a strong possibility that their children will
unlikely to pass the language to the next generation. The GIDS is not only concerned
with the transmission of the language in the home domain, but also at societal and
institutional levels. GIDS focuses on the level of disruption more than on the level of
maintenance (Lewis & Simons, 2009). The lowest number indicates that the vitality
of the language at its highest, or the disruption from transmitting it from one
generation to the next is least. Likewise, the higher numbers signify that the
disruption degree is greater. Fishman’s GIDS has been summarized in Table 1 below.

20
Table 1 Summary of Fishman's GIDS (Fishman, 1991)

GIDS Level Description

The language is used in education, work, mass media, and
1
government at the nationwide level.
The language is used for local and regional mass media and
2
governmental services.
The language is used for local and regional work by both
3
insiders and outsiders.
4 Literacy in the language is transmitted through education
The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively
5
used in written form throughout the community.
The language is used orally by all generations and is being
6
learned by children as their first language.
The child-bearing generation knows the language well enough to
7 use it with their elders but is not transmitting it to their
children.
The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the
8
grandparent generation.

The second framework for assessing and evaluating language vitality is from United
Nation Educational, Scientific Organization (UNESCO). The UNESCO framework
establishes six categories to identify the status of a particular language. In addition,
the framework also provides factors that can be analyzed to determine the situation
of the language (Lewis & Simons, 2009). Table 2 below shows the UNESCO
framework in assessing language vitality.

21
Table 2 UNESCO Framework (adapted in 2009)

Degree of Endangerment Intergenerational Language Transmission

The language is spoken by all generations;
Safe
intergenerational transmission is uninterrupted.
Most children speak the language, but it may be
Vulnerable
restricted to certain domains (e.g., home).
Children no longer learn the language as mother
Definitely Endangered
tongue in the home.
The language is spoken by grandparents and older
generations; while the parent generation may
Severely Endangered
understand it, they do not speak it to children or
among themselves.
The youngest speakers are grandparents and older,
Critically Endangered and they speak the language partially and
infrequently.
Extinct There are no speakers left.

The third framework in assessing the vitality of the language is the Ethnologue
Vitality Categories designed by Lewis and Simons (2009). This framework has five
level scale that focused on the number of first language speakers than other factors
(Lewis & Simons, 2009). Lewis and Simons (2009) summarized this framework in
Table 3 below;

Table 3 Ethnologue Vitality Categories (Lewis, 2009)

Category Description
Living Significant population of first-language speakers.
Used as second-language only. No first-language users,
Second Language Only
but may include emerging users.
Fewer than 50 speakers or a very small and decreasing
Nearly Extinct
fraction of an ethnic population.
No known remaining speakers, but a population links
Dormant
its ethnic identity to the language.
No remaining speakers and no population links its
Extinct
ethnic identity to the language

22
The last framework known as the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption
Scale (EGIDS) was developed by Lewis and Simons (2010), and is based on
Fishman’s GIDS. This framework incorporates additional descriptions on the
language situation to assess its vitality. Lewis and Simons. (2010) additional levels
were assigned by additional numbers and/or delineated by addition of letters.
“Thus, Levels 6a and 6b in the EGIDS together correspond to what is described more
generally in Fishman's GIDS as Level 6. Similarly 8a plus 8b correspond to the
original Level 8. Levels 0, 9, and 10 are entirely new descriptive categories that
allow the EGIDS to be applied to all languages of the world” (Lewis & Simons, 2009:
11). Table 4 below shows the modification of Fishman’s GIDS introduced by Lewis
and Simons juxtaposed with the UNESCO framework.

Table 4 Expanded GIDS (adapted from Fishman's GIDS, 1991)

Level Label Description UNESCO

The language is used internationally for a
0 International Safe
broad range of functions.
The language is used in education, work,
1 National mass media, and government at the Safe
nationwide level.
The language is use for local and regional
2 Regional Safe
mass media and government services.
The language is used local and regional
3 Trade Safe
work by both insiders and outsiders.
Literacy in the language is being
4 Educational transmitted through a system of public Safe
education.
The language is used orally by all
5 Written generations and is effectively used in Safe
written form in parts of the community.
The language is used orally by all
6a Vigorous generations and is being learned by Safe
children as their first language.
The language is used orally by all
generations but only some of the child-
6b Threatened bearing generation are transmitting it to Vulnerable
their children.

23
 Level Label Description UNESCO
The child-bearing generation knows the
language well enough to use it among Definitely
7 Shifting
themselves but none are transmitting it to Endangered
their children
The only remaining active speakers of the
Severely
8a Moribund language are members of the grandparent
Endangered
generation.
The only remaining speakers of the
Nearly language are members of the grandparent Critically
8b
Extinct generation or older who have little Endangered
opportunity to use the language.
The language serves as a reminder of
heritage identity for an ethnic
9 Dormant Extinct
community. No one has more than
symbolic proficiency.
No one retains a sense of ethnic identity
10 Extinct associated with the language, even for Extinct
symbolic purposes.

Language vitality assessment, indeed, possesses critical considerations. Indicators

must be clearly identified to either elevate or relegate the status of the language.
With the expansion of Fishman’s GIDS, Lewis and Simons (2015) posit five (5)
questions and their respective possible responses to assess the current status of the
language.

(1) What is the current identity function of the language? (Historical, Heritage,
Home, and Vehicular)

(2) What is the level of official use? (International, National, Regional, Not
Official)

(3) Are all parents transmitting the language to their children? (Yes or No)

(4) What is the literacy status? (Institutional, Incipient, or None)

(5) What is the youngest generation of proficient speakers? (Great

grandparents, grandparents, parents, or children)

Language death and loss are worries of many linguists around the world. However,
there are interventions to revive endangered languages. Lewis and Simons (2015)

24
development a theory and method to help language practitioners, linguists, for
language development. This will be discussed in the following subsections.

2.5.1 Sustainable Use Model (SUM)

The Sustainable Use Model (SUM) is fairly a new concept for language development
developed by M. Paul Lewis and Gary F. Simons in 2010. “Primarily, the SUM
framework will assist language development practitioners to understand the actual
situation of the language, and to instigate language development plan to develop,
conserve, preserve, and maintain language and its repertoire” (Lewis & Simons,
2010). The SUM is a participatory approach framework. Collective decision-making
of both language practitioners and speech communities, as part of community-based
language development, must be addressed. This is to help minority language
communities to identify and achieve sustainable level and their usage to sustain the
heritage language. The SUM together with the EGIDS provide ways to evaluate and
assess the current vitality of the language and its repertoire. (Lewis & Simons, 2010).

Every minority language is facing a great amount of challenge to maintain its

sustainability. Lewis and Simons (2010) pointed out one of the key components of
the SUM is to measure whether the language is sustainable or not sustainable, and if
so, what level of sustainability does it belong. There are four sustainable levels to
measure the vitality of the language, and these are: sustainable history, sustainable
identity, sustainable orality, and sustainable literacy.

For better understanding of these levels, Figure 6 will illustrate to where a certain
language belongs in terms of its sustainable language use. Each level of
sustainability has its characterizations and descriptions. Starting from the bottom
up, sustainable history implies that there are no more speakers of the language, and it
is not spoken anymore. But, there are some types of archived literature which
document the language. More so, this level does not have any function in the
community, and corresponds to the EGIDS level 10 (Extinct). Sustainable identity,
corresponds to EGIDS level 9 (Dormant), characterized by no fluent speakers of the
language, and the people remember it as a language from previous generations. A
language that belongs to this level only serves as an identity and use as a symbolic
representation of their language heritage such areas as ceremonies and music.
Sustainable orality describes the situation when the language is spoken by the
community members as a first language. Also, there is intergenerational
transmission from home to community level. Thus, older generation, like parents,

25
transmit the language to their children. In addition, speakers of the language use it
in their life. Sustainable orality parallels to the EGIDS level 6a (Vigorous). The top
level, sustainable literacy describes languages which are spoken by all generations.
Both spoken and written forms are used as part of speakers’ daily life. Languages on
this level are used in literacy programs by established institutions. This level of
sustainability corresponds to EGIDS levels 4 and higher.

Figure 5: Sustainable Levels of Language Use (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 148)

2.5.2 FAMED Conditions

The EGIDS framework provides an overview of the current vitality status of a
language. The SUM provides a participatory language development plan in the
community level to maintain and promote the vitality level of a particular language
community (Lewis & Simons, 2015). Thus according to Lewis and Simons (2015),
“sustainable language use can only be achieved when certain conditions are met”.
This is the birth of the FAMED conditions. More so ‘a language must be seen as
being appropriate for a particular setting or for a particular topic or for use with a
particular group of people if its use is to be sustained.’ (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 160).

26
The acronym FAMED stands for; Function, Acquisition, Motivation, Environment,
and Differentiation.

Lewis and Simons (2015) reiterated that, sustainable language use, at any level, can
only be achieved if each of the five conditions is at a level which supports it. The set
of five conditions and their descriptions summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5 FAMED Conditions (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 159).

Condition Description
Functions - (uses, bodies of knowledge) associated with the
Function
language must exist and be recognized by the community.
A means of acquiring the needed proficiency to use the language
Acquisition for those functions must be in place and accessible to
community members.
Community members must be motivated to use the language for
Motivation those functions. They must perceive that the use of the language
for those functions is beneficial in some way.
The policy environment (including at national, regional, and
Environment local levels) must not be hostile to the use of the language for
those functions.
Societal norms must clearly delineate the functions assigned to
Differentiation the local language marking them as distinct from the functions
for other languages in the speech community’s repertoire.

In connection to assessing the language vitality and its repertoire, Lewis and Simons
(2015) formulated FAMED own scales for each condition that correlates to the
EGIDS framework. See Appendix section for the descriptions of each condition

In addition, when the full intergenerational transmission had broken, the following
description of youngest speakers of L1 is listed below. Also, the Table 6 below shows
how to interpret the FAMED conditions.

Y1 – The youngest L1 users are children

Y2 – The youngest L1 users are parents
Y3 – The youngest L1 users are grandparents
Y4 – The youngest L1 users are great-grandparents
Y5 – There are no L1 users.
Y6 – There are no L1 users.

27
Table 6 FAMED and EGIDS Interpretative Table (Lewis & Simons, 2015)

EGIDS Level F A M E D Youngest L1 users

4 (Educational F1 A1 M1 E1 D1 Y1
5 (Developing) F2 A2 M2 E2,E3 D2 Y1
6a (Vigorous) F3 A3 M3 E3,E4 D3 Y1
6b (Threatened) F4 A4 M4 E4 D4 Y1
7 (Shifting) F4 A5 M5 E5 D5 Y2
8a (Moribund) F4 A5 M5 E5 D5 Y3
8b (Nearly extinct) F5 A5 M5 E5 D5 Y4
9 (Dormant) F5 A5 M5 E5 D5,D6 Y5
10 (Extinct) F6,F7 A6 M6 E5 D7 Y6

2.6 Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)

Herring (1996: 1) defines computer mediated discourse (CMD) as ‘the
communication produced when human beings interact with one another by
transmitting messages via networked computers’ (Herring, 1996). According to her,
CMD is a specialization of broader interdisciplinary study of computer mediated
communication. Thus, CMD focuses on the language and language use in computer
mediated communication (Herring, 1996). She also stated that, ‘human-to-human
communication via computer networks or interactive networking, is still recent
phenomenon.’ Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic (2004) refers to CMC as ‘any human
communication achieved through, or with the help of, computer technology.’

Computer mediated communication characterized by using a text-based

communication in which messages are typed in electronic devices keyboards and
read as text on a devices screen by both interlocutors. The so-called text-based CMC
has many forms such as e-mail, discussion groups, real-time chat, and virtual reality
role playing games, in which the linguistic properties vary according to messages
and socio-cultural context (Herring, 1996). Given these forms of CMC cited by
Herring (1996), where does mobile texting belong?

Various jargon has developed related to CMC. Crystal (2004: 17) discussed
‘Netspeak’ which he said is an alternative term of ‘Netlish’, ‘Weblish’ ‘Internet
language’, ‘electronic discourse’, ‘electronic language’, and ‘interactive written
discourse’. According to him, each of these terms has different implication. ‘Netlish’
for example, is derived from ‘Internet and English’, although he claimed that its
usefulness is decreasing because the internet now is becoming multilingual. The

28
‘electronic discourse’ emphasizes the interactive and dialogue elements, whereas
CMC focuses on the medium itself. ‘Netspeak’ is more succinct and functional
enough as it involves both writing and talking, and the ‘speak’ suffix has a receptive
element – reading and listening.

2.6.1 Texting (txtng)

Texting has evolved as a social phenomenon of the twenty-first-century (Crystal,
2008). Crystal pointed out that the highly distinctive graphic style, full of
abbreviations and deviant uses of language in which the younger generations does
not care about the standard use of the language. Hinrichs (2006) considers these
changes of language use are not a manifestation of language change, but rather an
innovative use of the language. Nonetheless, some people think that the use of
paralinguistic characters such as emotion icons, emojis, hashtags (#), and numerals
harm the language as a whole (Crystal, 2008). Texting, indeed, is the quickest
method to relay information nowadays. Mobile phone users often omit letters or use
acronyms and abbreviation to speed up the conversations, in essence creating a
language within their circle of friends (Castaneda, 2007).

Herring (1996) mentioned the classifications of computer mediated discourse in

computer networks. She added that, ‘computer networks are often considered
medium of communication distinct from writing and speaking. (Herring, 1996)’

In accordance to the distinctions of writing and speaking, Crystal (2004)

summarized the nature of spoken and written language in Table 7.

Table 7 Distinctions of Spoken and Written (Crystal, 2004)

Spoken (Speech) Written (Writing)

Time-bounded, dynamic, and transient. Space-bounded, static, and permanent
Spontaneous Contrived
Face-to-face interaction Visually decontextualized
Loosely structured Elaborately structured
Socially interactive Factually communicative
Immediately revisable Repeatedly revisable
Prosodically rich Graphically rich

Texting as the fastest form of communication mediated communication has several

distinctive features. Crystal (2008) mentions pictograms and logograms, initialisms,
omitted letters, nonstandard spellings, and shortenings, as examples of distinctive

29
features in texting. Thurlow (2003) refers the non-standard linguistic practices such
vowel and consonant deletions, shortenings, misspellings, and the use of extra-
linguistic features as sociolinguistic maxims of SMS.

Pictograms and logograms are characterized by the use of single letters, numerals,
and typographic symbols to represent words, parts of words, or even – as in the case
of x and z which are associated with actions, Crystal (2008). Logograms such as b4
‘before’, 2day ‘today’, xxx ‘kisses’ and zzz ‘sleeping’ are combinations of text
orthography cited by Crystal. Thus, when visual shapes, or pictures, are used to
represent objects of concepts, they are known as pictograms (Crystal 2008: 38).
Emotion icons (popularly known as emoticons) are examples of pictograms. The
colon, dash, and close parenthesis when keyed from the keyboard will give you, :-)
() ‘smile’. Other examples are ;-) ‘wink’, (^_^) ‘cute’, (*o*) ‘surprised’, and many
other combinations. These special characteristics may not apply to all keyboards on
both computers and mobile phones.

Initialism according to Crystal (2008) is the second most noticeable feature of

texting. This is done by the reduction of words to their initial letters. According to
digiphile (2009), some of most used initialisms are BTW (btw) ‘by the way’, FB
(Facebook’, IMHO ‘In My Humble Opinion’, LMAO ‘Laughung My Ass Off’, and LOL
‘Laughing Out Loud’. Other forms of initialisms mentioned by Crystal which are very
common in texting or instant messaging are: for compound words ‘girlfriend’ (GF);
for words in phrases ‘face to face’ (FTF), all my love ‘AML’, and ‘no problem’ (NP);
for words in elliptical or whole sentences ‘just kidding’ (JK), ‘mail me your thoughts’
(MMYT); and for words in expostulations ‘Oh My God’ (OMG) and ‘Ah Bless’ (AB).

Crystal (2008) cited that initialisms had been around for centuries. Traces of history
indicates that initialism started in Latin such as the pm ‘post meridiem’ (after
midday) was recorded in 1666, while NB ‘nota bien’ (not well) was recorded in
1673. More so, the RIP ‘Rest In Peace) and ND ‘No Date’ had been used since
nineteenth century. The initialisms AWOL ‘absent without leave’, NBG ‘no bloody
good’, and SWALK ‘sealed with loving kiss’ had been documented in the early
twentieth century. In the mid-century, the ETA ‘estimated time of arrival’, SNAFU
‘situation normal, all fouled/fucked up’, AKA ‘also known as’ and the famous TTFN
‘ta-ta for now’ already existed.

30
Texting nowadays, also involves word shortening. Texters usually shorten the words
by omitting letters from the middle (contractions), or dropping a letter at the end
(clipping), Table 8 below illustrates the words which normally undergo contractions
and clippings in text messages.

Table 8 Contractions and Clippings (Crystal 2008; Thurlow, 2003)

Contractions Clippings
gd ‘good’ txt ‘text’ ‘G’ clippings Other clippings
nt ‘night’ from ‘from’ goin ‘going’ wil ‘will’
yr ‘year’ ltr ‘later’ thinkin ‘thinking’ to ‘too’
wk ‘week’ txtng ‘texting’ comin ‘coming’ til ‘till’
nxt ‘next’ secs ‘seconds’ drivin ‘driving’ hav ‘have’
tmrw ‘tomorrow’ abt ‘about’ morning ‘morning’ chic ‘chick’
msg ‘message’ wkend ‘weekend’ meetin ‘meeting’ we’l ‘we will’

Additional distinctive feature of texting is the non-standard spellings. According to

Crystal (2008), texters are prone to both unconsciously and deliberately error in
texting. Some nonstandard spellings which are commonly used by texters are shown
in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Nonstandard Spelling in Texting (Crystal 2008; Thurlow 2003)

Crystal’s Examples Thurlow’s Examples

cos, coz dat ‘that’ cum ‘come’ tonite ‘tonight’
‘because’ sorta ‘sort off’ sori ‘sorry’ gud ‘good’
omigod ‘oh my da ‘the’ nite ‘night’ ure ‘your’
god’ wotcha ‘what are you’ rite ‘right’ xams ‘exams’
fone ‘phone’ wenja ‘when do you’ otha ‘other’ ud ‘you’d’
luv ‘love’ bin, bn ‘been’ bcum ‘become’ wen ‘when’
shud ‘should’ skool ‘ school’ reali ‘really’ no ‘know’
thru ‘through’ wot ‘what’ alrite ‘alright’ ruff ‘rough’
sum ‘some’ ova ‘over’ uve ‘you’ve’ yrself ‘yourself
thanx ‘thanks’ wiv ‘with’ foned ‘phoned’ u’ll ‘you’ll’
ya ‘you’

Another form of non-standardness in texting is the shortenings. Crystal (2008)

defines it as ‘a kind of abbreviations in which the words are shortened by omitting
one of its meaningful elements, usually at the end, but sometimes at the beginning.

31
According to him, texters do shortenings in order to save time, effort, and money.
Common examples of this distinctive feature is shown in Table 10 below.

Table 10 Shortenings in Texting (Crystal 2008; Thurlow 2003)

Crystal’s Examples Thurlow’s Examples

Days of the gran ‘grandmother’ vid ‘video’ def ‘definitely’

Week uni ‘university’ poss ‘possible’ aft ‘after’
Mon, Tues, bro ‘brother’ sis ‘sister’ lab ‘laboratory’
Weds, Thurs,
gov ‘government’ lang ‘language’ bud ‘buddy’
Fri, Sat, Sun
approx lec ‘lecture’ ed ‘edition’
‘approximately’ eng ‘English’ proj ‘project’
Months of the
bio ‘biography’ min ‘minute’ morn
Year
arr ‘arrive’ comm ‘communication’ ‘morning’
Jan, Feb, Mar,
max ‘maximum’ eco ‘economics’ goss ‘gossip’
Apr, May, Jun,
incl ‘including’ hon ‘honey’ tog ‘together’
Jul, Aug, Sep,
Oct, Nov, Dec. gram
‘grammar’

2.6.2 Facebook
Facebook was established and founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004. Since then,
Mazman and Usluel (2011) proved that Facebook has not only become the most
popular form of social networking service (SNS) and grown exponentially, and their
study was confirmed by Omar, Embi, & Yunus (2012) that Facebook has also
become the most prominent social-networking tool of the past decade for students’
online learning.

In 2016, an online statistics portal, statista, reveals the leading Facebook users
statistics by country. Statistics shows that out of 1.71 billion Facebook users, India
holds the most number of Facebook users with 195.15 million followed by United
States with 191.3 million, and then Brazil with 90.11 million Facebook users.
Surprisingly, China which is the most populous country in the world with more than
1.3 billion people only ranks fifth with 52.87 million Facebook users. Philippines is
seventh in rank with 39.82 million Facebook users.

32
Language interface on Facebook website supported only around 140 languages all
over the world (Facebook, 2016). Although speakers of other languages, particularly
those who speak non-dominant language can use the Facebook. Scannell (2012)
states that ‘hundreds of language groups around the world have recognized the
potential these sites (referring to Facebook) have for their language revitalization
efforts, both in terms of encouraging language use and sharing techniques across
communities.’

We may look at the case of Welsh language in the United Kingdom, in the domain of
Social Networking Service (SNS). Cunliffe and Honeycutt (2010) studied language
use by younger Welsh speakers in social (Facebook). They said that ‘the popularity
of Facebook among the pupils reflects the popularity of Facebook generally in the
UK. Facebook is the most visited SNS in the UK, with 56.53% of all visits to SNS,
and the second most visited site in the UK after Google UK, with 7.78% of all
website visits. Cunliffe and Honeycutt (2010). In this study, he observed that, ‘living
in an area in which the English language is dominant is a good predictor of English
language use on Facebook, but that living in an area where the Welsh language is
stronger is not such a good predictor of Welsh language use on Facebook. This
suggests that there may be different factors influencing the use or non-use of Welsh
than English, or that the same set of factors has different outcomes for the two
languages.’

In the Philippines, only Bisaya (Cebuano) and Filipino (Tagalog) languages are
registered in Facebook site. The country is comprise of more than 180 living
languages. The most use languages are English and Tagalog among all Facebook
users, but some minority languages are now steadily becoming available as interface
languages for Facebook.

33
 Chapter 3
Maguindanaon Sociolinguistic Overview

3.1 Introduction
This chapter will discuss the general situation of Maguindanaon language in the
society. Maguindanaon language is a less studied language in terms of its grammar,
phonology, and any linguistic related research. However, there are researches done
on lexicography, grammar, and phonology, but these researches are not circulated,
and are kept by certain academic institution. Some studies on language and culture
are more viewed in political milieu than as language development context.

The overview of Maguindanaon in sociolinguistics discipline is based on the

researcher’s knowledge and experiences working on this language. However,
information and content of this chapter are supplied through in-depth background
research and interviews.

The Maguindanaon ethnolinguistic and speech community are presented in sections

3.2 and 3.3, respectively. In Section 3.4, it discusses the domains of use of
Maguindanaon language. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 covered the literacy and orality of the
language.

3.2 Maguindanaon Ethnolinguistic Ecology

The Philippines, an archipelago comprised of over 7,100 islands, has a striking
linguistic diversity (Dawe, 2014), which are significantly overlapping from place to
place instigated through diaspora (movement of people from one town to the other)
because of colonization, and later on brought by decades of internal and political
conflict. Mcfarland (1980) estimated the number of languages in the Philippines
which he found over 120, but Grimes (1996) believes it will be over 170 languages.

In addition, Philippines is comprised of three major religious groups; Christian,

Muslim, and Lumad (Indigenous People), collectively termed as tri-people. Each
religious group has their respective languages and dialects. The Cebuano,
Hiligaynon, Iloko, Surigaonon, Dabawenyo, Tagalog, and Subanen are examples of
tribes that have adopted and embraced Christianity. The Maguindanaon, Maranao,

34
Tausug, and Iranun are belong to Muslim ethnicity which embraced Islam. Some
languages of Lumad are the Manobo, T’boli, B’laan, Mandaya, and Bagobo.

This diverse language ecology may be cause by internal conflict and ideology which
contributes to the migration of one or more speech communities from one place to
the other. Mindanao, in which this study has been conducted, is dealing with multi-
cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-ethnical society which paves the way for the
speakers of different languages or dialects to live together in a single community. To
explain the diversity of language, the illustrations below demonstrates the ecology of
language in the area of research1.

Maguindanaon language has five dialects namely Ilud, Laya, Biwangan, Tagakawan,
and Sibugay. These dialects are mutually intelligible to one another, but there are
some distinctions in terms of lexicon, speech tempo, accent, and intonation.

The ilud dialect is distinct from other dialects by their accent and pronunciation.
Speakers of this dialect is situated in Maguindanao province and in Cotabato city.
The laya dialect is characterized by slow-to-fast speech tempo, and they are mostly
from North Cotabato province (Pikit, Kabacan, Midsayap, and Pagalungan). The
biwangan dialect are speakers that is a mixture of ilud and laya, and they are
situated in General Santos, Tacurong and Sultan Kudarat provinces. The tagakawan
dialect is the Maguindanaon settlers in Bukidnon province, which is highly influence
by laya dialect. Some speakers of this dialect are situated in Iligan, Marawi, Cagayan
de Oro, and Lanao del Sur. The sibugay dialect is in the far west of Mindanao, Sulu
and Zamboanga Sibugay. This dialect interacts more on Chavacano and Tausug
languages.

1
The illustrations are based on the collected knowledge of the people and of the researcher.
Thus, there are more additional languages or dialects within these areas which are not
identified. Most the languages mentioned on the specific locations are so-called dominant
languages. English and Tagalog are still the most spoken since both are considered the
national and the official language, respectively.

35
 Maguindanaon Cebuano Manobo Hiligaynon Chavacano

Figure 6 Ethnolinguistic Map of Mindanao

(Ethnic Group Philippines, 2011)

3.3 Maguindanaon Speech Community

This section will describe the language environment of Maguindanaon in a more
specific context. Maguindanaon communities can be identified as particular speech
communities according to the definition of ‘speech community’ developed earlier. As
we know, speech community is defined as group of people who have a shared
linguistic repertoire that is used in the same way, upholding regular contact with
each other, and recognize themselves belonging to the particular social group. But
we will also see that Maguindanaon speech communities are typically not isolated
groups, but instead live in a very close cooperation and social relationship with
neighboring speech communities, often sharing the same urban centers. Thus we
cannot understand the language use patterns of Maguindanaon individuals unless we
take into account the language ecology in which they live.

To give concrete emphasis on Maguindanaon speech community, the researcher

have chosen to represent the language ecology that is composed of three different
tribes.

36
Figure 7 shows the speech communities in Brgy. Nalapaan, in Pikit, North Cotabato.
This a community of more than 2,000 populations2 and it is divided into three
ethnic groups. Maguindanaon people occupy approximately 50% of the population
followed by the 40% of Christian inhabitants, and then the Lumad tribe that is
considered minority group that comprise the other 10% of the village population.
The village is further divided into five sitios3 namely Proper 1, Proper 2, Maguid,
Baruyan, and San Roque. The Muslim tribe occupy sitios Proper 1 & 2, Maguid and
Baruyan. The Christian tribe dominates the sitio San Roque and Sitio Baruyan.
Lumad is situated in sitio Baruyan, and majority of them live in the hill side.

The Figures 7 and 8 are based on the author’s knowledge about the Maguindanaon
language. This is to give an overview of the Maguindanaon speech community in the
village of Nalapaan in Pikit, North Cotabato.

2
The number of population is as of May 2010 Census of Population and Housing conducted
by National Statistics Office in North, Cotabato.
3
A sitio in the Philippines is a territorial enclave that forms part of a barangay. Typically
rural, a sitio's location is usually far from the center of the barangay itself and could be its
own barangay if its population were high enough. Sitios are similar to puroks, but the
latter are more urban and closer to the barangay's center, especially the barangay hall.

37
Figure 7 below illustrates the information on the Maguindanaon speech community.

Speech Communities Language Use

Maguindanaon (Green Zone)
Home Maguindanaon, Maranao

Mosque Maguindanaon, Arabic

Madrasah Maguindanaon, Arabic

Cebuano & Hiligaynon (Blue Zone)

Home Cebuano, Hiligaynon (Ilonggo)

Church Cebuano, Tagalog, Hiligaynon, English (often)

Ilocano (Yellow Zone)

Home Iloko, Tagalog,

Iglesia ni Cristo Iloko, Tagalog, English, Cebuano

Manobo (Orange Zone)

Home Manobo, Cebuano

Lumad Church Manobo

Community Infrastructures Language Use

Public School Maguindanaon, Cebuano, English, Tagalog,

Hiligaynon, Manobo (often), Iloko (often)
Day Care Center Maguindanaon, Cebuano, English, Tagalog

Barangay Hall Cebuano, Tagalog, Maguindanaon

Training Center Cebuano, Tagalog, Maguindanaon, English

(often)
Military Checkpoint Cebuano, Tagalog, Hiligaynon, Maguindanaon
(often), English (often)
Stores Maguindanaon, Cebuano, Tagalog (vary in
every speech communities)
Health Center Cebuano, Tagalog, Maguindanaon (often),
English (often)
Recreation court Maguindanaon, Cebuano

Irrigation Dam Cebuano, Maguindanaon

Figure 7 Maguindanaon Speech Community Legend

(by the author)

38
To Cotabato

LUMAD

To Davao

Figure 8 Maguindanaon Speech Community

(by the author)

39
The school domain is where all these three ethnic tribes or all speech communities
were in contact for both academic and cultural purposes. The majority of the
teachers, who are teaching in the school, are living in other barangays or even in
other municipalities and most of them are from Christian tribes. Some teachers are
Maguindanaon speakers, and there is no Manobo teacher in this school. Based on the
observations, teachers during teacher’s meeting are using the LWC, Tagalog. Manobo
and Ilocano languages are not spoken, except if there is a case of monolingual
speaker present.

There are two day care centers in the community. One in a Maguindanaon densely
populated sitio in which most of the Muslim preschoolers are attending, and other
one is located at sitio Baruyan in which the preschoolers are from the three tribes,
and the teacher is Manobo speaker. The two day care centers each have an assigned
teacher, Maguindanaon and Manobo speaker, respectively.

Barangay hall is where most of the community meetings, assemblies, and conflict-
resolutions are addressed, in which Cebuano language serves as a mainstream
language. The majority of the barangay officials are from Muslim tribe, and the rest
are from Christian tribe. Lumad tribe has their own tribal government structure and
they are represented by their religious leader or by someone who are appointed by
their timuay in terms of community decision-making in community affairs. Ilocano
speech community is also represented by their religious leader in community
gatherings.

The health center domain of the same village is represented by three tribes,
however, the languages to be used in all occasions (e.g. weekly immunization,
doctor’s visit) are Cebuano and Tagalog. There is minimal use of Maguindanaon in
this setting. The military checkpoint used mostly Cebuano and Tagalog.
Maguindanaon language is very seldom used as almost no Maguindanaon speakers
are being working in this domain.

The training center is where most government and non-government training and
project orientation are held. Local government workers use the vernacular
languages, Maguindanaon and Cebuano during trainings. Non-government
organizations, as most they are considered ‘outsiders’, are using Tagalog and English
in their training or project orientations. Maguindanaon language will be used to
translate information to the Maguindanaon speakers who have very weak command
of both Tagalog and English languages.

40
There are two dialects that are notably spoken in Nalapaan village, Laya and Ilud.
The Ilud dialect speakers are mostly relatives of Laya dialect speakers that live in
Datu Piang in which the later dialect is widely spoken. The laya speakers are located
in Maguindanaon province, but settled in Nalapaan village because of political
unrest. In addition, there are few Maranao language speakers in this village. The
Maranao language is the second largest Muslim tribe next to Maguindanaon which is
located in Lanao provinces. The Maranao speakers live in Nalapaan village due
intermarriages with the Ilud dialect of Maguindanaon language. The majority of the
speakers in this speech community speak the Laya dialect, but it is mutually
intelligible to the speakers of Ilud dialect, and to Maranao speakers as well. The
dialect of Maguindanaon used in the Madrasah (Islamic school) is predominantly
Laya. The Laya is used for oral translations from Arabic language to Maguindanaon
in all Arabic-related subjects. More so, the Laya is used by Islamic preachers, the
imams, in their sermons every Friday prayer, and in special religious gatherings such
as weddings, Eid’l Fit’r (end of Ramadan), Eid’l Ad’ha (Pilgrimage), and in Madrasah
activities. For instance, when imam is delivering his sermon, the Arabic language
from Qur’an is being recited, and orally translated to Maguindanaon or into other
language that is suited for the audience and occasion.

The Maguindanaon speakers in this community are multilingual. Cebuano language

is considered to be the language for wider communication in this village. Therefore
the use of Cebuano is only relating to non Maguindanaon people. The Cebuano
language is learned from their neighboring speech community, without formal
language learning. Intermarriages between Muslim and Christian as well as Muslim
and Lumad are also quite common. The Maguindanaon speakers never used the
Cebuano language in any domain within the Maguindanaon speech community. On
the other hand Tagalog is learned from formal education as a medium of instruction.
It is also learned through migration, and social contact with non-Maguindanaon
speakers which are predominantly Tagalog speakers. The Maguindanaon speakers
rarely used English language in all domains because this language is difficult to
learn, and only intended for very formal domain. However, English language is
learned from formal setting such as the school.

In addition, written translations from Arabic language to Maguindanaon is not

commonly found in this speech community, although there are few of these but not
circulated, and for household and religious use only.

41
The Christian tribe is subdivided into three speech communities- Cebuano (purple
dash line), Ilonggo (red dash line), and Iloko (blue dash line). In Cebuano speech
community, Cebuano is dominant language. Their religious affiliation is Roman
Catholic, but some speakers belong to other religious sects. Cebuano language is
used in their daily life, and in their Church. Cebuano is considered the mainstream
language in this community since everyone can speak it. It is used in social
activities, village meeting, and other community affairs. The Ilonggo speech
community is located in sitio Baruyan. The hiligaynon language or its dialect
Ilonggo is mostly used. Geographically, Ilonggo speech community is situated in the
isolated areas (hilly side), whereas Cebuano and Maguindanaon speech communities
is located along the main road. The language is dominantly used at home, and rarely
used in socio-cultural activities in the village. Cebuano and Ilonggo languages are
mutually intelligible, and shared cultural values, traditions, beliefs, and lexicons.
Intermarriages among Cebuano and Ilonggo are very common. In contrast,
intermarriages between Ilonggo and Maguindanaon and Ilonggo and Manobo are
very seldom. Maguindanaon and Ilonggo are not mutually intelligible, although
some Maguindanaon speakers can speak Ilonggo, but few Ilonggo speakers are able
to speak Maguindanaon.

The Ilokos or widely known as the Ilocanos, are speakers of less than a hundred
people in this village. Ilocano people, historically, are the settlers from Luzon region
as early 1900s in Mindanao. They speak Iloko at home and at Church. Ilocano
religious affiliation is Iglesia ni Cristo (clique of Christianity). Their socio-cultural
and socio-political affiliation in the village is always represented by their religious
leader. Thus, every decision will be made by their tribal leader (usually a priest).
Iloko is very seldom used in any village festivities. Intermarriages to other tribes are
not common, but there are some cases of this social relationship. Iloko language is
not mutually intelligible to all other languages in this village, however, few others
from other speech community can speak their language. Ilocanos can speak Cebuano
fluently, but not the other way around. Some Ilocanos learned how to speak
Maguindanaon, and vice versa, because of social contact and intermarriage.

The lumad tribe is dominantly Manobos, Arumanon Manobo to be specific. They are
people from the neighboring municipality, Carmen, North Cotabato. It is not known
when they arrived in the village, but their tribal leader, timuay4, who is in his late

4
Timuay is the honorific term for Lumad chieftain. It is considered the leader of their
religious affiliation. It is the equivalent of Datu of Maguindanaon tribe.

42
80’s, said that they had been in the village when he was young. The Manobo speech
community has more than 100 speakers. This speech community is referred as
indigenous people (IP), locally known as Lumad. They are animists, and believe in
natural phenomena. They are situated in sitio Baruyan (Orange zone). Manobos
have their own political structure and cultural laws. Their cultural traditions are
preserved and observed in this community. Their social decisions are collective, and
their chieftain is the one representing their tribe. Manobo language is not mutually
intelligible to all other speech communities. Manobos are bilingual in Manobo and
Cebuano. Some can speak Ilonggo and Maguindanaon because of intermarriages and
social contact. Manobo language is only used within their tribe and not in any other
social affair in the village. There are few written literature on this language, most
knowledge is transmitted orally.

3.4 Maguindanaon Language Use Domains

The functions of the language greatly dependent on the location, topics, participants
and sociolinguistic factors. However, Maguindanaon language is used mostly in all
domains. Table 11 shows some of the domains which usually used Maguindanaon
language, based on author’s observations.

Table 11 Maguindanaon Language Use Domains

Domains Location Participant Topic

Home Home Parents, children, Education, religions,
and grandparents relationship, financial,
and problems
Social (wedding, Public areas Friends, relatives, Religions, kinship,
friendships, *strangers politics, work, gossips,
informality) and livelihood
Religious Mosque, Imams, Ustadzes, Religion, festivities,
Madrasah students, parents
Government Government Teachers, civil Politics, academic,
offices (e.g. servants, students, family, work
school, work clients, and co-
place) workers
Mass Media Radio and Newscasters, Public services, politics,
(print, radio) printing listeners, writers, academic, entertainment,
department and readers news, etc

43
 Domains Location Participant Topic
CMC (Texting, All areas Interlocutors Family, religions, gossips,
Facebook, and secrecy, politics, news,
other CMC gossips, entertainment,
forms literature, etc.

3.5 Literacy
Mother tongue based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) program enabled speakers
of the language to use their L1 in the classroom domain. The MTB-MLE aims to
improve the pupil’s language and cognitive development, as well as his/her socio-
cultural awareness. The child’s language will serve as the fundamental language for
literacy and learning in their early academic endeavors (Department of Education,
2013).

Maguindanaon language is one the 12 languages that were introduced to be part of

piloting languages in the MLE program. The selection of the 12 piloting languages in
MLE was based on what languages are dominant from the three major islands in the
Philippines. In northern Philippines, Luzon region, the dominant languages are
Iloko, Pangasinan, Bikol, Kapampangan, and Tagalog. In central Philippines, Visayas
region, Waray, Hiligaynon, and Cebuano are the three most dominant languages. In
the southern Philippines, Mindanao region, Maranao, Chavacano, Tausug, and
Maguindanaon are the dominant languages. However, due to MLE success, in the
school year 2012-2013 (Department of Education, 2013), additional languages were
introduced as language to be used in education. The additional regional languages
are the Ibanag, Ivatan, Sambal, Akianon, Kinaray-a, Yakan, and Surigaonon. The use
of L1 starts at grade one to three, then Filipino and English languages will be the
medium of instructions from grade four onwards. The implementing schools in
Mindanao, mostly in Maguindanao, North Cotabato, and Sultan Kudarat provinces
are introducing Maguindanaon language as the medium of instruction, although
there is no specific percentage of how many schools in the Philippines, particularly
in Mindanao are using Maguindanaon language. Based on the interview with the
public school teachers, MTB-MLE education materials with Maguindanaon
translations are on their way and are now available in other schools for piloting and
testing. More so, according to one of the professors interviewed, some of the
university documents within the university domain will be translated to vernacular
languages before they are circulated.

44
The MTB-MLE program has a positive impact in the speech communities which are
predominantly Maguindanaon language speakers. Shoropinski (2013) revealed that
students learn the subject matter quickly, build teacher-student rapport (teacher’s
perspective), and students are motivated (parents’ perspective). Thus, speech
communities to which their L1 becomes part of the learning instruction will feel
proud as their identity is being known. Shoropinski’s (2013) study was conducted in
three provinces namely Bagumbayan in Sultan Kudarat, Lake Sebu in T’boli, and
Lutayan in Maguindanao.

The induction of MTB-MLE program, in general, gains the support of the

government, locally and nationally. In 2010, President Benigno Aquino even quoted
this;
“We should become trilingual as a country. Learn English well and
connect to the world. Learn Filipino well and connect to our country.
Retain your dialect and connect to your heritage”.

But we must put in mind that MTB-MLE program varies in terms of its
adaptation, teaching methodologies, and implementation.

Non-formal education was introduced back in the early 2000s by some non-
government organizations (NGOs), and conducted in the communities that are
affected by political unrest. The target of this program were the household
mothers, and out of school youth. Most of these mothers were illiterate and
tagged as ‘no read, no write’ people, whereas the out of school youth attained
early education but failed to continue due to economic reasons. For the reason
that they don’t have formal education, the Maguindanaon speakers were taught
in Maguindanaon language on the topic of gardening, herbal making, and child
rearing. They were also taught how to read and write using Filipino
orthography.

In addition to Maguindanaon literacy, literate Maguindanaon speakers both in

English and Arabic educations translated passages of the Qur’an into Maguindanaon
language so that Islamic believers who cannot comprehend in Arabic language will
be able to understand what is being written in the Qur’an. These people are the local
Islamic scholars such as religious leaders, ulamas, imams, ustadzes, and individuals
who have good command of both Arabic and Maguindanaon languages.

Print materials are another form of literacy in Maguindanaon. Regional newspapers,

mostly in Mindanao, have columns which are written in local language such as

45
Maguindanaon. Online Maguindanaon text corpora are also available (e.g.
Maguindanaon portal). The contents of this web portal are mostly about religious
matters which were translated to Maguindanaon language. School publications such
as from the Mindanao Tech of University of Southern Mindanao also featuring
literacy pieces (poems), and sentiments written in Maguindanaon language. Other
forms of written or printed materials written in Maguindanaon language are
bulletins, community ordinances, wedding invitations, and warning signs. Cultural
related stories such as legends, folklores, and short narratives are also written in
Maguindanaon language. Educational materials like lesson plans, lectures (visual
aids), and other teaching materials, are now gradually used in the classroom in
pursuance to the MTB-MLE literacy program and as government policy.

In a broader spectrum, Maguindanaon speakers are also exposed to other forms of

print materials, such local, national, and international newspapers. This contributes
to their literacy. Reading newspapers is a self-education approach, although not all
Maguindanaon speakers have access to print media. Nonetheless, print materials
such as those mentioned above, contributed to how the Maguindanaon language is
used both in writing and speaking communications. These indicators of strong use of
Maguindanaon in education will definitely strengthen the vitality of the
Maguindanaon language. However, for the Maguindanaon language to reach
sustainable literacy, the MLE program should be ‘widespread’, ‘standardized’, and
with ‘stable government support’.

3.6 Orality
Orality is described as the ability of speakers of a spoken language that is
transmitted through verbal communication. When a language has no more speakers
alive or no longer spoken, it is considered extinct (EGIDS level 10), although, this
language may has archived and documented literature. Maguindanaon language is
used orally by all generations, primarily in the home domain.

Religious setting such as Islamic schools and mosques are using their L1 to translate
orally the Arabic language after recital. This is a very common practice by Islamic
teachers and preachers. Social and community gatherings, weddings, meetings, and
other occasions, Maguindanaon is also used. Teachers who are Maguindanaon
speaker use the language when they talked to the Maguindanaon students vis-à-vis
both personal and academic purposes.

46
But there are instances where both Maguindanaon speakers do not converse in their
L1. In the author’s experience, social classes and attitudes are the factors that
Maguindanaon language is not used orally. Members of speech of community who
belong to the higher class tend not to use Maguindanaon to mark their status, and
instead they communicate in more prestige languages like Tagalog and English.
These are the people that hold high status such as the high ranking politicians,
prominent families, and educated people. The English and Tagalog languages are
used to their children at home because they believe that their children will have an
advantage in their early academic life if they learn these language at an early stage.

Maguindanaon language is also used in mass media, specifically radio. Radio

programs hosted by Maguindanaon speakers are aired in some radio stations
particularly in provinces in which Maguindanaon speakers are dominant. Local,
national, and international news is mostly translated into Maguindanaon language.
Original song compositions in Maguindanaon together with the Maguindanaon
rendition of western songs and music are played for entertainment. But, this oral use
of the language only common in Maguindanaon people, and not to other tribes like
the Christian and Lumad. Thus, the transmission of the Maguindanaon language to
other speech community through mass media is very uncommon. More so, only few
young people are able to have time to listen to radio programs in Maguindanaon.
The majority of the listeners belong to the older.

In summary, Maguindanaon language orality is sustainable. Speakers strongly use

their L1, orally at home domain, and by all generations.

47
 Chapter 4
Methodology

4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodologies and research designs used in conducting
the research. It is divided into seven (7) sections with their respective subsections.
Section 4.2 presents the instrument used in this research. Section 4.3 explains how
the site was selected, and Section 4.4 tells how the subjects or respondents were
identified. Section 4.5 describes the sampling design used in this research, and
Section 4.6 presents the data collection procedures. Section 4.7 describes how the
data gathered was stored for analyses.

4.2 Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaires, ISLQ

The ISLQ provided the socio-demographic information of the respondents. This
instrument also contained questions on language use, vitality, and attitudes. The
ISLQ had been divided accordingly and with accordance to the objectives need to be
measured. Table 12 below shows the content of the ISLQ. (See Appendix A for the
whole ISLQ).

Table 12 ISLQ Information

Section Title Information To Be Gathered

Preliminary Place, time and location of the interview. Language use
Information during the interview.
Metadata of the Name, age, gender, education, language repertoire,
respondent location etc.
Language use domain Information on where the Maguindanaon language use in
different domains.
Language use in Information about how Maguindanaon language is used
Mobile Phone texting in texting. Percentage of Maguindanaon language used in
texting.
Language use in Information about how Maguindanaon language use in
Social Media social media. Percentage Maguindanaon language used in
(Facebook) Facebook Instant Messaging (IM).

48
 Section Title Information To Be Gathered
Language Vitality Information about how the language vitality is being
affected by the CMC
Literacy Information how the CMC contributes to literacy skills of
young people

4.3 Site Selection

The ISLQ was administered in the towns of Kabacan and Pikit in North Cotabato
province. North Cotabato is the second largest Maguindanaon speaking province
only next to Maguindanao, and consists of 17 towns. Each of these municipalities
has Maguindanaon speech and language community. Because of financial
restrictions, the instruments were administered at the University of Southern
Mindanao in Kabacan municipality. The USM is a government institution in which
the majority of college students are taking their undergraduate degree. Based on the
USM report of enrolment in 2015-2016 academic year, there were 11,998 students
enrolled in the second semester, and 1,543 were Maguindanaon speakers.
Instruments were also administered to the High School students aged fifteen and
above in Pikit municipality particularly in Pikit National High School (PNHS) and
Takepan National High School (TNHS). Pikit municipality is predominantly Muslims,
and Maguindanaon is considered the dominant language. Figure 9 below shows the
two municipalities where the data gathering was conducted.

Figure 9 Site Selection Map

49
4.4 Subject Selection
The following criteria for subject selection were used. In the actual conduct of the
research, these criteria were modified to allocate the Maguindanaon speakers which
were from mix languages or intermarriages but their mother tongue (L1) is
Maguindanaon. The screening criteria below were modified from Nahhas (2007b) .

1. The respondents’ mother-tongue should be Maguindanaon.

2. The respondents’ must have at least have mobile phone (regardless of phone
generational model) and Facebook and e-mail accounts.

In addition, informed consent was acquired from the Maguindanaon speakers who
participated in this study. This is to ensure that all shared data from their mobiles is
used strictly for academic purpose only, and to safeguard their privacy of the
respondents and their interlocutors. More so, a letter from the Linguistic Department
to the University of Southern Mindanao and Pikit and Takepan National High
schools was secured to facilitate the data gathering activities.

4.5 Sampling Design

This research method used for this research is quota sampling. There is no specific
or actual data on the population of Maguindanaon in North Cotabatao. Thus, this
sampling design is suited to reach the target number of respondents. The initial aim
was to have 120 Maguindanaon speaking respondents, but this proved impractical,
so in the end the data was gathered from 75 speakers. The changed in the number of
target respondents was due to the time limitation during the data gathering
activities, and to the reluctance of Maguindanaon speakers to participate.

There are numbers of variable that will be observed on this research such as age and
gender, social classes, education and domains of use. The subjects had been divided
into three categories based on their age and gender representation. The data from a
group of Maguindanaon students who use CMC, but do not use the Maguindanaon
language will be included. This is to get insights why Maguindanaon is not used in
CMC.

In this study, the age group 15 to 18 is considered ‘Younger’, whereas the age group
19 to 24 is considered ‘Middle Age, while the age group 25 and above is considered
‘Older’. More so, the discrepancy in gender category representation was due to the
fact that female Maguindanaon speakers were more willing to participate while male
Maguindanaon speakers were very reluctant to participate. Also, there were more

50
female who had smartphones than male. The software in this research only
supported smartphones. Table 13 below shows the age and gender distribution of
Maguindanaon respondents.

Table 13 Age and Gender Distribution of Respondents (Texting)

Age
Gender Younger Middle Age Older Total
15-18 19-24 25+
Male 6 22 7 35
Female 13 19 8 40
Total 19 41 15 75

In Facebook, the data was limited because not all the 75 Maguindanaon respondents
had Facebook account. Therefore, Facebook data were only taken from the
Maguindanaon respondents who had Facebook account. There were 12
Maguindanaon respondents who overlapped in texting and Facebook. The rest of the
respondents who shared their communication on Facebook were from author’s
friends. The criteria employed were the same as what stated in Section 4.4. Table 14
below shows the distribution of Maguindanaon respondents in Facebook.

Table 14 Age and Gender Distribution of Respondents (Facebook IM)

Age
Gender Younger Middle Age Older Total
15-18 19-24 25+
Male 2 5 3 10
Female 3 7 5 15
Total 5 12 8 25

4.6 Data Collection

The following subsections describe undertakings done in before and during data
collection.

4.6.1 Preliminary Survey

As a preliminary exploration, a poll from group of university students was
conducted, and 30% of the Maguindanaon students said that they used the language

51
in social media such as Facebook, and 25% use the language in texting. This poll
was conducted in one classroom which had 30 students from the Islamic studies
faculty. There were no current data for what languages were used at what
percentages in both media of communication during the preliminary data collection.
The second poll is from a group of high school students, and 40% of them use the
language in social media, and 30% in texting. The number of Maguindanaon
speakers in this poll is not specified. This was conducted by my former teacher in
high school.

Another survey has been done to ask the percentage of Maguindanaon language use
in CMC 3-4 years ago, and Maguindanaon language use at present time. There are
50 Maguindanaon speakers’ reached by this survey.

4.6.2 Text Messaging

The text messages were gathered using the software Coolmuster Android Assistant
and Wondershare MobileTrans. These software supported most of the electronic
devices. Text messages were gathered before administering the ISLQ to ensure that
each respondent does not have a beforehand idea about text message contents from
their respective mobile phones. When text messages were downloaded from their
respective mobile phones, the respondents were asked to choose which text
messages he would like to share for analysis and which need to be deleted for
privacy reasons. In a case of more than 25 correspondences, the primary criterion
was to identify the text messages which were from Maguindanaon speakers,
regardless of age and gender.

All the extracted text messages from respondents had been codified (e.g. 001, 002,
003,…075). All the codifications matched the ISLQ, metadata, and text and
Facebook messaging for data analysis. Afterwards, each respondent was to provide
the information or metadata (in a separate spreadsheet) of the participants involved
in the text message conversations. These include age, L1, gender, education,
location, profession, and the topics. In addition, the respondents were asked to
identify the social distance or relation between them and the recipients/participants
– intimate, close friend, colleague/co-worker, classmates, fellow student,
acquaintance, stranger and etc.

All extracted text messages had been saved in the computer and external drive for
analyses. Before the actual data gathering, the software had been piloted to the
selected students from the University of Southern University in the Kabacan,

52
Philippines. This is to evaluate the software efficiency and reliability. Based on the
piloting phase, the software can process 2-3 mobile phones at the same time with an
average of 5 minutes for extracting the whole text messages (or depending on how
many text messages are actually stored in the phone), and an additional 20-35
minutes to check the messages and filling out the metadata and ISLQ. The duration
depends on how many text messages the respondent has.

The Wondershare Mobile Trans is alternative software given the Coolmuster Android
Assistance fails to recognize the mobile phone model of the respondent. During the
actual data gathering, when Coolmuster Android Assistant fails to recognize the
respondent’s device (mostly non-Android phones – Apple devices), the Wondershare
Mobile Trans had been maximized to transfer text messages data from respondent’s
device to the researcher’s mobile phone using the computer as a conduit device.
Afterwards, the transferred text messages were extracted from researcher’s phone to
the computer using the Coolmuster Android Assistance. The image of the software
that had used were shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10 Software Used

4.6.3 Facebook Instant Messaging

Facebook is the second most used virtual communication next to mobile phone
texting among Maguindanaon, or at least for non-professional speakers such as
students and out-of-school youths. Most, if not all, smart phones can support
Facebook application, but not all the respondents have can access to Facebook.

53
None of the software can extract Facebook instant messaging, therefore, it was a big
challenge to gather data from the respondents. More so, when communicating using
Facebook instant messaging, each respondent needs to register for data services to
access the internet. Another challenge is that, not all respondents have access to the
internet or with an email accounts. Thus, the data on Facebook were very limited.

Nonetheless, to the respondents who had Facebook account and had an access to the
internet shared their communications by taking screenshots from their device. A
number of students, older, and out of school youths participated and shared
Facebook instant messaging. They were instructed to share screenshots of messages
from 10 participants, particularly from Maguindanaon speakers. Then, the 10
screenshots were forwarded to the researcher’s Facebook account, and the latter
downloaded and codified all the Facebook messages that had been shared by the
respondents. Like text messages, the respondents filled the information or metadata
of the participants from the Facebook communications.

Facebook messages, by some means, could generate information regarding the

language use patterns of Maguindanaon in computer mediated communication.
Facebook posts by Maguindanaon speakers from the Maguindanaon Facebook group
Embibitiyala Tanu sa Basa Maguindanaon ‘We will communicate in Maguindanaon
language’, created by the researcher will also be examined to evaluate the
Maguindanaon language use, its vitality, and perhaps how the speakers of the
language perceived their mother tongue.

4.6.4 Direct Observation

First-hand data were obtained through direct observation. The researcher jotted
down information that are relevant and necessary for the data analysis. Data
obtained through observation will be written in prose.

4.6.5 Interviews
Informal interviews is the type of interview done in data collection. This was
conducted to gather important information that support to the analyses. The
interviews were conducted randomly to the students, school teachers, language
practitioners, selective native speakers, imams, tribal leaders, and barangay officials.
The data gathered through informal interviews will help in data analyses.

54
4.7 Data Analysis
All the data collected during the data gathering were codified, saved, and encoded.
All the text messages data were kept in a separate folder, as well as the metadata
and Facebook messages. The ISLQ answers were encoded in a collection of linked
the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. All the data were checked meticulously to
minimize the possibility of errors.

In a separate spreadsheet, the metadata of the participants, together with the topics,
examples of text message conversations, were encoded to map out the respondents
data and to facilitate the data analyses. The examples of topics were based on the
most talked about topic in their text communication.

All the research questions were answered using the ISLQ with examples from the
data gathered. Formulae and operations from the MS Excel were utilized to create
Pivot tables and graphs of different variables included in the study. Each table and
graph was labeled and with an in-depth discussion. Examples given were from the
extracted data text messages and shared Facebook conversations. In addition, the
language vitality was analyzed using the FAMED Conditions.

55
 Chapter 5
Language Use Patterns

5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results and discussion of Maguindanaon language use in
computer mediated communication in North Cotabato in Mindanao. The language
use patterns of Maguindanaon in CMC are presented and discussed in Sections 5.2,
5.3, and 5.4, and it will answer Research Question (1) ‘what are the Maguindanaon
language use patterns of Maguindanaon students in CMC’. Then the comparison of
language use patterns in CMC between younger and older Maguindanaon speakers,
and to answer the Research Question (2) ‘in what ways do the Maguindanaon language
use patterns of Maguindanaon students compare to those of older people in CMC?’

Based on Figure 4, there are several sociolinguistic factors that influences the
language use of Maguindanaon in CMC. Thus the main criterion below may apply in
interpreting the results.

Although a full statistical analysis is beyond the scope of this study, the data
presentation will highlight results considered to be of practical significance for this
research ‘when a given group of respondents larger than 20 individuals uses
Maguindanaon (or does not use Maguindanaon) in 55% or more of their text
messages, we will consider that to be practical significance. However, the 55%
criterion and 20 Maguindanaon individuals are arbitrary. A practical way of saying
that there is more or less Maguindanaon language use in CMC.

Section 5.2, describing the Maguindanaon language use patterns in texting, it has
been divided into subsections which discuss the language use of Maguindanaon
speakers based on their age (5.2.1), gender (5.2.2), relationship (5.2.3), education
(5.2.4), topic (5.2.5), and geography (5.2.6). Subsection 5.2.7 gives a summary of
the results of language use patterns in texting.

In addition, Section 5.3 describes the Maguindanaon language use patterns in

Facebook instant messaging, and is divided into subsections according to
sociolinguistic factors such as age (5.3.1), gender (5.3.2), relationship (5.3.3), and
education (5.3.4). Subsection 5.3.5 gives summary of language use patterns in

56
Facebook instant messaging. Section 5.4 is the summary of language use patterns in
CMC of Maguindanaon speakers based on the sociolinguistic variables.

In the addition to the organizational outline of this chapter, some key terminologies
will be used. The conversation refers to a complete string of messages between two
interlocutors. The interlocutors refer to the people (sender and receiver) to which the
text communications occur. The topic thread consists of text messaging between
interlocutors in a particular topic. There can be several of these in single text
messages. The text message refers to the continuous chain of messaging between the
interlocutors in a particular topic. The text messages can be started with a simple
question or statement that needs reply or response, and or comment. Both
respondents and interlocutors are divided into age groups. Younger speakers are
referring to the age group 15-18 years old, while age groups 19-24 years old and 25
years old and above are referring to middle age and older speakers, respectively.
Younger generation speakers refer to the younger and middle age speakers, while older
generation speakers refer to the older speakers. Figure 11 below shows how the
conversation through text messages occurred.

Text Messages
(Question or statement)
Topic Thread
(Topic 1)
Text Messages
Conversation (between (Reply or comment)
two interlocutors)
Text Messages
(Question or statement)
Topic Threads
(Topic 2)
Text Messages
(Reply or comment)

Figure 11 Flow of Text Communication

57
5.2 Language Use Patterns in Texting
Maguindanaon speakers use the language in many different functions, and each
function has different patterns. When we talk to our parents and family members we
usually use our first language, and with the addition of the languages we learned
from school and from other speech communities. When we talk to someone
important, we tend to use the language in a more formal style. In contrast, when we
speak to our peers, friends, and other people we tend to use the language in an
informal style.

In connection to formality style, Joos (1972) had classified formality style into five
for both written and spoken discourses, and these are the frozen, formal,
consultative, casual, and intimate. See Table 2 in Appendix B for definitions of each
formality scale.

Maguindanaon speakers in spoken form exercised all these formality in a given

social function or domain. The frozen style in Maguindanaon culture is done in
relation to religion or any other event that pertaining to religious thing. The
formal style is practiced by Maguindanaon when they are arranging marriage,
settling marriage conflict, and addressing family feud or clash of clans (e.g.
Sharia court). The consultative style is primarily observed in Maguindanaon-
government offices such as the Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA) to get advices on
the documents when someone is applying to secure important documents (e.g.
passport). Consultative is also done in school setting when Maguindanaon
teachers are conversing to one another. The casual style, which is the dominant
is mainly observed and used when talking to relatives, family members, close
friends, and even to other Maguindanaon speakers which are not related to one
another. The intimate style is more associated to casual style, and perhaps is
where the texting is allocated when it comes to home domain.

The written formality style is definitely dependent on the topics. According to

Lewis & Simons (2015), ‘assessing the language use patterns will strengthen the
understanding of human communication, and determine the primary use of the
language’. In Chapter 3, the Maguindanaon language use domains were
discussed, but in a broader perspective. Aside from the topic, the Maguindanaon
language use patterns depends on the participants and locations.

This chapter will provide explanations on what are the language use patterns of
Maguindanaon speakers in the domain of computer mediated communication
(CMC).

58
The phrase ‘percentage of text with Maguindanaon language use’ refers to the text
messages that contain at least a single Maguindanaon word when texting to other
Maguindanaon. In addition, the phrase ‘percentage of text without Maguindanaon
language use’, is referring to the text messages without a single Maguindanaon word
when texting to other speakers of Maguindanaon language. These phrases do not
refer to the percentage of Maguindanaon words within the text messages.

5.2.1 Language Use and Age

Crystal (2008) emphasizes that younger generation is more likely to communicate
through texting as opposed to older generation which are more likely to do phone
calls than texting when communicating through mobile phones.

Table 15 Maguindanaon Language Use and Age Groups

Same Age Group 927 (54%) Diff Age Group 777 (46%)
Mag L1 866 (55%) Mag L1 698 (45%)
15-18 58 (54%) 15-18 49 (46%)
15-18 58 19-24 38
No 29 (50%) No 21 (55%)
Yes 29 (50%) Yes 17 (45%)
25+ 11
No 7 (64%)
Yes 4 (36%)
19-24 661 (61%) 19-24 414 (39%)
19-24 661 15-18 273
No 365 (55%) No 143 (52%)
Yes 296 (45%) Yes 130 (48%)
25+ 141
No 67 (48%)
Yes 74 (52%)
25+ 147 (38%) 25+ 235 (62%)
25+ 147 15-18 70
No 45 (30%) No 28 (40%)
Yes 102 (70%) Yes 42 (60%)
19-24 165
No 70 (42%)
Yes 95 (58%)

59
Table 15 above shows the cross-tabulation of Maguindanaon language use and
different age groups in texting. In more general assessment, the total number of
respondents and their interlocutors is 1,704. The total number of Maguindanaon
speakers (Mag L1) is 1, 564 (92%), and the number of non-Maguindanaon speakers
(Non Mag L1) is 140 (8%). The results and discussions of Maguindanaon language
use in CMC will only focus the 1,564 Maguindanaon speakers. These speakers are all
belong to Islam religion, thus, religion will not be used as factor in this study. The
following subsections will investigate the Maguindanaon language patterns in CMC
by different age groups.

5.2.1.1 Younger Speakers (Ages 15-18)

As we can see in Table 15, younger Maguindanaon speakers use less percentage of
their L1 when they text to other age groups. The result implies that when younger
speakers are texting to someone in middle age group, the percentage of text without
Maguindanaon language is higher. This result is pointing towards the lesser use of
their L1 in CMC. This means that younger speakers are not using the Maguindanaon
language in texting more often, and whenever they used their L1, it is very minimal.

In more specific assessment, Table 15 implies that most Maguindanaon younger

speakers are texting someone within the same age group, 58 out of 107 (54%),
compared to texting someone in different age group, 49 out 107 (46%). In Figure 12
below, when Maguindanaon younger speakers are texting within the same age
group, the percentage of text messages with Maguindanaon and without
Maguindanaon words are the same, i.e 50%. The younger speakers in different age
group when texting someone in the middle age group, the percentage of texts with
Maguindanaon words is lower (45%) compared to the percentage of texts without
Maguindanaon words (55%). This data implies that, when younger speakers are
texting someone within the middle age group, there is not much use of
Maguindanaon language, therefore, Maguindanaon language use between these age
groups is weak. Additionally, when younger speakers are texting older speakers, the
percentage of texts with Maguindanaon language use is very low (36%) compared to
the text messages without Maguindanaon language use (64%). The data suggests
that younger speakers’ use of their L1 in the domain of texting is not strong.

60
 Yes No

35
50% 50%
30
Mag L1 25 55%
20 45%
15
10 64%
36%
5
0
15-18 19-24 25+
15-18 15-18 15-18
Same Age Group Different Age Group
Age

Figure 12 Maguindanaon Language Use and Younger Speakers

5.2.1.2 Middle Age Speakers (Ages 19-24)

The Maguindanaon language use patterns of middle age speakers follow the younger
speakers language, except for the pattern that middle age speakers had higher
percentage of Maguindanaon language use when texting someone in older age
group.

Table 15 implies that middle age speakers tend to text someone within the same
group, 61% (661 out of 1,075) compared to texting someone in different age group,
39% (414 out of 1,075).

Yes No

400 55%
350 45%
300
250
Mag L1

200 52%
48%
150
100 52% 48%
50
0
19-24 15-18 25+
19-24 19-24 19-24
Same Age Group Different Age Group
Age

Figure 13 Maguindanaon Language Use and Middle Age Speakers

61
In Figure 13 shown above, when middle age speakers are texting someone within
the same age group, the percentage of text messages without Maguindanaon
language use is higher (55%), whereas the texts using their L1 is lower (45%).
Therefore, Maguindanaon language within the same age group by middle age
speakers is considered to be less. Similarly, when middle age speakers are texting
someone in younger age group, the percentage of text messages with Maguindanaon
language use is lower (48%) compared to the percentage of texts without the use of
their L1 (52%). This evidence supports the findings in the language use patterns
exercised by the younger speakers when they were texting someone in middle age
group. In contrast, when middle age speakers are texting older, the percentage of
text messages with Maguindanaon language use is higher (52%), while the text
messages percentage without Maguindanaon language use is low (48%).

Overall, the middle age speakers of Maguindanaon showed less usage of

Maguindanaon language use in texting, however, it is possible that middle age
speakers’ language use may get stronger because of the influence of older speakers.

5.2.1.3 Older Speakers (Ages 25+)

All the texts using their L1 registered high percentages compared to the percentages
of texting without the use of Maguindanaon language. Table 15 older speakers are
likely to communicate in texting outside of their age group, 62% (235 out of 382)
compared to texting someone in the same group, 38% (147 out of 382).

In Figure 14 below, older speakers used Maguindanaon language in texting 70%

compared to the 30% of texts without using their L1 when texting someone within
the same group. Additionally, when older people are texting younger speakers, the
percentage of text messages with Maguindanaon language is higher (60%), and only
40% of the text messages contains no Maguindanaon language. Further evidence
shows that, the percentage of Maguindanaon language use is higher (58%) when
older people are texting someone in the middle age group compared to the texts
without Maguindanaon language use (42%).

62
 Yes No

120
70%
58%
100
80 42%
Mag L1

60 30% 60%
40 40%
20
0
25+ 15-18 19-24
25+ 25+ 25+
Same Age Group Different Age Group
Age

Figure 14 Maguindanaon Language Use and Older Speakers

Based on personal observations, there are some possible factors that may determine
the language use of Maguindanaon speakers in texting. For younger speakers, the
results may be associated to the reality that Maguindanaon younger speakers use
mobile phones more as an essential source of entertainment (e.g. games) rather than
as a communication outlet. In addition, the lower use of Maguindanaon language
maybe cause by the acquisition of other languages from school, peers, friends, and
neighbors. Exposure to social media such television, internet, and print materials
may also affects language use, notably for both younger and middle speakers.

Based on observations, middle age speakers perceived texting as a social function

and part of their daily life activities. The quantity of text messages for middle age
speakers within their age group can be linked to sense of belongingness and the
ideal notion of peer inclusion rather exclusion in the loop of their friends.

Also, it is very evident that Maguindanaon students are more likely using Tagalog
and English languages as it is easy to write and not complicated. The middle age
group are also more confined within their peers and classmates, and texting with
these people are very common. Access to technology such as local mobile phones is
becoming a mainstream in the Philippine society and it is more common and
adaptable to middle age speakers compared to other age groups. Mobile phones for
younger generations were seen as necessity, and the parents are more likely to
provide them to communicate while living in other places.

63
Personal matters like family updates, school allowances, and personal problems are
more confined within home domain, and parents are more likely be the recipient of
text conversations with Maguindanaon language use. This factor might explain the
greater percentage of Maguindanaon language use by older speakers.

It is interesting to compare the numbers of texts from different age groups with the
answers to ISLQ #30 in average, how many text messages you sent per day?’ Based on
the self-reported data by the respondents, the middle age speakers sent an average
of 47 text messages a day, whereas younger and older Maguindanaon speakers had
an average of 32 and 21 text messages per day, respectively.

5.2.2 Language Use and Gender

Maguindanaon language use in texting based on gender is considered a not a vital
factor because the percentage difference is very minimal and did not meet the set
criterion. Therefore in texting, gender is not a good indicator in determining the
language use patterns of Maguindanaon speakers.

Based on the gathered data from the respondents, out of the total number of
Maguindanaon speakers (1,564), 61% (954) are female and only 39% (610) are
male interlocutors. Therefore, women Maguindanaon speakers are more involved in
texting than men speakers. This finding fit into Crystal’s (2008) conclusion that even
though men have the capacity to adopt quicker to mobile phones, women are more
enthusiastic in texting. But, this claim cannot be generalized as there are more
women, 40 out of 75 (53%) than men 35 out of 75 (47%), who participated as
respondent in this research.

Table 16 below shows the cross-tabulation between Maguindanaon language use and
gender in the texting domain. Overall, the percentage of texting for Maguindanaon
speakers (Mag L1) in the same gender is higher (51%) contrary to texting someone
in different gender (49%).

64
Table 16 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender

Same Gender 863 (51%) Diff Gender 841 (49%)

Mag L1 805 (51%) Mag L1 759 (49%)

Male 319 (40%) Male 468 (62%)

Yes 155 (49%) Yes 253 (54%)

M 155 (100%) F 253 (100%)

No 164 (51%) No 215 (46%)

M 164 (100%) F 215 (100%)

Female 486 (60%) Female 291 (38%)

Yes 241 (49%) Yes 140 (48%)

F 241 (100%) M 140 (100%)

No 245 (51%) No 151 (52%)

F 245 (100%) M 151 (100%)

Figure 15 below, it implies that Maguindanaon male speakers are likely to text
someone in different gender than on the same gender. The percentage of
Maguindanaon language use in texting between male to male is lower (49%)
compared to the percentage of texting of male to male without Maguindanaon
language use (51%). The difference on the percentages of Maguindanaon language
use between male to male is very small. However, the percentage of Maguindanaon
language use in texting in different gender, between male to female, is higher (54%)
compared to the percentage of texting of male to female without Maguindanaon
language use (46%).

65
 Yes No

300
49% 51% 54%
250 46%
200
49% 51%
Mag L1

48% 52%
150
100
50
0
M F F M
M F M F
Same Gender Different Gender
Gender

Figure 15 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender

Based on the Figure 15 above, there is a minimal difference between the language
use in texting within a gender (male-to-male, female-to-female), and between
genders (male to female and female to male). Only that, Maguindanaon female
speakers are more zealous to text compared to the male speakers of Maguindanaon.
Therefore, the gender variable does not make much difference on the language use
of Maguindanaon speakers in texting domain.

5.2.3 Language Use and Relationship

The relationships associated to the home domain show strong usage of
Maguindanaon language in texting. The various types of relationship between
interlocutors have been divided into five main categories. The peer relationship
includes texting with friends, classmates, fraternity and sorority, best friends, former
girlfriend or boyfriend, and former husband or wife. The familial relationship
includes texting with immediate members of the family - parents (mother and
father), siblings (brother and sister), children (son and daughter), and grandparents
(grandfather and grandmother), relatives (cousins, uncles and aunts, nephews and
nieces), and in-laws (brother-in-law and sister-in-law). Texting with teachers, co-
teacher or co-worker, students, thesis adviser and editor, and Islamic teacher
(Ustadz) is considered formal, thus, it is classified as formal relationship. In
addition, intimate relationship includes texting with husband, wife, boyfriend and
girlfriend. Texting to housemate, house owners (landlady and landlords), admirer,
suitor, stalker, and unknown is labeled as informal.

66
To determine the language use patterns of Maguindanaon speakers, the respondents
were asked ISLQ #33 what language do you use when texting with your father,
mother…, etc.? 44 out of 75 (59%) answered that they were using Maguindanaon
when texting to their father, and 19 out of 75 (25%) said it is a mixture of
Maguindanaon and Tagalog. 2 out of 75 (3%) said they used Tagalog. Other
respondents were either did not answer the question or they don’t have father
anymore. When texting their mother, 43 out 75 respondents answered they used
Maguindanaon, and 20 out 75 (27%) answered Maguindanaon and Tagalog. The rest
of the respondents had no answers, had deceased mother, and other used Tagalog (3
out of 75). When the Maguindanaon respondents were texting to their teacher, 45
out of 75 (60%) revealed they were using Tagalog language, 15 out 75 (20%)
respondents were using English language. Only 2 out of 75 (3%) of the respondents
answered Maguindanaon when they were texting their teachers. When it comes to
friendship domain, 25 out of 75 (33%) said that they used Tagalog, while 26 out 75
(35%) said they used Maguindanaon and Tagalog. Only 7 out 75 (9%) were using
Maguindanaon when texting their friends.

In addition, there is a great quantity of text messages within a conversation, each

text message had been inspected, and labeled ’Yes’ for text messages that contain at
least one or more Maguindanaon words, otherwise ‘No’ for no Maguindanaon word
at all. The results of Maguindanaon language use and relationship is discussed in
tabulated and graph form in the following subsections.

5.2.3.1 Peer Relationship

In Table 17 below, the total number of Maguindanaon speakers associated to peer
relationship is 1,066 which is 68.2% of the total Maguindanaon speakers (Mag L1).
The overall percentage of Maguindanaon language use in peer social domain is
lower (44%) compared to the texts with peers without the use of Maguindanaon
language (56%). Therefore, it can be generalized that Maguindanaon language use
in peer relationship domain is not significant.

67
Table 17 Maguindanaon Language Use and Peer Relationship

Peer Overall
Friend 780 Yes 467 (44%)
Yes 349 (45%) No 599 (56%)
No 431 (55%)
Classmate 242
Yes 90 (37%)
No 152 (63%)
Brotherhood 19
Yes 13 (68%)
No 6 (32%)
Best Friend 15
Yes 12 (80%)
No 3 (20%)
Sisterhood 8
Yes 2 (25%)
No 6 (75%)
Ex-Girlfriend 1
No 1 (100%)
Ex-Husband 1
Yes 1 (100%)

Texting with friends dominated the peer relationship domain, 73% (780 out of
1,066). Figure 16 below shows that the percentage of Maguindanaon language use
in texting with friends is lower (45%) compared to texting friends without using
Maguindanaon language (55%). This means that, the use of Maguindanaon in this
domain is less or very minimal. Therefore, within the friend’s domain,
Maguindanaon language use in texting is not significant at all. In addition, when
Maguindanaon speakers are texting their classmates, the percentage of texts that
contain Maguindanaon word is low (37%) compared to the texts without using the
Maguindanaon language (63%).

68
 Peer Relationship
Yes No

500 55%
450
400 45%
350
Mag L1

300
250
200 63%
150 37%
100 68%
50 32% 80% 20% 25% 75% 100% 100%
0

Relationship

Figure 16 Maguindanaon Language Use and Peer Relationship

Like the friend domain, Maguindanaon language use within classmate domain
indicates that Maguindanaon language use is less or had lower percentage. However,
there is a higher percentage of Maguindanaon language when texting someone in
their fraternity (68%) using Maguindanaon language compared to percentage
without Maguindanaon (32%), but this is only based on a very small sample,
therefore, this cannot be generalized. Texting with best friend with Maguindanaon
language use is higher (80%) compared to the percentage of texts without using
Maguindanaon language (20%), but again the sample is too small generalized.

5.2.3.2 Familial Relationship

In the familial domain, overall, there is a huge difference between the percentages of
texts using Maguindanaon language (65%) compared to the texts without using
Maguindanaon (35%). The most numerous domain with practical significance in
Maguindanaon language use in CMC is in familial relationship is the texting between
cousins. There is a very high percentages of their L1 in text messages when cousins
are texting to each other. Siblings and relatives show high percentages of
Maguindanaon language use in texting. Also, the parents’ domain is using greater
percentages of their L1 in texting, but the sample is too small.

Table 18 below shows the familial domain of Maguindanaon language in texting. It

shows that all generations of Maguindanaon speakers are using their L1 in texting.

69
Table 18 Maguindanaon Language Use and Familial Relationship

Familial Overall
Cousin 201 Yes 277 (65%)
Yes 118 (59%) No 147 (35%)
No 83 (41%)
Sister 71
Yes 51 (72%)
No 20 (28%)
Brother 38
Yes 26 (68%)
No 12 (32%)
Aunt 34
Yes 23 (68%)
No 11 (32%)
Uncle 22
Yes 13 (59%)
No 9 (41%)
Mother 18
Yes 17 (94%)
No 1 (6%)
Father 17
Yes 12 (71%)
No 5 (29%)
Niece 10
Yes 6 (60%)
No 4 (40%)
Nephew 5
Yes 3 (60%)
No 2 (40%)
Sister-in-law 4
Yes 4 (100%)
Grandmother 2
Yes 2 (100%)
Brother-in-law 1
Yes 1 (100%)
Son 1
Yes 1 (100%)

70
Figure below 17 shows the Maguindanaon language use in immediate family
members’ domain. The figure implies that texting are more common between
siblings (brothers and sisters), and also between parents and children. The
percentage of text messages using their L1 is high in the immediate family sphere.

Yes No

60
72%
50

40
Mag L1

30 28%
68%

20 94%
71%
32%
10
29% 100% 100%
6%
0
Sister Brother Mother Father Grandmother Son
Immediate Family

Figure 17 Maguindanaon Language Use and Immediate Family

Figure 18 below, also shows higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use in

relatives’ domain. Texting with cousins accounts for the majority of texts among the
members in the relatives’ domain. The percentage of text with Maguindanaon
language use in cousins is high (59%) compared to the percentage of text without
Maguindanaon language use (41%). Taken together, this means that many texts
between relatives use L1.

71
 Yes No

140
59%
120

100
41%
80
Mag L1

60

40
68%
20 59%
32% 41% 60% 40% 60% 40% 100% 100%
0

Relatives

Figure 18 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relatives

In conclusion, the kinship ties between Maguindanaon interlocutors are an

important factor in the language vitality of Maguindanaon in texting domain.
Therefore, within the social domain of kinship, texting helps to elevate the current
vitality of Maguindanaon by providing a domain for ‘low’ function of literacy. The
intergenerational characteristic of familial domain enables the older speakers to
transmit local and indigenous knowledge to the younger speakers through computer
mediated communication (i.e. in texting), although intergenerational transmission is
only a small percentage of CMC.

5.2.3.3 Formal Relationship

Formal relationship entails communication between employers and employees, co-
workers in a working place, students and teachers, and other formal
communications. It is more likely for an employer to text his or her employee(s) for
work purpose, updates, and reports. More so, teachers are likely to text their
students for class updates, activities, and additional course-related and classroom
instruction. Co-workers such as teacher to teacher are texting each other to ask
updates on salary, school programs and activities, trainings and seminars, and
organizational development.

72
The students comprised majority of the interlocutors in the sample, 66% (1,134 out
of 1,704) or 72% (1,134 out of 1,564). Out of this number of students, only 7
students texted their teachers, thesis adviser, and thesis editor. Table 19 below
shows the distribution of formal relationship domain.

Table 19 Maguindanaon Language Use and Formal Relationship

Formal Overall
Teacher 22 Yes 20 (51%)
Yes 14 (64%) No 19 (49%)
No 8 (36%)
Co-teacher 7
Yes 3 (43%)
No 4 (57%)
Student 7
Yes 2 (29%)
No 5 (71%)
Adviser 1
No 1 (100%)
Editor 1
No 1 (100%)
Ustadz 1
Yes 1 (100%)

In Figure 19 below, the percentage of text messages that students sent to their
teachers containing Maguindanaon language is lower (29%) compared to the texts
sent to their teachers without the use of Maguindanaon language (71%). This is the
result of the formal manner in which a student is expected to communicate with his
or her teacher using either Tagalog or English. However, when teachers are texting
his or her students, the percentage of text with Maguindanaon language use is
higher (64%) compared to the percentage of text without Maguindanaon language
used (36%). The higher percentage of Maguindanaon use by teachers may associated
to the fact that teachers are considered extension of parents, and perhaps teachers
and students established friendships. Thus texting is sliding to informal domain from
the perspective of the teachers, but students always treat teachers in more formal
ways.

73
Within this co-teacher domain, the percentage of text with Maguindanaon language
use is lower (43%), in contrary to the 57% of texts without Maguindanaon language
use. Other domains of formal relationship cannot be generalized because of minimal
data available.

Formal Relationship
Yes No

16
64%
14
12
10
Mag L1

36%
8
6 75%
57%
4 43% 29%
2 [VALUE]00% 100% [VALUE]00%
0
Teacher Co-Teacher Student Adviser Editor Ustadz
Relationship

Figure 19 Maguindanaon Language Use and Formal Relationship

In summary Table 19, the proportion of Maguindanaon speakers in formal

relationship is only 2.5% (39 out of 1,564) and the use of Maguindanaon language is
slightly higher (51%) compared to text communication without the use of
Maguindanaon language (49%). In Maguindanaon society, it is very common for
educated speakers to use both English and Tagalog in texting to establish their social
status, especially in the realm of formality.

5.2.3.4 Intimate Relationship

Cross-cultural intimacy is relatively common in Maguindanaon speaking society.
Physical intimacy is limited to the relationship between husband and wife and
boyfriend and girlfriend. Both exogamy and endogamy are practiced in
Maguindanaon culture, but endogamy is far more common. The familial relationship
reveals that, the closer the relationship, the more the use of Maguindanaon language
when they are communicating through texting. Intimate relationship also unveils
that mother tongue is more used in text communications. The data revealed that
intimate relationship gives higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use in
texting. The total percentage of Maguindanaon language use in texting in intimate

74
relationship is 81%, while the percentages without Maguindanaon language is only
19% (see Table 20 below). The overall percentage of Maguindanaon speakers within
the intimate relationship is only 1.3% (21 out of 1,564). Therefore, the percentage
of text with Maguindanaon language use cannot be generalized because of the
minimal data. Table 24 below shows the relationship that comprised the intimate
relationship.

Table 20 Maguindanaon Language Use and Intimate Relationship

Intimate Overall
Boyfriend 11 Yes 17 (81%)
Yes 9 (82%) No 4 (19%)
No 2 (18%)
Wife 4
Yes 3 (75%)
No 1 (25%)
Husband 3
Yes 3 (100%)
Girlfriend 3
Yes 2 (67%)
No 1 (33%)
Non Mag L1 140 (8%)

In Figure 20 below, the Maguindanaon women reveal that when they are texting
with their boyfriends, the use of Maguindanaon language is much higher (82%),
while the women who do not use Maguindanaon in texting with boyfriends is only
18%. Men are also likely to text using Maguindanaon language to their girlfriends
and wives. The number of Maguindanaon speakers grouped into intimate
relationship is very minimal in the data gathered, thus, the percentage of texting
through this relationship cannot be generalized.

75
 Intimate Relationship
Yes No

10 82%
9
8
7
6
Mag L1

5
4 75% 100%
3 18% 67%
2 25% 33%
1 0%
0
Boyfriend Wife Husband Girlfriend
Relationship

Figure 20 Maguindanaon Language Use and Intimate Relationship

5.2.3.5 Informal Relationship

The informal relationship involves texting with strangers (unknown and stalker) and
acquaintances (admirer, suitor, friend’s mother, board mate, and house owners). The
overall percentage of Maguindanaon language use in texting is higher (57%)
compared to the texts without Maguindanaon language (43%), (see Table 21 below).
The data on this domain is very minimal, therefore, it cannot be generalized.

Table 21 Maguindanaon Language Use and Informal Relationship

Informal Overall
Board mate 5 Yes 8 (57%)
Yes 2 (40% No 6 (43%)
No 3 (60%)
Admirer 3
Yes 2 (67%)
No 1 (33%)
Suitor 1
Yes 1 (100%)
Friend's Mother 1
Yes 1 (100%)
Landlady 1

76
 Informal Overall
No 1 (100%)
Landlord 1
No 1 (100%)
Unknown 1
Yes 1 (100%)
Stalker 1
Yes 1 (100%)
Non Mag L1 140 (8%)

5.2.3.6 Summary of Language Use and Relationship

In summary, the data in this section has identified the social relationships where the
Maguindanaon language is stronger in use, and those social relationship where the
language is weaker in use.

Figure 21 shown below indicates that Maguindanaon language is stronger in

familial, formal, intimate, and informal relationships, but weaker in peer
relationship. Familial domain indicates intergenerational transmission of
Maguindanaon language with all the kinships ties and almost all members of the
family are using Maguindanaon in texting and in greater percentages.

The peer relationship revealed less use of Maguindanaon language in CMC by the
interlocutors. Still considered to be practical significance, however, it is pointing
towards the weaker use of Maguindanaon language

The informal domain only represented by few Maguindanaon speakers, therefore

this domain cannot be generalized when it comes to overall language use in CMC.
The intimate relationship has a high percentage of Maguindanaon language in
texting, but this cannot be generalized because of the minimal data obtained from
this domain.

77
 Yes No

650 56%
600
550
500 44%
450
400
Mag L1

350
300 65%
250
200 35%
150
100
50 51% 49% 81% 57% 43%
19%
0
Peer Familial Formal Intimate Informal

Relationship

Figure 21 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relationship Summary

5.2.4 Language Use and Education

Social statuses in Maguindanaon culture are delineated by education, economic and
political power, and family influence. Educated Maguindanaon speakers place
themselves in the middle to high social status. Economic power within the society,
regardless of geography, can be designated as middle class status. Political power
such as high ranking government officials, whether educated or not, can be
classified as high class status. In addition, it is very common in Maguindanaon
communities that there are influential clans. These families are either holding power
(economic and political) or dominating the majority of the community’s population.

The Maguindanaon language use in texting is greatly dependent on the social class
and literacy of individual speaker. Education and social class are always intertwined,
and education dictates social class in Maguindanaon culture. Education and social
class will be further grouped into employed and unemployed. On one hand, working
class people are those who attained and completed their degree such as college
graduate, university professor, government employee, teacher (elementary and high
school), social worker, MA level, school principal, and Arabic teacher. On the other
hand, non-working class is composed of college students, college level, high school
graduate, out-of-school youth, high school level, vocational level, and elementary
level.

78
Table 22 below shows how Maguindanaon language is used by different speakers in
connection to their level of education and employment.

Table 22 Maguindanaon Language Use and Education

Education

College Student 1,070 (68.4%) Employee 9 (0.6%)

Yes 499 (47%) Yes 7 (78%)

No 571 (53%) No 2 (22%)

College Level 163 (10.4%) Vocational 4 (0.26%)

Yes 101 (62%) Yes 1 (25%)

No 62 (38%) No 3 (75%)

College Graduate 160 (10.2%) Elem/HS Teacher 3 (0.2%)

Yes 95 (59%) Yes 3 (100%)

No 65 (41%) MA Level 2 (0.13%)

HS Graduate 52 (3.3%) Yes 1 (50%)

Yes 36 (69%) No 1 (50%)

No 16 (31%) Elem Level 2 (0.13%)

Out-Of-School Youth 50 (3.2%) No 2 (100%)

Yes 20 (40%) Social Work 2 (0.13%)

No 30 (60%) Yes 2 (100%)

High School Level 34 (2.2%) Principal 1 (0.1%)

Yes 16 (47%) Yes 1 (100%)

No 18 (53%) Arabic Teacher 1 (0.1%)

University Professor 10 (0.64%) Yes 1 (100%)

Yes 5 (50%)

No 5 (50%)

In Figure 22 below, people with job used more Maguindanaon language than
without Maguindanaon language. The percentage of text with Maguindanaon
language use by college graduate is higher (59%) compared to the percentage
without Maguindanaon language use (41%).

79
In addition, not all college graduates had entered the workforce show a slight
preference for using less Maguindanaon language in texting because they are still
more confined with their friends and former classmates. Even though these speakers
are back in their home, and unemployed, the text communication with their parents
is limited and minimal because of the face-to-face communications, unlike while
they were still attaining their respective degrees.

Yes No

100 59%
90
80
70 41%
60
Mag L1

50
40
30
20
78%
10 [VALUE]0%
[VALUE]0% 22% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% [VALUE]00%
0
College Univ. Gov't. Teacher Social MA Level School Arabic
Graduate Prof. Employee Worker Principal Teacher
Employed

Figure 22 Maguindanaon Language Use by Employed Maguindanaon

In contrast, only college level and high school graduate are showing higher
percentages of Maguindanaon language use in texting in the non-working class
people, which is shown in Figure 23 below.

80
 Yes No

600 53%
550 47%
500
450
400
350
Mag L1

300
250
200
150 62%
100 38%
50
69% 31% 40% 60% 47% 53% 25% 75% 100%
0

Unemployed

Figure 23 Maguindanaon Language Use by Unemployed Maguindanaon

College students in an unemployed category accounted for the majority of

Maguindanaon speakers reached by this research, 68.4% (1,070 out of 1,564) (see
Table 26 above). The Maguindanaon language use percentage when college students
are texting someone with their L1 is 47% compared to the 53% of texts by students
without Maguindanaon language use. The percentage difference of with and without
Maguindanaon language use is not significant. In addition, most, if not all, college
students belong to the younger and older age groups. This percentage of language
use by students’ supports the findings in the language use in age and in peer
relationship that younger and middle speakers are less likely to use Maguindanaon
language when they are texting someone within the younger and middle age
speakers. Meanwhile, the college level, college graduate, and high school graduate
have greater percentages of Maguindanaon language use in texting, (62%, 59% and
69%, respectively) compared to the percentage of texts without Maguindanaon
language use (38%, 41, and 31, respectively).

The percentages of both with and without Maguindanaon language use in texting by
university professor and MA level speakers are the same. Working people such as
employee, elementary and high school teachers, school principal, social worker, and
Arabic teacher have greater percentage of Maguindanaon language use in texting. In
contrary, vocational level and out of school youth percentage have higher
percentage of text messages with no Maguindanaon language use (60% and 75%,

81
respectively) compared to the percentage of texts with Maguindanaon language use
(40% and 25%, respectively). High school level and elementary level speaker reveals
less use of Maguindanaon language when texting someone. But these percentages
cannot be generalized as only represented by a very minimal data of Maguindanaon
speakers.

5.2.5 Language Use and Topic

The topic or subject of the text, conversation, and discourse is another
sociolinguistic variable that might possibly affect language use, particularly in
texting. Language use in texting is also influence by topics between interlocutors,
and it can be concluded that this factor greatly dependent on other sociolinguistic
factors.

Figure 24 shown below is the consolidation of topics found in Maguindanaon

speakers’ conversations in texting. There are thousands of topics gathered. There
were either single topic or multiple topics between each respondent and his or her
interlocutors, but the most explored or talked about had been selected as the main
topic. Again, majority of the Maguindanaon speakers are students, topics which are
all class related are labeled as class updates (exams, schedules, projects, etc.). The
percentage of text messages with Maguindanaon language use is lower, whereas the
text messages without language use is higher in class updates. These are text
messages whether asking class exams, times, assignment, attendance, teacher’s
presence, activities, and or even to give updates of being late and missing the class.
This evidence supports the findings in language use and peer relationship that
percentage of text with Maguindanaon language use is lower within classmate
domain.

82
 Yes No

140

120

100
Mag L1

80

60

40

20

Topic

Figure 24 Maguindanaon Language Use and Topic

Other than class updates topic, greetings, inspirational quotes, location updates, top-
up credit, asking someone’s phone number, stalking, thesis updates, and asking
someone to call are topics which have higher percentage of text messages without
Maguindanaon language.

Topics which are closely related to familial domain such as traveling updates,
financial matters, family matters, gossips, health issue, solicits help from friends and
family (agony column), religious matters, asking the current situation, and
relationship matters are showing higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use
in texting. Thus this supports the higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use
in familial relationship. Therefore, topics which are closely associated to familial
domain have higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use such as financial
matters, family matters, social gathering, religious matters, and relationships
matters.

The less use of Maguindanaon language in inspirational quotes is associated to

Tagalog and English languages use. Most of the inspirational messages or quotes are
either quotes from the books, automated graphic messages, or sent by non
Maguindanaon speakers and then forward to (or by) Maguindanaon speakers. Thus,
inspirational quote messages used less Maguindanaon language.

83
Examples below are some inspirational quotes found in Maguindanaon text
messages. English language is shown in italized text, while Tagalog language is
shown in bold text.

(1) Example
Contents:
2016-01-08 18:33:33 Received
Love is a moment that lasts forever.
Good evening😊😊
Godbless😘

(2) Example
Contents:
2016-01-17 11:16:19 Received
"When life gets TOUGH, when everything turns Bad, always remember that
even a turtle finishes his race bcoz he NEVER GAVE UP."
TEXT??

(3) Example
Contents:
2015-11-29 19:39:46 Sent
Ang buhay ng tao ay
Parang chapter, minsan may chapter na malungkot
At mayroon din chapter na masaya at may chapter din,,,
Na poro drama, emotional, ,,.,,!!!!!!
At higit sa lahat may chapter din na tayung dalawa lang!!!!
#DestinyROSE
(Translation, “The human life is like a chapter, there is a chapter deals with
sadness, a chapter that deals happiness, and a chapter that deals with full of
dramas and emotions,…,,!!!!!! And most importantly, there is a chapter that
only for two of us!!!!
Hashtag DestinyROSE.”

The above are examples of Tagalog and English language inspirational messages.
Text example (1) is a quote from 19-year female student sent to her 18-year female
friend, while text example (2) is from a 26-yeal old, female, to her 24-year female
cousin. Text example (3) is a Tagalog inspirational quote sent by an 18-year old
female student to her 16-year old male friend.

84
5.2.6 Language Use and Geography
Geographical location of Maguindanaon respondents and their interlocutors’ is not
thoroughly analyzed and discussed in this study. This is because speakers can be
influenced by the language or languages surrounded with them. Thus, language use
in texting can be influenced by the mainstream languages (LWC), or by the
institution they are working for. In contrast, in some areas, language use is
somewhat dependent to the location of the speakers to maintain their geographical
identity, language, and to avoid miscommunication.

From the gathered data, locations are compressed into bigger representations and
grouped into provinces. The distribution interlocutors reached by the research are
summarized in Table 23 below. The provinces are shown in Figure 2. The majority
of the Maguindanaon speakers are from North Cotabato, and Maguindanao
provinces.

Table 23 Maguindanaon Language Use and Geography

Provinces Yes No Total

North Cotabato 576 (47%) 652 (53%) 1,228
Maguindanao 190 (65%) 103 (35%) 293
South Cotabato 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 2
Sultan Kudarat 4 (34%) 7 (64%) 11
Davao Del Sur 6 (60%) 4 (40%) 10
Lanao Del Norte 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 7
Bukidnon 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1
Cagayan De Oro 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2
Manila 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4
Overseas 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 6

In Figure 25 below, Maguindanaon speakers in North Cotabato are using

Maguindanaon language in texting less (47%) compared to the texting of speakers
without using Maguindanaon language (53%). In contrast, speakers from
Maguindanao province are using the Maguindanaon language higher (65%)
compared to the text messages without Maguindanaon language use (35%).
Maguindanao has the largest number of Muslims in the Philippines, and
Maguindanaon language is most dominant in this province.

85
 Yes No

700 53%
650
47%
600
550
500
450
400
Mag L1

350
300
250 65%
200
150 35%
100 64%
50 [VALUE]0% 57% 43%67% 33% 34%
[VALUE]0% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50%
0

Location

Figure 25 Maguindanaon Language Use and Location

In general, the whole Maguindanaon speakers reached by this research considered

themselves Islam. However, their religious belief does not directly associate to the
language use. Muslim tribe in Mindanao has 13 different subgroups, and
Maguindanaon subgroup comprised the majority of this tribe.

Therefore, it can be generalized that the distribution of Maguindanaon speakers

contribute to the language use in texting. For example, the Maguindanao province is
predominantly Maguindanaon speakers, and it shows that texting with the use
Maguindanaon language use is significantly higher. Maguindanao province is one of
the poorest provinces in the Philippines and access to education and other
government support are very limited. Therefore, exposure and language contact to
other languages such as Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Tagalog and English is less.

In addition, there is a huge numbers of illiterate Maguindanaon speakers in this

province due to poverty. Likewise, there is the people diaspora in this province
brought by internal conflict between the government and insurgent group, and
family feud (commonly known as rido). Some individuals and families are moving to
other provinces, and even working overseas to uplift family life. In contrary, North
Cotabato is exposed to diverse culture and language, and language contact in this
province is very high. The lower percentage of Maguindanaon in speakers’ text
messages may be influenced by ethnolinguistic ecology or language ecology
surrounded Maguindanaon speech community. Development in this province is far

86
more advance than Maguindanao province, and access to education and
development is very evident.

5.2.7 Summary of Language Use in Texting

In general view, Maguindanaon language use patterns in texting were examined
based on the G2REAT sociolinguistic variables. The G2REAT stands for geography,
gender, relationship, education, age and topic. There are other variables that could
influence Maguindanaon language use in texting, but the G2REAT are the most
common sociolinguistic factors ones. Religion is not used to assess Maguindanaon
language use patterns in texting as all the speakers reached by this study belong to
the Islamic faith.

Language use and age found that younger speakers had lower percentage use of
Maguindanaon language whenever they were texting to someone within and outside
of their age group. Thus, the younger speakers, among other age groups, had the
lowest percentage of Maguindanaon language use. Middle age speakers have also
less percentage of Maguindanaon language use when they text someone in younger
age group and within their age group, but higher when they text someone in older
age group. The older speakers have the highest percentage of text messages with
Maguindanaon language in texting in general.

Gender showed minimal differences of Maguindanaon language use between same

gender and different gender, therefore, this sociolinguistic variable does not have a
noticeable impact on Maguindanaon language use in texting.

The relationship variable is divided into five main domains: peer, familial, formal,
intimate, and informal. In general, it was found that peer relationship has lower
percentage of Maguindanaon language in texting. The familial domain had the
strongest evidence of Maguindanaon language use in texting. All other domains
which are connected to familial relationship have shown greater percentage of
Maguindanaon language use in texting.

Education and social class are intertwined. Maguindanaon language use in texting is
dependent on the education attainment of Maguindanaon speakers. Also, the use of
their L1 in texting is affected by economic and political and even family influenced.

The most talked about topic is related to the education. Sixty-seven percent (67%),
1,134 out of 1,704 are students. Thus, asking for class updates is very common, and
probably part of their daily or even hourly text messages, and in these topics no

87
preference for the language was observed. However, topics that are closely related
to familial domain have higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use. Thus,
speakers talking about these topics are more likely using their mother tongue when
texting.

Geography or the location of Maguindanaon interlocutors situated in Muslim

dominated province such as Maguindanao is more likely using Maguindanaon
language in texting. The Maguindanaon speakers’ estimated to be around 12% of the
total populations in North Cotabato. Although based on Table 23, Maguindanaon
speakers have lower percentage of Maguindanaon language when they were texting.

In conclusion, out of the six sociolinguistic variables examined, the four main
sociolinguistic factors that both contribute and affect the Maguindanaon language
use in texting the most are the geography, relationship, age, and topic (GRAT).
Younger generation affects the Maguindanaon language use by using it less in
texting domain. In contrast, older generation speakers emphasizing the use of
Maguindanaon language by using it constantly whenever they are texting someone
in all generations. Given the relationship provides the domain for literacy and as the
strongest domain in Maguindanaon texting, this could strengthen and sustain the use
Maguindanaon language in the future.

5.3 Language Use Patterns in Facebook

In 2004, Facebook was launched and became a global form of social media
communications. Facebook provides enormous ways of communication, and
connecting people all over the world. This social networking outlet allows people to
communicate, share, collaborate, and engage in very wide spectra of topics whether
educational, familial, or social dialogues.

Owing to the popularity of this social media, users are able to exchange views to the
multi-cultural society, and even provides windows of opportunity to learn foreign
languages. Based on the statista, Philippines has over 39 million Facebook users in
2016, and expected to rise to 55 million in 2021.

Furthermore, there is no statistical evidence of how many speakers of Maguindanaon

are using Facebook, but this is now widely used by Maguindanaon speakers for
innumerable purposes; family, educational, socialization, and even religious.

As stated in Chapter 1, Facebook messages are limited in terms in terms of data to

be analyzed. There are a total of 166 respondents and interlocutors reached in

88
Facebook social networking domain, and other data has been gathered from
Maguindanaon Facebook pages and groups.

This section will investigate the language use patterns of Maguindanaon speakers in
the domain of Facebook social networking. The Facebook social networking domain
shall focus on four factors; age, gender, relationship, and education.

5.3.1 Language Use and Age

Table 24 below shows that the younger age group accounted for 48% (80 out of
166) of the total Maguindanaon participants who use Facebook social networking,
whereas middle age group registered 28% (46 out of 166), and older age group had
accumulated 24% (40 out 166). The majority of younger speakers are likely to chat
on Facebook with different age group, while the majority of both middle age and
older are likely to chat within the their age group.

Table 24 Maguindanaon Language Use and Age

Same Age Group 80 (48%) Diff Age Group 86 (52%)

15-18 11 (14%) 15-18 69 (80%)
15-18 11 19-24 45 (65%)
Yes 3 (27%) Yes 20 (44%)
No 8 (73%) No 25 (56%)
25+ 24 (35%)
Yes 18 (75%)
No 6 (25%)
19-24 34 (42%) 19-24 12 (14%)
19-24 34 15-18 1 (8%)
Yes 15 (44%) No 1 (100%)
No 19 (56%) 25+ 11 (92%)
Yes 9 (82%)
No 2 (18%)
25+ 35 (44%) 25+ 5 (6%)
25+ 35 15-18 1 (20%)
Yes 30 (86%) No 1 (100%)
No 5 (14%) 19-24 4 (80%)
Yes 1 (25%)
No 3 (75%)

89
5.3.1.1 Younger Speakers (Ages 15-18)
In general, language use of younger speakers in Facebook is lower when chatting to
middle age speakers, but higher when chatting to older speakers. Maguindanaon
language use in texting and Facebook between younger and middle follows the same
pattern, but the texting and Facebook differ between younger and older speakers.

In Facebook social networking, younger speakers have higher percentage of

Maguindanaon language use when they are communicating someone in the older
age group (75% and 25%, respectively), and lower when they are communicating
someone within the same age group (27% and 73%) and middle age group (44%
and 56%), see Figure 26 below.

Yes No

30
56%
25
44%
20 75%
Mag L1

15
73%
10
25%
5 27%

0
15-18 19-24 25+
15-18 15-18 15-18
Same Age Group Different Age Group
Age

Figure 26 Maguindanaon Language Use and Younger Speakers

Younger Maguindanaon speakers’ language use patterns in Facebook and in texting

with middle age speakers is consistent. When younger speakers are texting and
chatting to middle age speakers, they both registered lower percentages of
Maguindanaon language use. In contrary, the patterns of language use between
younger and older speakers in texting and Facebook chatting is inconsistent.
Younger speakers’ percentage of Maguindanaon language use in texting to older
speakers is lower, while in Facebook IMs the use of their L1 when chatting to older
speakers is higher. This finding could be associated to that fact that older speaker,
most if not all who use the Facebook platform, are professionals and the language of
Facebook is mainly English.

90
5.3.1.2 Middle Age Speakers (Ages 19-24)
The middle age speakers Maguindanaon language use in texting and Facebook
chatting within the same age group is consistent. There is a greater percentage of
Facebook IMs with use of their L1 between middle age and older speakers, however,
this cannot be generalized as the data is taken is very minimal.

Figure 27 below shows that middle age group percentage of Maguindanaon

language use is only higher when middle age speakers are chatting to older speakers
(82% and 18%, respectively), and lower in younger age group and the same age
group. In addition, middle age group is likely to chat someone within the same age
group and older age group, and very rare to younger age group.

Middle age speakers, unlike younger and older speakers, registered consistent
language use patterns in texting and Facebook chatting. The data in texting and
Facebook chatting shows lower percentage of Maguindanaon language use when
middle age and younger speakers are texting and chatting to each other, while
higher percentage when middle age and older age speakers are texting and chatting
to one another.

Yes No

20 56%
18
16 44%
14
12
Mag L1

10 82%
8
6
4
18%
2 100%
0
19-24 15-18 25+
19-24 19-24 19-24
Same Age Group Different Age Group
Age

Figure 27 Maguindanaon Language Use and Middle Age Speakers

In general, study shows (Labucay, 2011) that majority of the internet users in the
Philippines are between the age of 18-24, and most of these speakers have an access
to internet and social media such as Facebook. In connection to this finding, the

91
majority of the Maguindanaon speakers reached by this study belong to younger
generations (younger and middle age speakers). Both younger (15-18) and middle
age (19-24) speakers have a total of 126, which is 76% (126 out of 166) of the total
number of the population reached by the study compared to the 24% (40 out of
166) speakers which belong to older age group (25+).

5.3.1.3 Older Speakers (Ages 25+)

In older speakers, the communication with the same age group is significantly
higher, and follows the language use patterns in texting. But the communication
between older and younger speakers had less usage of Maguindanaon, but this data
was taken only from minimal participants, therefore, no generalization will be made.

In texting, older speakers revealed higher percentages of Maguindanaon language

use with all Maguindanaon speakers, but in Facebook, older speakers only registered
higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use in the same age group (86%), and
lower percentages of Maguindanaon language use when older speakers are chatting
to younger and middle age speakers, shown in Figure 28 below.

Yes No

35
86%
30

25
Mag L1

20

15

10
14%
5 75%
100% 25%
0
25+ 15-18 19-24
25+ 25+ 25+
Same Age Group Different Age Group
Age

Figure 28 Maguindanaon Language Use and Older Speakers

Unlike in younger age group, older speakers have lower percentage of

Maguindanaon language use whenever they are chatting to younger age speakers,
whereas the percentage of Maguindanaon language use is higher when younger
speakers are chatting to older speakers. Thus when older speakers are chatting to

92
middle age speakers, the percentage of Maguindanaon language use is lower
compared to the percentage of chats in which there is no use of Maguindanaon
language, 25% and 75%, respectively.

In summary, the Maguindanaon language use patterns between younger and older
speakers in both texting and Facebook chatting are inconsistent. In texting, the
percentage of Maguindanaon language is lower when younger speakers are texting
older speakers, but the percentage of Maguindanaon language use is higher when
younger speakers are chatting to older speakers. In contrary, older speakers have
greater percentage of Maguindanaon language use when they are texting someone in
younger age group, but lesser percentage of Maguindanaon language when they are
chatting someone in younger age group. Texting and Facebook chatting are nearly
consistent between middle age and older speakers, except for the fact that older
speakers have lower percentage of Maguindanaon language use when they are
chatting someone in the middle age group. This alerts us to the possibility that other
factors at play here, and the age variable must interpreted separately when our focus
goes from texting to Facebook domain. The small sample sizes for Facebook IMs for
certain age groups must also be kept in mind.

5.3.2 Language Use and Gender

The Maguindanaon people in general are using the Facebook social platform to
communicate with their friends, classmates, relatives, and family living abroad. A
study in gender differences in social networks conducted by Mazman and Uslel
(2011) revealed that Facebook users were frequenting the platform to maintain
existing relationships with friends, making new relationships, academic purposes,
and interacting in social agenda. The study found that females are using Facebook to
maintain existing relationships, for academic purposes, and engaging in social
agenda, while males have a higher rate on making new relationships when using the
Facebook.

Table 25 below shows the gender distribution of 166 Maguindanaon speakers

reached by the research. The table shows that there were more female participants
in this study than males, 96 and 70, respectively. Unlike texting domain,
Maguindanaon language use in Facebook chatting domain by males and females
have over 50% usage of Maguindanaon for each of the four categories.

93
Table 25 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender

Same Gender 89 (54%) Diff Gender 77 (46%)

M M
M 25 (28%) F 32 (42%)
Yes 16 (64%) Yes 20 (63%)
No 9 (36%) No 12 (37%)
F F
F 64 (72%) M 45 (58%)
Yes 37 (59%) Yes 23 (51%)
No 27 (41%) No 22 (49%)

Figure 29 below indicates that Maguindanaon language use is dominant in both

same gender and different gender conversations. Male to male percentage of
Maguindanaon language use in chatting is higher compared to the percentage of
chats without Maguindanaon language use, 64% and 36%, respectively. The male to
female percentage of Maguindanaon language use in chatting is considerably higher
(63%) compared to the communications without Maguindanaon language use
(37%). Like texting, the male to female Facebook messages is likely initiated by the
male speakers. Likewise, the percentage of communication on Facebook with
Maguindanaon language use between female to female is higher, 59% and 41%,
respectively, while the female to male percentage of chat messages with the use
Maguindanaon language is slightly higher, 51% and 49%, respectively. The
conversation between female to male is more likely initiated by female speaker.

The data implies that, when male speakers regardless of their age, are chatting to
someone of the same gender the Maguindanaon language is usually used, as well as
when male speakers are chatting to different gender. More so, female are more
openly using the language when they are chatting to the same gender, but less use of
Maguindanaon when they are chatting to the opposite gender.

94
 Yes No

40 59%
35
30 41%
25 51% 49%
Mag L1

63%
20 64%
15 37%
10 36%
5
0
M F F M
M F M F
Same Gender Different Gender
Gender

Figure 29 Maguindanaon Language Use and Gender

In other study done by Mazman and Usluel (2011) stated that “disclosing of gender
identity is more common in females”. Their study revealed that females tend to hide
their personal identities and information for privacy in the internet-assisted
platform. Based on author’s view, the Maguindanaon is still in a patriarchal society
in which the males are still the dominant gender. Thus, women, because of social
pressure and traditional social roles are not disclosing themselves and their
identities in internet-based communications.

Facebook is more convenient, interactive, inexpensive, and collaborative than

texting. The participants were asked ISLQ #42 ‘what language do you normally use
when chatting on Facebook’ to determine the language used when chatting to others.
Forty percent (40%) (30 out 75) respondents said that they are using Tagalog
language when chatting to someone in general, and the rest are using code mixing of
Maguindanaon, Tagalog, and English; Maguindanaon and Tagalog; Tagalog and
English; Tagalog and Cebuano; and Maguindanaon and English.

5.3.3 Language Use and Relationship

Facebook is the mainstream social interconnections between friends, classmates,
acquaintances, family members, co-workers, and other types of social nexus. Users
are less likely engaging to other users without knowing them personally.
Collaboration on Facebook pages are common to the people with same cultural and
religious identities or at least with the same principles and social affiliations.

95
Maguindanaon language communities on Facebook are worldwide. Thus, the same
Maguindanaon speakers may use the language for wider communication (LWC) to
communicate to each other.

Table 26 below shows the distribution of Maguindanaon Facebook users in this

study in terms of their social affiliations. Unlike texting domain, there were only two
social affiliations of relational variables in Facebook found in.

Table 26 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relationship

Peer Familial
Friend 99 (60%) Cousin 27 (16%)
Yes 46 (46%) Yes 19 (70%)
No 53 (54%) No 8 (30%)
Sisterhood 4 (2.4%) Aunt 10 (6%)
Yes 2 (50%) Yes 9 (90%)
No 2 (50%) No 1 (10%)
Classmate 2 (1.2%) Sister 9 (5.4%)
Yes 2 (100%) Yes 6 (67%)
No 3 (33%)
Uncle 7 (4.2%)
Yes 5 (71%)
No 2 (29%)
Brother 5 (3%)
Yes 5 (100%)
Mother 2 (1.2%)
Yes 2 (100%)
Sister-in-Law 1 (0.6%)
Yes 1 (100%)

Figure 30 below shows the language use by students in peer relationship. The
summative Maguindanaon language use patterns in peer relationship domain is
dominated by friendship domain in which the percentage of chats with
Maguindanaon language use is lower (46%) compared the chat conversations which
have no Maguindanaon language use (54%). In addition, majority of the
Maguindanaon speakers within peer relationship are younger to middle age friends.
Fraternity and sorority and classmate show less interactions between these two
domains. Thus, younger speakers are less likely using the Maguindanaon language in
Facebook platform.

96
 Yes No

60
54%
50 46%

40
Mag L1

30

20

10
50% 50% 100%
0
Friend Sisterhood Classmate
Relationship

Figure 30 Maguindanaon Language Use and Peer Relationship

In contrast, Figure 31 below illustrates the language use of Maguindanaon speakers

in familial domain. Familial relationship in Facebook chatting supports the findings
in texting that family or home is the strongest domain when it comes to computer
mediated communications. In both texting and Facebook instant messaging,
conversations between cousins are seemingly common, and the use of
Maguindanaon language in both CMC domain is higher.

Yes No

20 70%
18
16
14
12
Mag L1

10 90%
30%
8
67%
6 71% 100%
4 33%
[VALUE]9% 100%
2 10% [VALUE]00%
0
Cousin Aunt Sister Uncle Brother Mother Sister-in-Law
Relationship

Figure 31 Maguindanaon Language Use and Familial Relationship

97
5.3.4 Language Use and Education
Table 27 below shows the educational attainment of Maguindanaon speakers
reached by the research. Peer relationship exposed that majority of the
Maguindanaon participants are in friendships domain. As discussed in texting
domain, education helps to distinguish social classes in Maguindanaon culture. Thus
language use differs in education and social classes to mark someone’s social
identity.

Table 27 Maguindanaon Language Use and Education

Education

College Student 86 (51.8) HS Graduate 15 (9%)

Yes 34 (40%) Yes 13 (87%)

No 52 (60%) No 2 (13%)

College Level 43 (26%) HS Student 1 (0.6%)

Yes 34 (79%) Yes 1 (100%)

No 9 (21%)

College Graduate 21 (12.6%)

Yes 14 (67%)

No 7 (33%)

Overall 166

Figure 32 below shows the Maguindanaon language percentage for each educational
attainment when Maguindanaon speakers are chatting with someone on Facebook.
Like the texting domain, the college students are the majority of the unemployed
class in which the percentage of Maguindanaon language use in Facebook chatting is
lower (40%) compared to the Facebook communications with no Maguindanaon
language use (60%). This percentage can be attributed to the friendships relation
since majority of this domain are also college students. Thus, the Maguindanaon
language use patterns in texting and Facebook chatting for college students is
consistent. The college level, college graduate, high school graduate, and even high
student have higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use whenever they are
chatting someone on Facebook. These higher percentage validate the language use
patterns of Maguindanaon in texting in which the educational attainments registered
higher percentage of Maguindanaon language use. In texting, the highest domain in

98
which Maguindanaon speakers use higher percentage of Maguindanaon language is
the familial, and education or social class seems to be the higher one. Thus, the
pattern of Maguindanaon language in both texting and Facebook instant messaging
in education variables is consistent.

Yes No

60
60%
50

40
40% 79%
Mag L1

30

20
67% 87%
21%
10 33%
13% [VALUE]00%
0
College Student College Level College Graduate HS Graduate HS Student

Education

Figure 32 Maguindanaon Language Use and Education

5.3.5 Summary of Language Use in Facebook

Facebook instant messaging is becoming the Maguindanaon speakers’ common
methods of communication. This social network penetrated the entire generations of
Maguindanaon speakers. Anyone, who is as early as 13 years old5 or as old as they
can be, can open an account on Facebook.

Younger generations (younger and middle age speakers) less used the
Maguindanaon language when they are chatting to people at least on the same age
level, but there is a greater usage of Maguindanaon language when they are chatting
someone from the older generations. In contrast, older generations are using lesser
percentage of Maguindanaon language when they are chatting someone from the
younger generations, but greater percentage when they are chatting someone within
older generation speakers. The older generation speakers are seem not frequenting
the social media as much as the younger generation speakers do. The youngest
Facebook participant in this study was 16 years old and the oldest was 52.

5
“Facebook requires everyone to be at least 13 years old before they can create an account
(in some jurisdictions, this age limit may be higher).” Facebook Help Center.

99
Males and females are using greater percentage of Maguindanaon whenever they are
chatting with someone on the same gender, than on different gender. In addition,
when male is likely to initiate the chatting on Facebook, the percentage of male to
female percentage on Facebook chatting is higher compared to the chatting in which
the female is more likely to initiate, female to male. This may be attributed to the
fact that men are likely to chat to different gender to find a new relationships, in
contrary to the women which not disclosing their identity due to cultural pressures
and social roles.

Education follows the same language use patterns with the texting domain. Younger
generations are using less Maguindanaon language when they are chatting to people
within the same generation, and they are mostly the college students. Older
generations are using the language greatly in social media, such as Facebook.
Education and social classes are interchangeable in Maguindanaon culture. Educated
people are rank in a middle to high social classes. Based on the researcher’s view
and part of the Maguindanaon tribe, the more educated a Maguindanaon speaker is,
the higher the class he/she has in the society. And the higher the class in the society,
the less use of Maguindanaon language in Facebook.

The topic as a sociolinguistic variable in Facebook is not really measurable when it

comes to language use. Topic in Facebook instant messaging between two
Maguindanaon speakers is difficult to follow, as someone talks one topic and the
other talks another. Thus, topic can be assessed in other disciplinary field of
linguistics like conversational analyses.

In conclusion, the main sociolinguistic variables that both contribute and affect
language use of Maguindanaon in Facebook instant messaging domain are the age
and gender. Older generation speakers are surprisingly weaker when it comes to
chatting someone from younger generations, thus the transmission of Maguindanaon
language from older to younger generation is not really happening in Facebook. But
the language choice of Maguindanaon older speakers may associated to the
education and social classes where they belong. Majority of the older speakers are
college graduate and have stable occupations. The younger speakers’ effort to use
the language to older speakers is attributed to the social relationship such as in
home domain. This means that language is being transmitted at home, and gradually
used by younger generations whenever they are chatting to older Maguindanaon
speakers through social networking sites. On the other hand, gender shows the
weaker and stronger domains of Maguindanaon language use. Men language use

100
patterns strengthen the language by using it greatly when chatting to other
Maguindanaon speakers, regardless of gender. Women language use in Facebook
only shows greater percentage when chatting to same gender, whereas when women
are chatting to men, communication with and without Maguindanaon language use
is almost equally the same. Thus, in Facebook, women are vulnerable to use
mainstream languages such as Tagalog and English, and without awareness to the
consequences of their language choice that can possibly affect the vitality of
Maguindanaon language.

5.4 Summary of Language Use Patterns in CMC

The texting domain found that geography, relationship, age, and topic are the
factors that greatly affect the language use. In Facebook IMs domain, the age and
gender are the two factors affect the Maguindanaon language use.

Texting and Facebook instant messaging are two of the most common forms of
Maguindanaon speakers’ communications. On one hand, texting becomes the
simplest form of CMC between Maguindanaon people. This form of communication
penetrated the entire generational speakers of Maguindanaon in the society. Texting
only requires literacy or at least someone knows how to read and write to use it.
Additionally, texting does not require grammatical and phonological rules for
someone to follow or for texters to care about. Thus texting can violates the
grammatical and phonological structures of the language. According to Crystal
(2008), ‘texting does not influence literacy skills; and it replaces speech
communication among teenagers’. On the other hand, Facebook instant messaging is
another growing platform of CMC for Maguindanaon speakers. Unlike texting,
Facebook does require minimal age (at least 13 years old) to use the social
networking site. More so, Facebook does require technical knowledge when
someone is using computers. Facebook is less accessible than texting as it needs
internet connection or at least stronger coverage of network providers to use its
features such as messenger to exchange messages and images.

The patterns of Maguindanaon language use for texting and Facebook instant
messaging varies in different sociolinguistic factors such as age, gender, education or
social classes, relationship, topic, and location. However, it can be generalized that
age and relationship are the two crucial factors that both contribute and affect
Maguindanaon language use in CMC.

101
Age is a sociolinguistic variable that lies at the intersection of life and history
(Eckert, 1998). Based on the findings, age variable appeared both in texting and
Facebook instant messaging domains, and influences language use of Maguindanaon
speakers. It can be generalized then, that age factor can both strengthen and sustain
the use of Maguindanaon in CMC domains.

Familial relationship is the stronghold of texting when it comes to Maguindanaon

language use. All family related kinships and topics registered higher percentages of
L1 in texting. This factor is directly associated to the home domain. More so,
familial relationship provides domain for literacy. Older generation speakers can
transmit local or indigenous knowledge in a particular body of knowledge to
younger generation speakers Both texting and Facebook instant revealed the same
language use patterns in terms of the percentage of Maguindanaon language use
when texting within the familial relationship domains. The Maguindanaon language
use in this domain is particularly confined in certain topics such as family update,
financial matter, health issue, family and social gathering, and religious matters. All
speakers of Maguindanaon language in relation to relationship domain (home
domain) are using Maguindanaon in which the older speakers are initiating the
language to be used. This phenomenon is referred to by Giles, Coupland, &
Coupland (1973) as convergence in their speech accommodation theory (SAT). Thus,
to accommodate the language used by the older, most probably by their parents,
younger speakers tend to switch to their first language to harmonize the
conversation, and to minimize misunderstanding on the context of the message.

102
 Chapter 6
Language Vitality

6.1 Introduction
Maguindanaon language has a population of more than 1.1 million (Lewis, Simons,
& Fenning, 2016). The Maguindanaon language community is found in most regions
of the Philippines, but majority of these language and speech communities are found
in Mindanao, the southern part of Philippines. (See Chapter 3).

This chapter will first provide the language vitality assessment of Maguindanaon in
general. Then it will look at the Maguindanaon vitality within CMC domains, texting
and Facebook IMs. This chapter will address the Research Question #3 ‘how is the
vitality of Maguindanaon affected by CMC? The organization of this chapter is as
follows.

Section 6.2 presents the general vitality of Maguindanaon using the EGIDS (6.2.1)
and its criteria Persistence (6.2.1.1), Predictability (6.2.1.2), and Prevalence
(6.2.1.3). Section 6.3 will do an in depth analysis and discussion on the
Maguindanaon language vitality in CMC using the FAMED Conditions. Sections
6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 will present the crucial sociolinguistic factors when it comes
to CMC domain sustainability. The FAMED Conditions discussion is divided into
each condition; Function (6.3.1.1), Acquisition (6.3.1.2), Motivation (6.3.1.3),
Environment (6.3.1.4), and Differentiation (6.3.1.5). Section 6.4 will give the
summary of Maguindanaon language vitality.

6.2 General Maguindanaon Language Vitality

This section will assess the vitality of Maguindanaon in general. It will not, however,
take into account the use of Maguindanaon in CMC. That information will be added
later in section 6.3. Finally, in 6.4, a determination will be made whether the
additional usage of Maguindanaon in texting and Facebook IMs constitutes a
strengthening or a weakening of the general vitality assessment.

103
6.2.1 Defining General EGIDS level of Maguindanaon
Based on the Ethnologue language portal (Lewis, Simons, & Fenning, 2016), the
current vitality of Maguindanaon language in the language cloud using the EGIDS
scale is at Level 3 ‘Trade’ (see Figure 33). This level is also labeled as ‘language for
wider communication (LWC). This means the language is used in work and mass
media without official status to transcend language differences across a region.

Figure 33 Maguindanaon Language in Language Cloud

(Lewis, Simons, & Fenning, 2016)

However, while it is true the Maguindanaon language is being used in mass media
such as radio and printing, those functions are only accessed by Maguindanaon
speaker listeners and readers, not by speakers of other languages (personal
observation as a mother tongue speaker). It is thus not vehicular, i.e., it does not
‘transcend language differences across an area’. Therefore, based on personal
observation, and as a native speaker and member of wider Maguindanaon speech
community, Maguindanaon language is more accurately assessed at EGIDS level 5,
or somewhere between level 4 (Educational) and level 5 (Developing) depending on
the factors under consideration. The language is used orally by all generations. It is
also used in written form in religious texts in specific religious domains, and also
used by all generations in written form in texting and Facebook instant messaging
domains. Furthermore, Maguindanaon language is one of the 12 pioneering
languages introduced in the mother-tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-
MLE) program by the department of education in the government educational
system. Maguindanaon language is now used as both a medium and a subject of
instruction in public education. This scenario suggests an EGIDS level 4
(Educational). However, a closer analysis shows a slightly weaker profile.

104
According to Lewis and Simons (2015: 110), EGIDS level 4 requires a language to
meet the following criteria:

1. Supported by a stable institution

2. Standardized in its forms and functions
3. Widespread usage in the community (across generations and domains)

These criteria are closely related to the characteristics of sustainable language use
proposed by Lewis and Simons (2015: 144-147), which are:

1. Persistent
2. Predictable
3. Prevalent

Each of these correlates to the 3 criteria for EGIDS level 4 found above. A literacy
that is supported by a stable institution is persistent. Literacy that is standardized in
forms and functions is predictable, and literacy that has widespread usage in a
community is prevalent. In the following paragraphs I will address each of these
issues in turn to evaluate whether or not Maguindanaon has reached EGIDS level 4.

6.2.1.1 Persistence
We could consider Maguindanaon literacy to be PERSISTENT by investigating its
depth of use in education. This investigation begins with a look at the Department of
Education (2012) guidelines on the implementation of mother-tongue-based
multilingual education (MTB-MLE) program. All major languages spoken in the
Philippines shall be part of education’s medium of instruction, and Maguindanaon
language is one of the ground-breaking language, particularly in Mindanao regions.
Based on the Department of Education portal.

‘There are twelve (12) major languages or Lingua Franca and others
as cited below shall be offered as a learning area and utilized as
language of instruction for SY 2012-2013:’
a. Tagalog g. Hiligaynon
b. Kapampangan h. Waray
c. Pangasinense i. Tausug
d. Iloko j. Maguindanaoan
e. Bikol k. Maranao, and
f. Cebuano l. Chabacano

Department of Education, 2012

105
This program was first implemented in 2009, when Maguindanaon was used as the
pilot language in Luntayan, Sultan Kudarat as part of MLE program pilot study, and
later on used in other public schools in which Maguindanaon students are dominant.
This MLE program is now in its 7th year, and appears to have grown every year, now
having reached the majority of the schools in the Maguindanaon dominated
provinces in Mindanao region. In all likelihood, this program will continue to grow
in the future. Unfortunately, there is no information available on the percentage of
schools which are implementing a particular language mentioned above.

The point to the above discussion is that this usage of Maguindanaon in schools for
the past 7 years appears to be stable and well supported, thus satisfying the criteria
PERSISTENT.

But, how far can MTB-MLE program realistically go when it comes to maintaining
language vitality? Or is MTB-MLE sustainable? The multi-lingual education enables
students to use their L1 while learning to acquire L2 and L3 gradually from the
school. Students are taught in their first language from Grade 1 to 3, and then the
Filipino and English languages are to be used all throughout their academic
endeavors. Therefore, MTB-MLE only serves as catalyst to acquire and learn second
and third languages, and in the case of Philippines, the Filipino and English
languages. The continuum of MTB-MLE in academic domain is not clearly defined,
therefore, a student is gradually departing from his or her first language to pursue
his or her academic ambitions.

This suggests that although the Maguindanaon MLE program seems stable at the
present time within the life of the society, it does not seem likely that MLE
programs, in and of themselves, foster language maintenance in the life of the
individual. As Maguindanaon individuals pursue more and more fluency in L2 and
L3 in their academic careers, this could eventually lead to less and less people
retaining the use of L1 in literacy habits over time, and less and less people
proficient in L1 literacy as a whole. The maintenance of Maguindanaon literacy, if it
is to be maintained in the life of the individual, needs to be found elsewhere, in
domains outside of grades 1-3, and in functions within those domains that are found
to be beneficial to the community. We will investigate other domains when we
discuss the heading ‘Predictable’.

106
6.2.1.2 Predictable
Currently, the domains where Maguindanao literacy is accepted and expected are in
the MLE programs, and in the domain of religion. The MTB-MLE program is being
observed throughout the Philippines, and institutionalized through DepEd Order 74,
Series 2009, and later on inducted as law by virtue of Republic Act No. 10157,
Section 56. Therefore, MLE is becoming a grassroots program for language
development in formal education. The department of education is now translating
education materials to vernacular languages, and Maguindanaon is one of those
languages used for translations. The Madrasahs or Islamic schools are using
Maguindanaon language to translate the lessons from Arabic language. Basic herbal
making procedures and rearing children are translated to Maguindanaon so that less
literate Maguindanaon speakers will be able to understand it. Passages from the
Holy Qur’an are translated to the Maguindanaon so that Maguindanaon speakers
who cannot read and write Arabic writing will comprehend. Thus, the usage of L1
literacy in the first 3 grades of MLE and for certain functions within the religious
domain constitute predictable ways of using Maguindanao in written form.

6.2.1.2 Prevalence
Maguindanaon language is spoken by all generations at home. The language is
surrounded by other more prestigious and dominant languages such as Cebuano and
Tagalog, but Maguindanaon speakers are able to maintain the use their L1, orally,
while acquiring other languages. Traditional print-based Maguindanaon literacy,
however, is not so widespread with Maguindanaon literature used and only a few
domains of life. These domains of L1 are found mainly in community meetings,
religious affairs, and in school institutions through MTB-MLE program.

It is worth mentioning that none of the students in which the data gathered
had gone through the MLE educational policy because the MLE hadn’t yet
started when they were in their elementary levels. Therefore, all college
students from whom data had been obtained did not receive the MLE
education policy.

The ISLQ #58a ‘have you ever read or written Maguindanaon language outside CMC
domains – texting in Facebook instant messaging?’ were asked to provide us with some
evidence regarding the reach of print based literacy in Maguindanaon. Eighty-three

6
SEC. 5. Medium of Instruction. – The State shall hereby adopt the mother tongue-based
multilingual education (MTB-MLE) method.

107
percent, 83% (62 out of 75) of the respondents responded ‘Yes’ to the above
question, and only 17% (13 of 75) said ‘No’. While this seems to show that the vast
majority do use print based Maguindanaon literacy, the domains of this use are quite
limited. Of the 62 Maguindanaon speakers, Figure 34 below shows what
Maguindanaon literatures are written and read by them, and these written
literatures are mostly used at home and in religious affairs. Translated passages and
verses from the Qur’an are most common of these and are widely read.

35
48%
30
25
20
Mag L1

15
15%
10
8% 8% 6%
5 5% 5% 3% 2%
0

Written Literatures

Figure 34 Maguindanaon Written Literatures

As the chart shows, traditional L1 literacy is found in a rather limited set of domains
in the every-day life of the Maguindanaon speaker. Furthermore, speakers older than
15 years of age have had very little if any instruction in how to read and write their
language since their education did not include MLE. This means that at the present
time, traditional print-based Maguindanaon literacy is not prevalent in all of society,
neither in all domains, nor equally accessed by all generations.

In summary, Lewis, Simons, and Fenning (2016) assess the position of

Maguindanaon language vitality at EGIDS Level 3, but the above discussion has
shown that this needs to be revised. A more accurate position on general
Maguindanaon language vitality is that the language is at level 5 and moving
towards level 4. In the next section we will determine how this general vitality level
is affected by the use of Maguindanaon language in CMC.

108
6.3 Maguindanaon Language Vitality in CMC
In addition to print-based written literatures in the religious domain, and
institutional use of Maguindanaon language, another growing domain of
Maguindanaon language use is the CMC. Texting and Facebook instant messaging
are used beyond home, community, and institutional domains. The CMC domains
penetrates the whole of the society and can be found in every demographic category
such as age, gender, education, social class, relationship, and religions. If we
consider texting to be a form of literacy, we will see that CMC adds another function
of Maguindanaon literacy that is used across all generations, particularly between
interlocutors who are related or intimate.

Texting and Facebook IMs are now becoming mainstream means of communication
in Maguindanaon society. Texting has been around more than two decades (1992)7
ago, while Facebook has been founded in 2004. Maguindanaon speakers are
extensively using texting and Facebook messaging to get updates, information, and
news from all other people regardless of age, gender, ethnic affiliations, social
status, religions, relationships, and so on.

Speakers of a particular language may or may not use their L1 in computer mediated
communication. There is no record when was the first use of Maguindanaon
language in CMC. What the data has shown is that older Maguindanaon speakers,
like parents, are using their L1 in CMC more often than younger speakers, but the
younger speakers are able to be persuaded to engage in using L1 whenever they are
communicating with older ones. If this pattern will continue and becoming
prevalent among younger speakers, then there is a possibility that this Function of
Maguindanaon language will survive.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, technology itself changes over time, therefore,

sustainability of Maguindanaon language use in texting and in Facebook IMs
dependent on the future changes within technology and this is still unpredictable.

In Chapter 5 we identified the two most crucial social factors related to

Maguindanaon use in CMC. These were age and relationship. To that we will add
technology as a factor. We must take into consideration also that technology itself
evolves over time. Thus, in the near future, there might be another form of CMC
arise that will replace texting, Facebook instant messaging, and other forms of social

7
The first text message was sent in 1992 from Neil Papworth, a 22-year-old test engineer for Sema
Group in the UK (now Airwide Solutions).

109
networking services. We will address each of these briefly and indicate what they
suggest about the vitality of this new function.

6.3.1 Sustainability in CMC – Age Group and Diachronic Use

The use of Maguindanaon language in texting was probably first practiced when the
speakers first used of mobile phones when talking to fellow Maguindanaon speakers.
In connection to this, fifty-five (55) Maguindanaon speakers were surveyed and
asked, ‘how much percentage of Maguindanaon language did you use in texting and
Facebook instant messaging 3-4 years ago?’, and ISLQ #47 ‘how much percentage of
Maguindanaon language do you use in (a) texting and (b) Facebook instant messaging at
present time?’ These questions will determine the estimated percentage of
Maguindanaon language use in texting by Maguindanaon speakers 3-4 years ago and
at present time.

Figure 35 below shows the number of younger Maguindanaon speakers whose

percentage of Maguindanaon language use in texting and Facebook instant
messaging are increasing or decreasing in the past 3-4 years up to the present time.
Throwing back 3-4 years ago, the younger speakers’ age were between 12 and 15,
thus, they were still confined in home domain in which there texting might be
limited to parents and other closer relatives. And at present time, the younger
speakers are gradually moving away from home, mainly for academic endeavors and
they are exposed to new environment and culture. Therefore, the communication
between parents and their children becomes limited as younger speakers
communicate more with their newly established peers. Thus when the survey
questions were asked, the younger Maguindanaon speakers reported that they used a
higher percentage of Maguindanaon in CMC 3-4 years ago than they do at present. 7
out of 8 (87.5%) said that the percentage of Maguindanaon language use within a
text is lower now than in the past, and only 1 out 8 (12.5%) younger speaker said
that he is using more Maguindanaon language within a text in the present time.

Based on the previous analysis on Chapter 5 on the Maguindanaon language in the

familial domain, the following assumption seems probable. While the Maguindanaon
language use between parents and their children remains high, the amount of
interactions through texting between parents and children becomes less because of
their children are temporarily living outside the home domain.

110
 15-18
% Increase % Decrease

8
87.5%
7
6
62.5%
5
Mag L1

4
37.5%
3
2
12.5%
1
0
Texting Facebook IMs
Function

Figure 35 Percentage of Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC

(Younger)

Therefore, it can be concluded that younger speakers of Maguindanaon language

when it comes to language use in CMC functions are in fact not sustainable. More so,
Erikson’s (1993) theory on stages of development may contribute to the notion that
younger people (12-18 years old) or on their adolescent period are struggling in
social interactions, or when they can fit themselves. This stage of psychological
development in which adolescent (starts at 12) and young adult (starts at 18) begin
to develop and establish strong affiliation to their peers or people on the same age
either to seek companionship or relationship.

The middle age speakers Maguindanaon language use at present time is also
decreasing. Figure 36 below indicates that 13 out of 21 (62%) of middle age
speakers are using less percentage of Maguindanaon in texting at present time, while
8 out 21 (38%) Maguindanaon speakers expressed that Maguindanaon language use
in texting is increasing at present time. The same middle age speakers were asked of
how much percentage of Maguindanaon language is being used in the past 3-4
years, and at the present time when chatting on Facebook, 10 out 21 (48%)
answered that Maguindanaon language use in Facebook IMs is actually increasing,
while 11 out of 21 (52%) expressed the amount of Maguindanaon language in
Facebook chatting is decreasing. Thus, both CMC functions follow the same trend in
terms of percentage of Maguindanaon language use in CMC by middle speakers.

111
 19-24
% Increase % Decrease

15
62%
13
52%
11 48%
Mag L1

9 38%
7
5
3
1
Texting Facebook IMs
Function

Figure 36 Percentage of Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC

(Middle Age)

Consequently, the same sets of questions were asked to the older speakers of
Maguindanaon language. Figure 37 below shows that 10 out of 21 (48%) answered
that the percentage of Maguindanaon language use within a text in the past 3-4
years is lower. But at present time, 11 out of 21 (52%) declared that Maguindanaon
language use in texting is higher or increasing. Facebook instant messaging follows
different pattern of percentage of Maguindanaon language use by older speakers. In
the past 3-4 years, Maguindanaon language use percentage in Facebook IMs is
higher, but at present time, it is lower.

This result supported the language use patterns of older Maguindanaon speakers in
which the percentage of Maguindanaon language is higher when they are texting to
other Maguindanaon speakers, but lower when they chatting to Maguindanaon
speakers on Facebook.

112
 25+
% Increase % Decrease

15

13
52% 52%
11 48% 48%
Mag L1

1
Texting Facebook IMs
Function

Figure 37 Percentage of Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC

(Older)

Based on the self-reporting data from the respondents, age is one of the most crucial
sociolinguistic factors among others in CMC. The diachronic survey in CMC revealed
that younger generation (younger and middle age) speakers registered higher
percentage of Maguindanaon language 3-4 years ago, but at present time the
Maguindanaon language percentages are lower. In texting, the older Maguindanaon
speakers’ answered that the Maguindanaon language use 3-4 years ago is lower, but
at present time the use of their L1 is higher. When it comes to Facebook IMs, in the
past 3-4 years, older speakers percentages of Maguindanaon language use is higher,
but at present time the use of their L1 is lower. The Maguindanaon language use
patterns in CMC, both texting and Facebook IMs, are clearly showing weaknesses as
majority of the younger generation speakers are leaning towards the use of more
dominant languages such as Tagalog and English in CMC. The sustainable use of
CMC in Maguindanaon language is very dependent on time and age of the users.

6.3.2 Sustainability in CMC - Relationship

The second most crucial sociolinguistic variable is the relationship between
Maguindanaon speakers. This can be seen in Figures 19 and 20. The kinship domain
is where Maguindanaon language use in CMC showed higher usage. When we
consider the factor of relationship, it shows us where intergenerational language use
in CMC is occurring. The younger generation’s kinship ties are important and they

113
must continue using their L1 in CMC. There was a considerable increase in the use
of L1 when young people text with parents and relatives. This is even true of the
texting between young relatives such as siblings and cousins. The older generation
also maintained this same language use pattern of using L1 in CMC in the
relationship factor, both with each other and with their younger offspring.
Therefore, if these language use patterns in the kinship domain are fostered and
continue, the relationship factor would contribute to the sustainability of
Maguindanaon in CMC

Figure 38 below shows the stronghold domain of CMC which is the familial, and this
would be considered a ‘sacred space’.

Yes No

650 56%
600
550
500 44%
450
400
Mag L1

350
300 65%
250
200 35%
150
100
50 51% 49% 81% 57% 43%
19%
0
Peer Familial Formal Intimate Informal

Relationship

Figure 38 Maguindanaon Language Use and Relationship

(Sacred Space)

6.3.3 FAMED Conditions

The Maguindanaon language is used in many different domains. Home, social,
educational, religious, mass media, workplace, and the CMC. How strong is the use
of Maguindanaon literacy? Does the CMC domain strengthen it in any way? The
FAMED conditions will be used to attempt to evaluate the overall literacy of
Maguindanaon language. The FAMED conditions do not specifically refer to CMC
functions, therefore, we will apply these conditions in a general way.

114
6.3.4.1 Function
When addressing the topic of language functions it is important to consider whether
they are High (H) or Low (L) functions. The High functions of language are those
that are considered by the users of the language to be suitable for more formal
purposes in society, while the Low functions are those that are used for informal
purposes. The former tends to require some sort of standardization, while the latter
does not. This distinctions between H and L functions is true not only of speech, but
also of literacy. The following section will refer to both of these categories within
the realm of literacy.

In CMC domain, the function that is most linked to Maguindanaon language usage is
the function of kinship solidarity and of maintaining familial ties. It is this usage
between related interlocutors that has the strongest percentage of Maguindanaon
language use. This is a ‘Low function’ for language, as it is between those whom we
are the most intimate and the least formal, thus not requiring a standardized form.

The ISLQ #33a-m & 45a-m ‘what language(s) do you normally use when texting (33a-
m) and chatting (45a-m) to your father, mother, sister,…?’ were asked to the
respondents. The number of respondents who answered Maguindanaon language are
shown in Figure 43 below. There are other answers such as Tagalog, English,
Cebuano, and code-mixing.

Figure 39 below shows the language use patterns of Maguindanaon speakers in CMC
domains. The home domain is still the strongest domain in CMC. The use of
Maguindanaon language is weaker when Maguindanaon speakers are texting and
chatting outside home domain.

Thus, Maguindanaon language use in CMC function is stronger when Maguindanaon

people are closely related to each other, and it becomes weaker when
Maguindanaon speakers are communicating to other non-related Maguindanaon
speakers whether it is formal and informal domains.

115
 Texting Facebook IMs

50
45
40
35
Mag L1 (n=75)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Social Domains

Figure 39 Maguindanaon Language Use in CMC

The emergence on virtual speech community (Lillehaugen, 2016) and the rapid
growth of digital communication are now altering the face-to-face communication.
One possible position is to consider CMC as simply an extension of speech. However,
texting and Facebook instant messaging cannot be presaged as an extension of
speech communication, because both texting and Facebook instant are not time-
bounded and not public compared to the speech communication which are time-
bound and public.

Table 28 below shows the distinctions of oralcy and literacy in CMC which this
study have adopted and expanded from Crystal’s (2004) distinctions of Spoken and
Written discourse. The table demonstrates that texting is a ‘low function’ of literacy
which has as its unique characteristics ‘private’ and ‘delayed’. These characteristics
are not shared in any other of communication, thus providing texting with its
enormous appeal.

116
Table 28 Oralcy and Literacy in CMC (modified from Crystal, 2001)

Oralcy Literacy
Lecture Face-to-Face Phone Texting Print
Factor
(H) Conversation (L) (L) Media (H)
(L)
Location Same place Same place Displaced Displaced Displaced
Access Public Public/Private Public Private Public
Time Real time Real-time/ Real-time Delayed Permanent
ephemeral
Manner Contrived, Spontaneous Spontaneo Spontaneous Contrived,
intentional us intentional
Standard- Standard Non-standard Non- Non- Standard
ization speech speech standard standard Literacy
speech literacy
Formality/ Formal Informal Informal Informal Formal
Style
Interaction Non- Socially Socially Socially Non-
interactive/ interactive interactive interactive interactive/
Factual Factual

The ‘H’ in the table above pertaining to the ‘High’ function, while ‘L’ denoting the
‘Low’ function of Maguindanaon language in both orality and literacy.

In general, to use the FAMED Conditions to assess Maguindanaon language in

literacy only the high function of literacy is in view (e.g. education, print media). As
we mentioned earlier, the low function of literacy (e.g. texting) are not included in
the FAMED diagnostic tool. So, using the FAMED scale to assess the use of
Maguindanaon language in CMC requires us to find the closest description possible
within the diagnostic tool. Using this ‘closest description possible’ approach, the
Function condition is at F2 level which describe as ‘enough literature exists in this
language for some Functions to exemplify the value of literacy in this language’, and
corresponds to the EGIDS level 5 (Developing).

The CMC functions, texting and Facebook IMs, add a new dimension of language use
in Maguindanaon language. Texting is being considered as lower function of
literacy, and it has its unique characteristics– ‘private’ and ‘delayed’ – which the
higher function of literacy does not have, and this can be acquired by any
Maguindanaon speaker easily as long as they have basic education. For Lewis and

117
Simons, (2015), it appears that CMC would be categorized as a form of ‘digital
literacy’. This means that, technology is an additional domain in which any
language can use, and in which literacy can be transmitted. The CMC functions do
not necessary linked to ‘high’ function of literacy, and texting is considered a ‘low’
function of literacy. Thus this support the theory of Crystal (2008: 3) that ‘texting
linked positively with the literacy achievements’ and ‘texting teenagers who get free
mobiles improves their literacy’. What it does do is provide a new function which
the language did not have before.

According to Lewis and Simons (2015), adding a new Function to a language

strengthens it.
“as each of the desired Functions is developed, that safe space for
the language grows and strengthens. The maxim we propose is that
as a language gains uses, it will also gain users”.
(Lewis & Simons, 2015: 290).
Using this maxim, we conclude that CMC, texting and Facebook IMs in
Maguindanaon strengthens the language.

6.3.4.2 Acquisition
Computer mediated communication, such as texting and Facebook IMs, is new
function of language. The fundamental baseline to use this function of a language is
to know how to read and write, regardless of what writing system the language
follows. Having said that, the Maguindanaon language follows the Filipino
orthography which is based on the Roman alphabet.

Maguindanaon language transmission starts at home, therefore, language acquisition

from older generation is evidently dominant within the home domain. However,
Maguindanaon speakers’ of high social status who can speak Filipino and English be
less likely to pass on Maguindanaon because they believe that their children will
have an advantage in the academic domain if they start to learn and become fluent
in Filipino and English languages at home. This is a case of language attitude.

The texting function of Maguindanaon language needs basic education, just simply
how to read and write. The Maguindanaon speakers learned how to read and write
in formal education, and at school. Thus the language transference from L2 to L1 is
carried out to CMC by Maguindanaon speakers.

118
In connection to language acquisition, the respondents were asked ISLQ #27 ‘when
you were child, what language did your parents speak to each other? This question
allows us to understand that parents are using the Maguindanaon language at home.
75 out of 75 (100%) answered that their parents are using Maguindanaon language
whenever they are talking to each other. The children, therefore, acquired their first
language through parents’ language transmission. The ISLQs #25c and #26c ‘What
language did your father (25c) and mother (26c) usually speak to you when you were a
child? were asked to the respondents.

In Figure 40 below shows that 74 out 75 (99%) revealed that Maguindanaon is the
language used whenever their parents were speaking to them on their early age. The
1 out of 75 (1%) said that his parents were using Iranun language when he was
child.

Father Mother

80 99% 99%
70

60

50
Mag L1

40

30

20

10
[VALUE]% [VALUE]%
0
Mag Non Mag
Parents

Figure 40 Language Spoken By Parents to their Children

The CMC domains in acquisition condition may also be influenced by the literacy
levels of Maguindanaon speakers. Thus, the respondents were asked ISLQ #60 ‘if you
use Maguindanaon language for texting and chatting but have never had a class to learn
how to read and write in Maguindanaon, (probe question) how you learned to do it?’
Most older Maguindanaon speakers have not learned to use the CMC function for L1
through formal education in L1. As mentioned earlier, Maguindanaon learned how
to text through language transference from L2 learned from school. Thus these skills
of literacy do not have to be acquired in the L1 to later be used in the L1. They can
be acquired in L2 or L3 and then transferred to L1 informally and individually, as
long as the orthographies are similar. Based on the responses to the question above,

119
the majority of the respondents learned how to text in L1 ‘on their own’, which in
essence means transferring their acquired language skills, usually Filipino and
English, to their L1. Thus, learning how to text and Facebook IMs in L1 are basically
associated with prior literacy in L2.

The answers to this question are grouped into five categories – self-learning, school,
home, school and home, and no response. Figure 41 shown below indicates how
Maguindanaon speakers’ learn texting without a proper class in Maguindanaon
language. Thus, majority reported that texting domain is adopted through individual
learning or self-learning process. Based on the self-reported data, texting is acquired
naturally, and learned in a spontaneous process. The self-learning is based on the
transference of Tagalog and English which the Maguindanaon learned at school.

Mag L1

30
34%
25
29%

20
Mag L1

19%
15

10 11%
7%
5

0
Self-Learning School and School Home No Response
Home
Texting Acquisition

Figure 41 Maguindanaon Language Texting Acquisition

Furthermore, there are two kinds of academic institutions which Maguindanaon

culture has. On one hand is the traditional government and private schools in which
Maguindanaon speakers are pursuing their career from preschool to higher
educational level. The main languages of these institutions are Tagalog and English.
On the other hand is the Madrasah8 or Madaris in which Maguindanaon speakers are
learning religious-based curricula. The main languages are Arabic and
Maguindanaon or other languages which follows the same Islamic belief.

8
Madrasah is an Islamic or religious school in the Philippines, in which exclusively for the
Muslims that are studying Islamic religion and other Islamic-related subjects.

120
And, as far as MTB-MLE is concerned, Maguindanaon language is gradually
implemented in government schools. It is taught by Maguindanaon native and
professional speakers in the dominant Maguindanaon speakers’ classrooms.

MTB-MLE program only translated subject matters through lesson plans to the
Maguindanaon language as pursuant to government policy. Additionally, other
instructional materials such as textbooks are gradually translated to vernacular
languages in accordance to the MTB-MLE policy to use other languages in addition
to Filipino and English languages.

Since acquisition condition of CMC relies mainly on the transference of literacy skills
in which Tagalog and English are mainly used, the Maguindanaon language based
on the Acquisition scale is at A2 which is describe as ‘there are adequate materials in
this language to support literacy instruction in the language and some members of the
community are successfully learning to read and write about some bodies of knowledge in
the language’, and corresponds to EGIDS level 5 (Developing). The Maguindanaon
language literacy program is supported by the government through MLE program,
however, this is not widespread yet and did not reach the whole Maguindanaon
generations. Thus the A2 is the closest possible scale in Acquisition condition, and
not A1 nor A3.

6.3.4.3 Motivation
In order to have some indication of speaker motivation, respondents were asked
ISLQ #53a-b ‘do you think it is appropriate for younger and older generations to use
Maguindanaon in texting and Facebook chatting (and if No, why not)?’

Figure 42 shown below presented the answers based on respondents’ age group. All
age groups are optimistic to use Maguindanaon language in both texting and
Facebook instant messaging. The presence of more prestige language, like Tagalog
and English, contributes to the lower percentage of Maguindanaon language use in
texting and Facebook instant messaging. Some younger generations, younger (6%)
and middle age (7%) speakers’ reported not to use Maguindanaon language because
Tagalog is easy to understand and to easy write. All older generation speakers
answered ‘Yes’.

121
 Yes No

40 93%

35

30

25
Mag L1

20 94%
100%
15

10

5 7%
6% [VALUE]%
0
15-18 19-24 25+
Age Group

Figure 42 Maguindanaon in Texting and Facebook IMs

In more specific perspective, the ISLQ #32 and #44 ‘do you prefer to text (32) and
chat (44) in Maguindanaon language or other language(s), if No, why not? were asked
to the respondents.

Figure 43 below shows the responses from the Maguindanaon speakers, 68 out of 75
(91%) stated that they preferred to use Maguindanaon when texting to
Maguindanaon speakers, whereas 7 out of 75 (9%) expressed that texting makes the
conversation difficult to understand because there is no standardized writing system
in Maguindanaon language. Additionally, 42 out 75 (56%) of the respondents
revealed that they use Maguindanaon language when chatting to other
Maguindanaon speakers, while 29 out 75 (39%) said that chatting using Tagalog and
English languages is very easy to understand and easy to abbreviate unlike
Maguindanaon language that has very long words and difficult to abbreviate. The 4
out of 75 (5%) respondents expressed they don’t use Facebook network.

122
 Texting Facebook IMs

80
91%
70
60

Mag L1 50 56%
40
39%
30
20
10 9%
5%
0
Yes No Not Applicable
Yes/No

Figure 43 Maguindanaon Speakers' Language Preferences in CMC

Although the self-reported data is not as reliable as the actual data, this information
can be used to determine the motivation of the Maguindanaon people toward the
use of their L1 in CMC. The ISLQ #54 ‘as Maguindanaon speaker, will you continue
using Maguindanaon language in texting and Facebook chatting? were asked to the
respondents.

Figure 44 below shows the responses from the Maguindanaon speakers, 68 out of 75
(91%) are confidently answered ‘Yes’ and they will continue using Maguindanaon
language in CMC domains, while 5 out of 75 (5%) are having hesitation to continue
Maguindanaon language in CMC domains. The 3 out of 75 (4%) Maguindanaon
speakers conditionally answered ‘Yes’, but it is depending on a given situation, or by
all means, not at all times. This result justifies that Maguindanaon speakers’
motivation to use the language in CMC domains is pretty high, thus, sustainable.

123
 Yes/No

80
91%
70

60

50
Mag L1

40

30

20

10 5% 4%
0
Yes Maybe (Yes, but..) Not at all time
Yes/No

Figure 44 Maguindanaon Speakers' Future Language Projection

In addition, the motivation or attitude to use Maguindanaon in language may be

attributed to its usefulness. Some Maguindanaon speakers revealed that the use of
Maguindanaon language in CMC is difficult because of no standardized writing
system and the words are quite complicated and incomprehensible when it being
abbreviated. In connection to this, respondents were asked ISLQ #55 ‘do you find
texting and Facebook chatting in Maguindanaon useful?

Figure 45 below shows that 44 out of 75 (59%) expressed that texting and Facebook
chatting in Maguindanaon language is useful for Maguindanaon speakers, while 10
out 75 (13%) stated that texting and Facebook is sometimes useful. The reasons the
speakers revealed that using Maguindanaon in CMC is sometimes useful because the
language is hard to abbreviate, and if abbreviated it is difficult to comprehend the
context of the message. More so, 1 out of 75 (1%), stated that Maguindanaon
language use CMC domains is not so useful, while 20 out of 75 (27%) did not
respond to the question.

124
 Yes/No

50
59%
45
40
35
30
Mag L1

25
27%
20
15
13%
10
5 1%
0
Yes Sometimes Not so No Response
Yes/No

Figure 45 Maguindanaon Language Usefulness in CMC

There are motivations and attitudes to continue using the language in its given
function, but there also downsides or limitations of not using it to the said function.
When respondents were asked ISLQ #57 ‘twenty years from now, do you think there
will still be Maguindanaon speakers using Maguindanaon language in texting and
Facebook chatting? 66 out of 75 (88%) Maguindanaon speakers are optimistic that
Maguindanaon speakers will still be using Maguindanaon language in CMC domains
for various reasons. The probe question ‘How do you feel about it?’, majority of the
respondents stated that they are happy and proud of Maguindanaon language as
their identity, and that language will still exist and alive in 20 years from now so
that their children can still use the language. In addition, some Maguindanaon
expressed that the language will still be used, but very minimal because of existence
of more prestige language. One respondent even quoted;

‘Yes, but a little percentage. I am sad because there is no ideal or

proper study that will conserve the Maguindanaon language. People
nowadays, specifically Maguindanaon use other languages due to the
booming economy, and in order to reach that, they have to be
multilingual.’

Another speaker stated that;

‘Yes, I wish Maguindanaon people will keep the language. But the
MLE in which Maguindanaon becomes part of educational language
and hoping other tribes will learn to speak Maguindanaon language.’

125
Furthermore, 9 out 75 (12%) Maguindanaon expressed that Maguindanaon will be
no longer be used in CMC domains in 20 years from now, and that make them feel
sad. But the reasons why these speakers answered ‘No’ are due to the existence of
Tagalog and English languages in which Maguindanaon people can use. More so, the
respondent stated it this way;

‘No, because I think there are so many Maguindanaon people that

can speak Tagalog and English languages’.

Other speakers said that they are sad and hurt if ever Maguindanaon language will
no longer be used 20 years from now.

‘I feel hurt, because they forgot their own language, and who we
are.’

The motivation to use the Maguindanaon language in CMC will be more sustainable
if Maguindanaon speakers are able to read and write regardless of writing system
they are currently adopting. In order to determine the Maguindanaon speakers
motivation on texting and Facebook IMs, the respondents were asked ISLQ #63 ‘do
you think it make any difference to text and chatting if Maguindanaon language is
standardized?’, and ISLQ #64 ‘would you be interested in taking literacy class to
standardized Maguindanaon language writing?’. The responses to that questions are
discuss below.

Figure 46 below indicates that 16 out of 19 (84%) younger Maguindanaon speakers

are optimistic that Maguindanaon language should be standardized compared to the
3 out of 19 (16%) Maguindanaon speakers who do not see any difference of texting
and Facebook chatting even the Maguindanaon language is not standardized.
Additionally, both middle age (90%) and older (93%) speakers think that
Maguindanaon language should be standardized compared to the middle age (10%)
and older (7%) speakers see no difference in texting and Facebook chatting even
Maguindanaon language is standardized.

126
 Yes No/Not Sure

40 90%
35
30
25
Mag L1

20 84%
93%
15
10
16% 10%
5 7%
0
15-18 19-24 25+
Age Group

Figure 46 Maguindanaon Speakers Interest in Writing Standardization

Given this result shown in Figure 46 above, Maguindanaon speakers are optimistic
that texting and Facebook chatting be easier if the language writing system has been
standardized.

In connection to Maguindanaon language writing standardization, Figure 47 below

shows that 16 out of 19 (84%) of younger speakers are willing to take literacy class
in Maguindanaon language writing standardization, while 1 out of 19 (5%) said he
does not need and 2 out 19 (11%) is undecided. The 36 out of 41 (88%) middle age
speakers are also motivated to attend literacy class in Maguindanaon language
writing standardization, if there is such, while 4 out of 41 (10%) expressed no
intention, and 1 out 41 (2%) is undecided. All older speakers expressed willingness
to attend Maguindanaon language literacy in writing standardization.

127
 Yes No Undecided

40
88%
35

30

25
Mag L1

20
84% 100%
15

10
10%
5 11%
5% 2% 0 0
0
15-18 19-24 25+
Age Group

Figure 47 Maguindanaon Speakers' Interest in Literacy Class

Based on these findings, the research tool went on to gather data on the perceived
advantages of L1 literacy. The respondents were asked ISLQ #59a-b ‘is there any
advantages of being able to read and write in Maguindanaon language, if No, why not?

Figure 48 below shows how the Maguindanaon perceive their language when
speakers are able to read and write. Majority of the Maguindanaon speakers, 65 out
of 75 (87%), perceived that there several advantages to motivate Maguindanaon
speakers when they are able to read and write using their own writing system. Of
the 65 speakers who answered ‘Yes’, 17 out of 65 (26%) answered that if there will
be a standardized Maguindanaon language writing system, it is easy to understand
or comprehend in Maguindanaon in CMC domain.

128
 Yes No No Response Yes
26%
70 87% 18
16
60 14 18%
17%
12

Mag L1
50 10
8 9%
6 6%
5% 5% 5% 5% 4%
Mag L1

40 4
2
30 0

20
11%
10
2%
0
Yes No No
Response
Advantages
Advantages

Figure 48 Maguindanaon Advantages on Standardized Writing System

Thus, to assess Maguindanaon language using the Motivation scale, Maguindanaon

language is at M2 as most of the reached Maguindanaon speakers perceived the
importance of having Maguindanaon language writing system for the benefits of
understandability, fluency, and ease of use. This positive attitude does not, however,
correlate with the primary use Maguindanaon language use in CMC, but it does
mean that the vast majority have positive stance on the use of their L1 in this
domain. The M2 scale describes as ‘some members of the speech community perceive the
benefits of reading and writing in this language, but the majority of them still do not’, and
equivalent to EGIDS Level 5 (Developing).

6.3.4.4 Environment
In Chapter 3, it has been overviewed the Maguindanaon ethnolinguistic ecology or
the language ecology in which Maguindanaon speech communities are situated.
Maguindanaon language communities are scattered in every province in Mindanao.
Some speech communities are considered dominant, others are non-dominant.
Maguindanao province has dominant speakers of Maguindanaon language, while
North Cotabato has both dominant and non dominant Maguindanaon speech
communities.

The presence of other regional languages such as Maranao, Iloko, Cebuano,

Hiligaynon, Tausug, Tiduray, Manobo, Bagobo, B‘laan, Chavacano, and Iranun
influences how the Maguindanaon speakers communicate. These regional languages

129
are also used in the implemetation of MTB-MLE program. The exposure of
Maguindanaon speakers and the diversity of language in language ecology enabled
the Maguindanaon speakers to become bilingual or multilingual. Maguindanaon
speakers learned and acquired languages such as Tagalog, English, and Arabic both
in formal education. Formal education is in either government or private schools.
More so, Maguindanaon speakers are also attending formal education in religious-
related environment.

The language can also be acquired and learned through language and culture
contact. Language and culture contact predominantly occur in school and
community affair activities. Before the implementation of MTB-MLE, some schools
imposed ‘Tagalog and English only’ policy in which students were not allowed to
converse using their mother tongue in a school setting, otherwise sanctioned or
penalized either monetary or labor. But this policy has been abolished because of
the government policy by using vernacular languages in addition to Tagalog and
English as medium for instructions.

As far as MTB-MLE program is concerned, there is no actual number or percentage

of schools which are implementing Maguindanaon language apart from the notion
that it is being implemented in the dominant Maguindanaon communities of
Maguindanaon, Sultan Kudarat, and North Cotabato provinces. Written educational
materials which are translated to Maguindanaon language and other vernacular
languages are now gradually introduced by the implementing school institutions in
the Philippines.

The multicultural and multilingual environment of Maguindanaon speakers allowed

them to be very adaptable to other languages, and become multilingual. Based on
the researcher’s observation and interaction to Maguindanaon speakers,
Maguindanaon speaker can speak and understand three or four languages namely
Cebuano, Tagalog, English, and Arabic.

As for CMC, Maguindanaon speakers are adaptable to the technological

advancement. To some extent, Maguindanaon language use in texting and Facebook
instant messaging may be influenced by the existence of acquired languages and
their literacy. More so, Maguindanaon speakers’ environment changes, and so as the
technology, and possibly the way the language is being used.

In addition, texting and Facebook instant messaging are considered informal

functions of Maguindanaon language. This makes texting and Facebook instant

130
messaging easy to use in various functions by all generations. There is no inhibition
and explicit provision of not using the language in CMC functions. Maguindanaon
speakers create micro-environments (Lewis & Simons, 2015) in social networking by
forming Maguindanaon speakers’ page groups to discuss current events, religious
matters, and social issues.

Figure 49 below is an example of how Maguindanaon speakers’ use the language in

micro-environments in the virtual speech community. This caricature from
Maguindanaon Network, a Maguindanaon speaker Facebook page, used English,
Maguindanaon, and Arabic languages (translated into Roman orthography)
languages. The bubbled conversations were all in Maguindanaon language.

Figure 49 Maguindanaon Speakers Facebook Page

In general, to rate the Maguindanaon language using the Environment scale, it is

closest to E1 which describes as ‘the external policy environment calls for the cultivation
of this language and cultural identity and the policy-making bodies are putting this into
practice by sanctioning an official orthography and using their institutions to transmit
literacy in this language’. Although there is no official Maguindanaon orthography,
the government is investing in MLE program, thus, the language is moving towards
EGIDS level 4 (Educational).

131
6.3.4.5 Differentiation
As discussed in Chapter 3 and in the previous FAMED conditions, Maguindanaon
language is surrounded by many other regional, national, and foreign languages, but
Maguindanaon speakers are adaptable to these languages. Maguindanaon speakers
are considered bilingual and multilingual because of their ability to acquire other
dialects or languages whether in formal or informal language acquisition.

Language and culture contact can be associated to migration or speakers movement

from one place to the other. The ISLQ #19 ‘have you ever lived anywhere else for more
than a year? were asked to the respondents. This question will assess if the
Maguindanaon speakers experienced language contact outside of their community
for a longer period of time.

The Figure 50 below shows the result for this question. The 56 out of 75 (75%)
answered ‘No’, and only 19 out of 75 (25%) that they lived outside of their
community for more than a year. The younger generation (younger to middle age)
speakers’ movement is primarily connected to their educational environment, and
they are college students. Thus, the academic institution may very far out from the
place where they grew up, and therefore living in another town closer to the
university is only the remaining option. The movement of older speakers, 4 out 11
(36%) is directly linked to intermarriages, and occupational environment. Working
abroad, 2 out 12 (17%) from the middle age group revealed that they lived and
worked in the Middle East for more than a year. These two female speakers, age 22,
and acquired Arabic and Egyptian languages in foreign countries. So far, these
female speakers are pursuing their degree in college.

Language contact may happen within Maguindanaon speech community on a daily

basis or in the public places such as the markets, transportation terminals, health
institutions, academic institutions, social gatherings, and even with external or
foreign visitors.

132
 Yes No

35
71%
30

25

20
Mag L1

84%
15 29% 64%
10

16% 36%
5

0
15-18 19-24 25+
Age Group

Figure 50 Have you ever lived anywhere else for more than a year?

Likewise, when respondents were asked ISLQ #22 ‘what language did you speak first?,
all the respondents answered ‘Maguindanaon language’, and when they asked ISLQ
#23 ‘can you speak other languages, (If yes, what languages)?, and all responded ‘Yes’,
therefore, 75 out of 75 (100%), respectively confirmed that Maguindanaon language
is their first language and they can speak other languages. And, the other languages
in which the respondents can speak are the national language (Tagalog), the official
language (English), foreign languages (Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, Egyptian, and
Korean), and regional languages (Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Iloko, Tausug, Maranao, and
Iranun). The ability of the respondents in these languages varies and is based on
geographical location.

Furthermore, the ability to speak two or more languages does not mean someone
can be considered bilingual or multilingual, unless a certain speaker has good
command of both verbal and written repertoire of that language(s). Thus, to
measure this the respondents were asked ISLQ #24 ‘of all the languages you speak,
which language do you speak best, second best, and third best? This question can probe
whether Maguindanaon speaker has ability to use acquired languages in addition to
his or her first language.

Based on the Figure 51 shown below, there are total of 65 out 75 (87%) respondents
considered Maguindanaon language is their best language, 10 out of 75 (13%)
which considered Tagalog is their best language. Of the 65 Maguindanaon speakers
reported that Maguindanaon is their best language, 47 out 65 (72%) said that

133
Tagalog is the second best language and English is the third best. There 10 out of 65
(15%) who said that Maguindanaon is their best language, followed by Tagalog, and
then Cebuano. The rest of speakers revealed Maguindanaon language is their best
language have their self-reported second and third best languages. Meanwhile, of the
10 Maguindanaon speakers who stated that Tagalog is their best language, 6 out of
10 (60%) said that Maguindanaon is their second best and English is their third best
languages, and the rest are mixture of other languages in which Tagalog is their
best.

More so, this Figure 55 confirmed our ideas that Maguindanaon speakers are truly
multilingual regardless of what languages they could possibly acquire and speak.
Maguindanaon, Tagalog, Cebuano, and English languages are the most learned and
acquired languages by Maguindanaon speakers. The language acquisition is directly
proportional to the educational environment of the Maguindanaon speakers, and to
their ethnographic environment.

Total

50 72%
45
40
35
30
Mag L1

25
20
15 16%
10 60%
5 3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% [VALUE]0%
[VALUE]0%
[VALUE]0%
[VALUE]0%
0
MagArabicEng

TagCebMag
MagTagHil

MagTagMar

TagMagHil
MagTagEng

MagCebEng

TagMagEng
MagTagCeb

MagArabEng

MagEngBahasa

MagEngIlok

TagMagCeb
TagIloMag

Mag Best Language (65) Tag Best Language (10)

Spoken Language

Figure 51 Maguindanaon Speakers' Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Given this high level of multilingualism, respondents were asked ‘what language(s)
do you normally use Maguindanaon when texting and Facebook chatting? The answers
to these questions are presented in the Figure 52 below. Based on this figure, there is
not a single Maguindanaon speaker that uses 100% of Maguindanaon in texting, but
there is one speaker who reported using 100% Maguindanaon when chatting. The

134
use of Tagalog language is very dominant in both texting and Facebook domains,
55% and 47%, respectively, and code-mixing is also very common. Both CMC
domains registered higher percentages of Maguindanaon and Tagalog code mixing,
as well as the Maguindanaon, Tagalog, and English code mixing.

Texting Facebook

45 55%
40 47%
35
Mag L1 (n=75)

30
25
20 20%
15 16% 15%
13% 12%
10
5%
5 [VALUE].3% 3%
[VALUE].3% [VALUE].3%
1.3% 3% [VALUE].3% 4%
1.3%
0

Language Use in CMC

Figure 52 Maguindanaon Speakers' Language use in CMC

Due to widespread multilingualism, Maguindanaon speakers in a virtual speech

community (Lillehaugen, 2016) chooses when to use or not to use Maguindanaon
language when chatting to other Maguindanaon speakers in CMC.

The data seem to indicates that Maguindanaon speakers are able to use a variety of
languages in any given situation and topic. But there are some topics in which
Maguindanaon speakers avoid to use the Maguindanaon language and choose to use
other language(s). For instance, the respondents were asked ISLQs #38 and #50
‘given you both Maguindanaon speakers, what particular topic do you normally use
Maguindanaon in texting (38a) and Facebook IMs (50a), and what particular topic you
do not use Maguindanaon language in texting (38b) and Facebook IMs (50b)?

Figure 53 below shows that speakers of Maguindanaon do not use the language for
swearing and for profane words when texting to other Maguindanaon speakers.
Topics relating to family has a greater percentage of speakers who use
Maguindanaon language in both CMC domains, see Figure 54 below. When it comes
to school, the texting domain has a greater percentage of Maguindanaon speakers
who used Maguindanaon language compared to the Facebook IMs domain.

135
 Using Mag
Texting Facebook IMs

30

25

20
Mag L1

15

10

Topics

Figure 53 Maguindanaon Speakers' Topics in CMC Using Maguindanaon

There are topics in which only Maguindanaon language is being used, and not being
discussed in other languages. Maguindanaon speakers are not discussing religious
and financial matters in CMC domains in other languages, thus, it is exclusively for
Maguindanaon language. Interestingly, these two topics are directly connected to
familial relationship in which Maguindanaon language use is highly important.
Therefore, family matters in CMC functions are only reserved and discussed using
Maguindanaon language.

Without Using Mag

Texting Facebook IMs

20
18
16
14
Mag L1

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Topics

Figure 54 Maguindanaon Topics without Using Maguindanaon in CMC

136
To assess the Maguindanaon language in using the Differentiation scale tool, we
should take into consideration each domain. Firstly, the MTB-MLE policy, although
Maguindanaon language is used in the classroom as a language for instruction, the
Tagalog and English are still around and used by teachers. Secondly, in Islamic
school (e.g. Madrasah), the Maguindanaon is used to translate Arabic language so
that students who do not understand Arabic are capable of understanding the
subject matter. Lastly, in CMC (texting and Facebook IMs), Maguindanaon is use
together with Tagalog and English and even Cebuano. Maguindanaon speakers
learned to use texting through the transference of Tagalog and English literacy
which they learned in school domain. The diversity of language in the school
domain is the principal cause of the large amount of code-switching found in CMC
by Maguindanaon respondents and their interlocutors. This is considered leaky
diglossia. Therefore, given these diglossic domains, the Maguindanaon language
using Differentiation scale will be at D2 which describes as ‘members of the speech
community have a set of shared norms as to when to use this language orally versus when
to use other languages, but for writing some use this language while others use another
language for many of the same Function’. The D2 scale is equivalent to EGIDS level 5
(Developing).

6.4 Summary of Maguindanaon Language Vitality

In general, based on the FAMED Conditions and EGIDS assessments below,
Maguindanaon vitality is more accurately positioned at EGIDS level 5 (Developing).

Table 29 below shows the summary of findings using the FAMED Conditions
interpretation table. The majority of the conditions are on EGIDS level 5, therefore,
higher assessment is not appropriate. Taking the lower EGIDS level able to create
and formulate more realistic community-based language development program by
the speakers of that the speech community, and in this case, by the Maguindanaon
speakers.

137
Table 29 Summary of findings of FAMED Conditions

EGIDS Level F A M E D Youngest L1 users

4 (Educational F1 A1 M1 E1 D1 Y1
5 (Developing) F2 A2 M2 E2,E3 D2 Y1
6a (Vigorous) F3 A3 M3 E3,E4 D3 Y1
6b (Threatened) F4 A4 M4 E4 D4 Y1
7 (Shifting) F4 A5 M5 E5 D5 Y2
8a (Moribund) F4 A5 M5 E5 D5 Y3
8b (Nearly extinct) F5 A5 M5 E5 D5 Y4
9 (Dormant) F5 A5 M5 E5 D5,D6 Y5
10 (Extinct) F6,F7 A6 M6 E5 D7 Y6

In conclusion, the above discussions help us to clarify the place of CMC in

Maguindanaon vitality. As discussed previously, CMC has added new functions
whose unique characteristics are the ‘private’ and ‘delayed’, and these functions
strengthen the EGIDS level 5 by providing more domains for literacy, in particular,
more domains for ‘low’ literacy. When the facts are viewed in this light, they call for
an EGIDS reading that indicates a stronger ‘type’ of level 5. To show this extra
vitality, I propose the EGIDS level 5+. This is where Maguindanaon language is
today.

How long it will stay at this level is another issue. The age factor shows that older
speakers are using their L1 in texting in a higher percentage of the time compared to
younger speakers. The sustainability of Maguindanaon in CMC thus seems
vulnerable. However, the family relationship remains the stronghold of
Maguindanaon language in CMC. The only way for Maguindanaon in CMC to be
sustainable in the future is for the users to establish the kinship domain as a ‘sacred
space’ for using Maguindanaon in CMC, and for the younger generations to continue
to value the use of Maguindanaon language within familial relationship.

138
 Chapter 7
Non-Standard Practices in CMC

7.1 Introduction
Peersman, Daelemans, Vandekerckhove, Vandekerckhove, Vaerenbergh, (2016)
stated the concept of non-standard linguistic variation based on age, gender, and
region in online social networks, and she quoted the definition of Trotta (2011) as
follows;

“In linguistics, non-standard language usage is defined as any language

usage that differs from the (un)officially recognized prestige language
variant as it is used primarily in written language and formal speech
situations.” (Trotta, 2011).

Given this definition above, the texting and Facebook instant messaging as
component of CMC vary in age, gender, education or social class, and even in social
affiliations in Maguindanaon language. These sociolinguistic factors have great
implications on how the speakers of Maguindanaon convey messages to other
speakers of Maguindanaon and to speakers of other languages. Also, the way the
Maguindanaon speakers’ practice the non-standard linguistic features in
Maguindanaon language.

This Chapter will examine and answer Research Question 4 ‘what evidence is there of
shared norms among Maguindanaon CMC practitioners for written forms that differ from
the corresponding forms of Maguindanaon in speech and writing? In addition, the
organization of this Chapter is as follows;

The code-switching and mixing is presented in the section 7.2, while shortening and
deletion will be discussed in subsection 7.3. The non-standard spelling is presented
in Section 7.4. The use of paralinguistic features will be examined in subsection 7.5.
And lastly, Section 7.6 summarized the findings in non-standard practices of
Maguindanaon speakers in CMC.

139
7.2 Code-Switching and Mixing
Maguindanaon speech communities are multicultural and multilingual, and that
leads to Maguindanaon speakers to become bilingual and multilingual.

The code-switching and mixing takes place when two or three languages (learned
and acquired) are used in the same speech and written discourse. This sociolinguistic
phenomena is the product of second language acquisition that is obtained either
from formal and informal education or language contact.

We might take into consideration the distinctions between code-switching and

mixing and lexical borrowing, and why we switch and mix languages in the variety
of conversation. On one hand, code-switching is the practice of using two alternative
languages (Weinreich, 1953) in the conversations – either speech or writing. On the
other hand, lexical borrowing (also called loanword) is the addition of foreign word
(donor language) which has no equivalent in recipient language in conversations –
either speech or writing.

Thus the respondents were asked ISLQ #35 ‘do you ever mix languages in the text and
Facebook instant messages (if Yes, what languages; if No, why not)?’. All of the
respondents answered ‘Yes’ to this question, thus, code-switching and mixing is
dominant in CMC functions. In connection to the spoken languages (see
Differentiation condition) of Maguindanaon speakers, the switching of
Maguindanaon, Tagalog, and English are very common. This also implies the three
best spoken languages by Maguindanaon speakers.

Each language used in code-switching is represented by following. Maguindanaon

(bold), Tagalog (italic), English (underlined), and Arabic (double underlined).

7.2.1 Inter-Sentential Code-Switching

To investigate inter-sentential code-switching in Maguindanaon language, we will
based it on the definition below,

‘Inter-sentential (or inter-sentential) codes-witching refers to a type

of code-switching to which alternation in a single discourse between
two (or more) languages, where the switching occurs after a sentence
in the first language has been completed and the next sentence starts
with a new language’ (Appel & Muysken, 1987:118).

140
The following are examples of intra-sentential code-switching by Maguindanaon
speakers in texting.
(4) Example
ID: 10
Contents:
2016-02-13 19:52:15 Received
(,oke) bun, kiman kan? kain tayo. (Translation: I am Ok, did you eat?
{You} come and we will eat.)
2016-02-13 19:53:36 Sent
,cge! sukran pakasebod ka,,, (Translation: Ok thank you, (you eat) be
healthy)
Daming pagkain,,,,(Translation: Too much foods)

In example (1), this is a conversation between female cousins talking about family
gathering. Maguindanaon and Tagalog languages were used in this texting
conversations. In example (2) below showing the conversation between the male
teacher and his female student. The teacher used an English sentence to relay notice
to his student, and the student replied in Maguindanaon language. Later on, the
teacher responded in Maguindanaon language.

(5) Example
ID: 16
Contents:
2016-01-28 13:58:06 Received
Bai Samraida, pls do not include (1,500) in the expenses the slot of
Datucali bcoz he will not acompany, only 5 pax from SLC. shukran: cc LSG
Gov. (Translation: Bai Samraid, please do include (1,500) in the expenses
the slot of Datucali because he will not accompany, only 5 participants
from SLC. Thank you. Cc LSG Governor)
2016-01-28 14:03:59 Sent
Uwai sir (Translation: Yes, sir)
2016-01-28 14:06:38 Received
Nor, daka umpan muli ka enduka pakaasis sa kapangiluto sa
pegken na pamebpractice anya, adn lakaw ako sa Davao taman sa
Akad. Shukran (Translation: Nor, please stay so that you can help in the
food preparation of the people that are practicing, I need to go to Davao
until Sunday)

141
In example (3) is the conversation between a father and his daughter talking about
important document. In this case, the diploma and certificate are considered to be
lexical borrowing since there is no word to word equivalent in Maguindanaon.
(6) Example
ID: 17
Contents:
2016-01-13 16:46:39 Sent
Papa. Pwede pa ba magkuha ulit ng diploma sa mahad kahit nakakuha na?
May nagpapatanong lang (Translation: Papa. Can anyone able to get
another copy of diploma even they’d already had one before? Someone is
asking)
2016-01-13 18:25:12 Received
De Den, (Translation: Cannot)
2016-01-13 18:26:43 Sent
Paano kung nasunog? Si Kaka Aldrich man i pabagidsa (Translation:
What if it was burnt? Aldrich is asking for it)
2016-01-13 18:31:40 Sent
Certification na nasunog? Awn. Basi mambo nambamatan nengka bon
kinasunog sa campo. Kena mataga intu certificate haha. (Translation:
Certification was burnt? Alright. I am sure you were aware how the
camp was burnt. It is not just certificate [laugh]).

We can also observe the convergence of language use in the text above. The
daughter initiated the conversation in Tagalog, then the father responded in
Maguindanaon. The daughter responded, but eventually switched to Maguindanaon
to accommodate her father’s language use. This type of switch is driven by what
Giles (1973) refers to as ‘accommodation’, a component of his speech
accommodation theory. The basic idea is that speakers will either make their speech
more similar or less similar to their interlocutors depending on their desire to
identify with the other speaker. In this case, the daughter identifies with her father
by switching to L1. The collected data shows this happening most in the texting
between family members. This that, the closer the relationship is, the more the L1
will be used.

142
7.2.2 Intra-Sentential Code-Switching
Another type of code-switching found in Maguindanaon text communications is the
intra-sentential. The intra-sentential code-switching will be anchored based on the
given definition below;
“Intra-sentential code-switching refers to a type of code-switching
in which the alternation in a single discourse between two
languages, where the switching occurs within a sentence.” (Appel &
Muysken 1987:118).

(7) Example
ID: 21
Contents:
2016-02-05 18:56:02 Received
Ah ok bai, Alhamdulillah. (Translation: Ah ok dear, Allah’s
will)
2016-02-05 18:56:15 Sent
sukran ate ingat kabo san (Translation: Thank you, take care
yourself)
2016-02-05 18:56:59 Received
Uway bai, shukran dn. (Translation: Yes dear, thank you also)

The conversation in example (7) above is between sisters. Maguindanaon, Tagalog,

and Arabic (translated in Roman alphabet) were used. Example (8) shows the inter-
sentential code-switching of Maguindanaon using four different languages. The
‘airport’ is considered a lexical borrowing from English language as no word
equivalent in Maguindanaon. Example (8) used four different languages in which
English is inserted in Maguindanaon sentences. The ah, eh, and a are treated as
conversational fillers of Maguindanaon language.

(8) Example
ID: 13
Contents:
2016-01-22 14:37:33 Sent
Salam tho yabesen pembalegkasen na muslim dress ah maputi na
abpeg tendong nin yabo kon pelambong na so babai ah pagalaw sa
bisita anto lusa airport. (Translation: [Peace] Tho, everyone should wear
white Muslim dress including head cover, the long gown are only for the
women who are picking-up the visitors at the airport.)

143
(9) Example
ID: 4
Contents:
2016-02-16 21:35:18 Received
Low, manisan minuli kawn? (Translation: Hello, are you at
home my dear?)
2016-02-16 21:42:37 Sent
Uai. Ngenan da load a nkauma san? (Translation: Yes. Is
there any prepaid credit arrived there?)
2016-02-16 22:00:34 Received
Aden nag empty bo e phone a. (Translation: There is, but my
phone is empty [filler]).
2016-02-16 22:01:03 Sent
Aw ok (Translation: Ah, ok)

7.2.3 Intra-word and Tag Code-Switching

Intra-word and tag code-switching in Maguindanaon text messaging are very rare,
although there are cases of code-switching and mixing. Intra-word code-switching
occurs within a word itself, while tag code-switching is inserting either a tag phrase
or word in a sentence. The intra-word in Maguindanaon language is in the form of
affixations.

In example (10) below, the prefix pa- for paexpir ‘going to expire’ and prefix pen-
together with suffix –n pen-drama-n ‘making up false story’ are attached to English
language ‘expire’ and ‘drama’. This morphological process such as affixation is very
productive in Maguindanaon. Maguindanaon language free and bound morpheme
when is attached usually attached to foreign words.

(10) Example
ID: 16
Contents:
2016-02-23 16:21:26 Sent
benal man babo !!! extend a pana mambow (Translation: It is true,
Aunt!!! Can you extend my connection)
2016-02-23 16:22:28 Received
.pti gni aku paexpir dn aku (Translation: My credit is expiring, too)

144
 2016-02-23 20:35:04 Sent
pendraman ku gud babo na buntis aku tox un kunwari glit aku.
(Translation: I am only making silly story like I pretend I am pregnant and
mad):
(11) Example
ID: 8
Contents:
2016-02-15 07:16:46 Sent
Dhai jn n si sir? (Translation: Friend, is there sir arrived?)
2016-02-15 07:17:30 Received
,wala pa ,, (Translation: Not yet)
2016-02-15 07:18:32 Sent
Awn cge tx klng f jn n h ky d2 p ako multicab (Translation: Ok! Text me if
he already as I am still in the multicab)
2016-02-15 07:19:46 Received
,ok , ,, (Translation: Ok)
2016-02-15 07:20:06 Sent
Cge sukran (Translation: Ok, thanks)

The ‘awn’ /aon/ can be interpreted as interjection ‘Ok’ or tag phrase ‘really’.

7.3 Non-Formal Spelling

The non-standard spelling is either done unconsciously or deliberately (Crystal,
2008) by Maguindanaon speakers in CMCs. Some Maguindanaon words have no
standard spelling and every speaker can spell the words in their own ways.
Additionally, Maguindanaon language has no standardized writing system, however,
the Filipino orthography which is based on Roman alphabet is used by
Maguindanaon speakers. Ways of using Maguindanaon for formal functions are
gradually being developed, and so a standard spelling will soon become a norm for
the younger generation of Maguindanaon who are involve in MLE programs. But for
this research, the spelling in texting will be compared to the spelling convention
found in following; text corpora, glossary of Maguindanaon, MLE instructional
material. These references all use what will be considered in this study as formal
form.

145
In connection to this, the respondents were asked ISLQ #39 ‘do you use abbreviation
in Maguindanaon texting if Yes (examples), if No (why not)? ISLQ #51 ‘do you use
abbreviation in Facebook chatting in Maguindanaon, if No (why not)?

There are 52 out 75 (69%) that answered ‘Yes’ they used abbreviation in texting,
and 23 out 75 (31%) answered ‘No’ because of its difficulty to abbreviate,
incomprehensible, and easy to express thoughts in other languages. In Facebook
instant messaging, there are 40 out 75 (53%) said they are abbreviating
Maguindanaon words in chatting, while 30 out of 75 (40%) answered ‘No’ for the
same reason as texting. The 5 out 75 (7%) has no Facebook account.

Vowel deletion and letter replacements are very common forms of non-standard
linguistic features in texting by Maguindanaon speakers. Table 30 below shows some
of these phenomena.

Table 30 Non-Formal Spelling in CMC

Formal form Non-formal form

b Replaced by ‘v’
g Replaced by ‘q’
k Replaced by ‘q’
o Replaced by ‘0’
s Replaced by ‘x’, and ‘z’
si Replaced by ‘c’

Some examples of these non-standard linguistic features are shown below.

(12) Example (13) Example

ID: 80 2015-03-06 21:37:40 Received
Content E DUWAL NNGKAV0 XIA.
2015-03-06 21:24:33 Received Formal form: E DUWAL
PYDA NAPAXAD NNGKA? NENGKA BO SIYA
Formal form: PIDA, NAPASAD (Translation: Handed it over
NENGKA? [object])
(Translation: Paida, have you 2015-03-06 21:35:58 Received
done it?) D2 AK0 NAGA TNGN NG T.V
2015-03-06 21:39:31 Received Formal Form: DITO AKO NAGA
XUKRAN. TINGIN NG T.V
Formal form: SUKRAN (Translation: I am here and just
(Translation: Thank you) watching T.V)

146
Vowel deletion is another way of non-standard linguistic features practiced by
Maguindanaon speakers in texting. The table below shows some common truncated
words, their meanings, and processes underwent in texting. The vowel deletions
happened in the initial, middle and in the final position. In this language, vowel
deletion is the most dominant type of non-standard spelling. The consonants were
rarely deleted because it makes the word incomprehensible, however, one consonant
is deleted in the case of double consonants in a word.

Based on the self-reported data, Table 31 below shows some of the truncated words
by Maguindanaon speakers in texting.

Table 31 Truncated Maguindanaon Words in CMC

Processes Texting form Formal Form Meaning

nduken enduken Why?
Initial
ndaw ka endaw ka? Where are you?
mpia mapia Good
slm salam Peace
Vowel Middle pmbatya pembatya Reading
Deletion mpia bun mapia bun I am fine
mpia mgbi mapia magabi Good evening
txt k seka text ko seka I will text you
Final plo ako s pdian pelo ako sa I am going to
padian market
wslam wassalam Peace be upon you
Vowel/Consonant
aslmo alykom assalamo Peace be upon you
Deletions
alaykom
Vowel/Consonant ddn dala den/dili den Nothing/no more
Deletions; Merging
Vowel Deletion; dka pdxa dika pedsiya Are you not coming?
Consonant xa k s wlay siya ka sa walay Come to the (house)
Replacement xa ka siya ka Come here
pd2g kan pedtulog kan Are you sleeping?
Vowel Deletion;
txt k namay2x text ka namay- Text me later
logogram
may

147
7.3 Paralinguistic Features
Tannen’s (1983) second hypothesis about spoken and written discourses was focused
on cohesion, and she hypothesized that cohesion in spoken discourse accomplished
through paralinguistic and prosodic cues, whereas in written it is accomplished
through lexicalization. Paralinguistic communication is a form of nonverbal
communication. In the context of spoken language, it is shown through gestures,
facial expressions, and proxemics or body language. A University of Pennsylvania
(n.d) study reported that 70% of human communication transmitted non-verbally
and through body language.

Interestingly, paralinguistic feature is being carried out through written form mostly
in computer mediated communication such as e-mails, instant messaging, Facebook,
Viber, WhatsApp, texting, and other forms of electronically-assisted
communications. The use of emotion icons (emoticons), graphic interchange format
(GIF), and hashtags are very common in CMC. These types of paralinguistic features
in CMC are informative but not always communicative. Some of these symbols are
universally used regardless of their identity, race, ethnicity, and nationality.

There are necessary strokes or combination of keys to be keyed-in on mobile phone’s

keypad and computer’s keyboard to expressed emotion through icons and images.
Some of the universally used emotion icons in both texting and Facebook are the
following;

:) or :-) ‘happy’ :( or :-( ‘sad’ ;-) ‘wink’

:’( ‘cry’ O:) ‘angel’ :* ‘kiss’
<3 ‘heart’ (y) ‘thumb up’ :D ‘grin’
:-@ ‘screaming’ (*o*) ‘surprised’ (^_^) ‘cute’

In addition, the most common types of paralinguistic or extra-linguistic features in

Maguindanaon in texting are described as logograms and pictograms. Logogram or
logograph on the one hand is the use of single letters, numerals, and typographic
symbols to represent words, parts of words, or even associate with noises and
actions. On the other hand, pictograms or pictographs are visual shapes, or pictures
which are used to represent objects or concepts (e.g. emotion icons). (Crystal, 2008:
38). Table 32 below shows the paralinguistic features in CMC domains.

148
Table 32 Paralinguistic Features in CMC

Formal form Non-formal form Emotion Icons

-wan Replaced by ‘1’ 😊😊 ‘smile’
to Replaced by ‘2’ 😭 ‘sad’
-fore, for Replaced by ‘4’ 😢😢 ‘crying’
-it Replaced by ‘8’ 😃😃 ‘laughing’
-teen Replaced by ‘10’

The following examples 14-16 show the use of logograms and pictograms in
Maguindanaon text messages.
(14) Example
ID: 23
Contents:
2016-01-14 11:13:38 Sent
Arbaya punta kau d2 can10...
Formal form: Arbaya punta kayo dito sa canteen… (Translation: Arbaya
go to the canteen [eatery])
2016-01-14 11:14:01 Received
Bk8?
Formal form: Bakit? (Translation: Why?
2016-01-14 11:15:16 Received
hndi na paka2log ged c radz anya,
Formal form: Hindi na pakatulog gaid c Radz anya. (Translation: No at
the moment, Radz feel sleepy)
(15) Example
ID: 22
Contents:
2016-02-12 14:10:32 Sent
bullao monday koo nlng ibgy tung jelly2x mo aa😊😊 (Translation: Dear, I
will give your jelly-jelly on Monday [filler] [smiling faces])
2016-02-12 14:21:04 Sent
embungan kumpan😃😃 (Translation: I will get the most out of it
[laughings])
2016-02-12 14:26:41 Received
kalidu gnawa ko bulao b, kalugod ko ged si ama..😭 (Translation: I
am sad my dear, I am missing my father so much [crying face])

149
(16) Example
ID: 13
Contents:
2016-02-15 08:01:39 Sent
salam mam midtataguna den kun c wamir😢😢 (Translation: Peace be
with you mam, Wamir had already passed away [sad faces])

7.4 Summary of Non-Standard Practices in CMC

Maguindanaon, Tagalog, and English are the most used languages in code-switching
by Maguindanaon speakers. This is because at home speakers learned how to speak
Maguindanaon, and then acquire both Tagalog and English languages at school as
languages of instruction. The most common type of code-switching for
Maguindanaon speakers’ in CMC is the intra-sentential. Inter-sentential is also found
to be productive in Maguindanaon speakers’ text communication. However, the
intra-word and tag code-switching are very uncommon for Maguindanaon speakers.

The texting phenomenon in Maguindanaon must be understood as a usage that is

not in contrast to a standardized form because a standardized form of writing has
not yet been accepted by the majority. It is simply an informal way of using the
language in CMC, filling the need for a ‘low’ variety of literacy. Vowel deletion is the
most common way to shorten the words in Maguindanaon language in texting. The
non-formal spellings will not only save time, money and effort, but also speed up the
communication in texting. This informal treatment of spelling is permitted by the
fact that texting is a non-formal function of language.

The paralinguistic features in the past were primarily associated to spoken language
to express nonverbal communications such as gestures, body language, and facial
expressions, and to mark prosodic cues. But at present, the paralinguistic features
are now also used in texting. Emotion icons are the widely used paralinguistic
features by Maguindanaon in texting. Smileys and other facial expressions were
found dominant.

It is worth to note that the access of Maguindanaon speakers in CMC is fostered by

their literacy skills. Obviously, knowledge of L1 literacy is a necessary component
for its use in CMC. Although Maguindanaon is now taught through MLE programs in
the majority of the Maguindanao primary schools, this program only began in 2009
and there was no widespread literacy in the language prior to that. This means that
formal literacy in L1 was not available to the respondents of this study who were

150
already beyond primary school at the time. Thus any Maguindanaon speaker that is
over 15 years of age now can only be using Maguindanaon in CMC by way of
‘transference’ from Tagalog or English, in other words, taking the skill of literacy
formally taught in an L2 and applying it informally to his L1. This shows that texting
in Maguindanaon is a grass roots literacy movement, one being developed by the
users in creative ways through the use of code-switching, non-formal spelling and
paralinguistic devices, and driven by the felt need to communicate via texting.

Finally, this function of language needs to be appreciated as a type of literacy in its

own right. It is one that fills a specialized niche for a ‘low’ variety of writing that
shows solidarity between intimates and family members. No other language fills this
unique function. Thus this ‘low’ Maguindanaon writing form may continue to thrive
with or without a corresponding ‘high’ Maguindanaon variety, since most of the
‘high’ functions for literacy in the Maguindanaon world are capably handled by
Tagalog and English.

151
 Chapter 8
Conclusions

8.1 Introduction
The Maguindanaon language use patterns in CMC in the Mindanao, Philippines
uncovered both the previous and present language use of Maguindanaon speakers’ in
texting and Facebook instant messaging. This study identified the sociolinguistic
factors which are both useful and detrimental to the language use patterns of
younger and older generations in computer mediated communications.

The succeeding sections discuss the summary, conclusion, and recommendation of

the research. And this can be drawn from Chapters 5 to 7 that answered the research
questions which are the following;

1. What are the language use patterns Maguindanaon of students in CMC?

2. In what ways do the language use patterns of Maguindanaon students
compare to those of older people in CMC?
3. How is the vitality of Maguindanaon affected by CMC?
4. What evidence is there of shared norms among Maguindanaon CMC
practitioners for written forms that differ from the corresponding forms of
Maguindanaon in speech and writing?
Based on the objectives above, the following hypotheses will either be supported or
rejected.
1. Maguindanaon language use in CMC by the younger generation is substantial
particularly in the texting and Facebook instant messaging domains.
2. Older people use CMC less compared to younger people, in general, but they
use Maguindanaon language more than the younger ones in CMC.
3. Language vitality of Maguindanaon is being strengthened because of CMC.
4. Common abbreviations and simplifications of word forms and grammatical
structures are evident in Maguindanaon used in CMC.

8.2 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 1)

Based on the results, the research concluded that the younger speakers were using
lower percentages of their L1 when texting someone within their age group and to

152
other age groups. However, the middle age speakers are slightly different, as these
speakers used higher percentages of their L1 when texting to older speakers, but
lower when texting to younger speakers. Older speakers demonstrated the higher
percentages of Maguindanaon language use in general.

Also, it was found that the language use patterns in CMC was influenced by
geography, gender, relationships, education, age, and topic factors. Out of these
sociolinguistic factors, the age and relationship have the greatest influence. We
claim that the use is substantial enough to affect the sustainable use and vitality of
Maguindanaon in CMC. The familial relationship seems to be the steadiest domain
when it comes to sustainability because it is intergenerational, and this can be
considered as a ‘sacred space’ in CMC for Maguindanaon.

These results concluded that Maguindanaon language use patterns in CMC by the
younger generation’ are not as substantial as was initially predicted, particularly in
the texting and Facebook instant messaging domains. Thus there is some evidence to
support this first hypothesis, but it is not overwhelming.

8.3 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 2)

In the past 3-4 years, younger generations were using the language in a higher
percentages, but at present time and based on the data gathered, these percentages
of Maguindanaon language use in CMC is decreasing. Whereas the percentage of
Maguindanaon language is found in about half of the texting between members of
the younger generation, the Maguindanaon language use in CMC is still substantially
higher in older generation than in younger generation.

Age and gender are the factors that greatly influence the percentage of
Maguindanaon use. In Facebook, younger age group used higher percentage of L1
when chatting to older, while older age group used lower percentage of L1 when
chatting to younger age groups.

In conclusion, the sustainability of Maguindanaon language use in CMC will greatly

depend on the younger generation speakers. In texting domain, the older speakers
are greatly using Maguindanaon language, but the sustainability is still questionable
since the older speakers were being outnumbered by younger generation speakers.
In Facebook, the older generation speakers are not as active users as the younger
generation speakers. Therefore, when it comes to sustainability of language use by

153
Maguindanaon speakers’ in Facebook domain, it can be concluded that
Maguindanaon will continue to diminish in the foreseeable future.

The results supported the second hypothesis that ‘older people use CMC less
compared to younger people, in general, but they use Maguindanaon language more
than the younger ones in CMC.’

8.4 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 3)

By using the FAMED conditions framework, it was assessed that Maguindanaon
language is positioned at EGIDS level 5 (Developing). However, the CMC function
and MLE policy indicated a stronger type of EGIDS level 5. Texting is viewed as a
‘low’ function of literacy because it has its unique characteristics, ‘private’ and
‘delayed’. These characteristics strengthen the EGIDS level 5 by providing domains
for literacy and opening a new way of transmitting bodies of knowledge and other
life-crucial identities of the language. Thus texting can be viewed as a ‘low’ function
of literacy that is mainly associated to the identified ‘sacred space’. Therefore, the
call for an EGIDS reading that indicates a stronger type of level 5 is needed.

Based on these findings, texting and Facebook IMs adds a new function for
Maguindanaon literacy that it did not have before. As such, the third hypothesis is
supported, that ‘language vitality of Maguindanaon is being strengthened because of
CMC.’ To show this stronger type of level 5, this study proposes the EGIDS level
‘5+’, as this is where Maguindanaon language is today.

8.5 Summary of findings and conclusion (Research Question 4)

The results shows that the most common type of code-switching is the intra-
sentential code-switching followed by the inter-sentential, and then the intra-word
and tag code-switching. The code-switching and mixing is a by-product of language
contact and literacy advancement. The Filipino and English languages are acquired
and learned both in school and home, while Cebuano and other regional languages
are learned through language contact. The study found that Maguindanaon, Tagalog,
and English are the most used languages in code-switching.

The truncation processes such as abbreviations and deletions are also found very
common in Maguindanaon communication CMC. The vowel deletions were seem to
be the most dominant. Deletion of vowels were done in initial, medial, and final

154
positions. Consonant deletion is very rare in Maguindanaon texting as it makes the
words incomprehensible.

The non-standard spellings and logograms were found dominant in Maguindanaon

speakers’ communication through CMC. The letter and numerals were used either
unconsciously or deliberately to save time, effort, and money. The used of
pictograms or pictographs replaced the word by virtual facial expressions and body
language was also practiced. The use of numerals as replacements for letters were
also exercised in CMC by Maguindanaon speakers.

The results validated the fourth hypothesis that ‘common abbreviations and
simplifications of word forms and grammatical structures are evident in
Maguindanaon used in CMC.’

8.6 Recommendations for further study

Based on the conclusions above, the following can be drawn as recommendations
and for further study.
1. Intradisciplinary study
a. The massive data gathered can be used to analyze the grammatical
and structures of Maguindanaon language;
b. The data gathered can be used to study conversational analyses and
discourse analyses.
2. The CMC functions
a. This paper is proposing for a reading that indicates a stronger level of
EGIDS level of 5, possibly EGIDS ‘5+’.
b. The study only focuses on texting and Facebook instant messaging,
thus, it will be recommended to study other forms of CMC such as
Viber, WhatsApp, E-mail, Skype, and other social network sites.
c. There should be equal representation of age groups and genders to
deeply and accurately compare the language use patterns of
Maguindanaon in CMC.
3. The multilingual education program
a. This study recommends to conduct further study on the contribution
and sustainability of MLE in the context of language development.

155
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward
Arnold.

Aquino, B. III. (2014). Fifth State of the Nation Address. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.ph/2014/07/28/benigno-s-aquino-iii-fifth-state-of-the-
nation-address-july-28-2014/.

Bieswanger, M. (2008). 2 abbrevi8 or not 2 abbrevi8: A contrastive analysis of different

shortening strategies in English and German text messages.

Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language. London: Allen and Unwin

Carli, L. (1990). Gender, Language, and Influence: Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59 (5), 941-951. American Psychological Association, Inc.

Castaneda, E. (2007). Texting Shaping Today’s Language: Lawrence Journal World and
News.

Coates, J. (2007). Gender. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. & Stockwell, P. (Ed.). The
Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London and New York. Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group.

Crystal, D. (2004). Language and Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford University Press. New York, USA.

Cunliffe, D., & Honeycutt, C. (2010). The Use of Welsh Language on Facebook: An
initial investigation. Information, Communication & Society, 13 (2), 227-248.
doi: 10.1080/13691180902914628. Retrieved August 12, 2016

Dawe, C.J. (2014). Language Governmentality in Philippines Education Policy.

Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 29 (1), 61-77. Retrieved from
https://www.gse.upenn.edu/wpel/sites/gse.upenn.edu.wpel/files/Dawe(29)1.pdf .

156
Department of Education. (2013). Additional Guidelines to DepEd Order No. 16 s.
2012 (Guidelines on the Implementation of the Mother Tongue Based-
Multilingual Eduation, MTB-MLE). http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-
28-s-2013

Department of Education. (2009). Institutionalizing Mother Tongue Based-

Multilingual Education (MLE). http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-74-s-
2009

de Loarca, M. (1903). Captain Loarca’s Account of the Filipinos and their Pre-Spanish
Civilization (1952). In Zaide & Zaide’s (Ed.). Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, 3, (pp. 276-288).

de Plasencia, J. (1903). Plasencia’s Code on the Ancient Customs of the Tagalogs

(1589). In Zaide & Zaide’s (Ed.). Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
3, (pp. 152-154).

Dumlao, A. (2012). Philippine Star Global. K+12 to use 12 mother tongues.

Duterte, R. (2016). First State of the Nation Address. Retrieved August 6, 2016, from
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/07/25/1606702/full-text-
dutertes-2016-state-nation-address

Eckert, P. (1998). Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable. In Florian Coulmas (Ed.). The

Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 105-115). Blackwell Publishing.
10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998.00011.x

Erikson, E. H. (1993). Childhood and Society (Reissue edition). New York: W. W.

Norton & Company.

Farena, F., & Lyddy, F. (2011). The Language of Text Messaging: “Linguistic Ruin” of
Resource?, The Irish Psychologist, 37 (6), 145-149.

Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Word 15 (2),
325-340. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/. doi:
10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702

Fishman, J. (1967). Bilingualism with and without Diglossia; Diglossia with and
without Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23 (2), 29-37.

Fishman, J. (1965). Who Speaks Language to Whom and When. The Analysis of
Multilingual Settings. La Linguistique, 1 (2), 67-85.

157
Foucault, M. (1991). The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. In Graham
Burchell (Ed.). Colin Gordon & Peter Miller, USA: The University of Chicago
Press.

Frey, W. (1945). Amish ‘Triple-Talk’. American Speech, 20 (2), 85-98. Duke University
Press.

Gal, S. (1988). The Political Economy of Code Choice. In Monica Heller (Ed.). De
Gruyter Muoton.

Gibson, T.W., Mulac, A., Widenmann, S.J., & Wiemann, J.M. (1988). Male/female
language differences in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked
language effect. Communication Monographs Journal, 55 (4), 315-335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376175

Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland N. (1991). Context of Accommodation:

Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Grimes, B. (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, Texas. SIL International.

Gumperz, J.J. (1962). Types of Linguistic Communities. Anthropological Linguistics.

Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Language. In the ‘The ecology of language essays by
Einar Haugen. Stanford University Press.

Herring, S. (1996). Computer-Mediated Discourse. In Tannen D, Schiffrin D., &

Hamilton, H (Ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hinrichs, L. (2006). Code-Switching on the Web. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John

Benjamin Publishing Company.

Jacinto, J. (1892): Gramatica de lengua Maguindanao. Manila Impr. "Amigos del pais"

Johnson, C.F. (2003). An Introduction to Powerful and Powerless Talk in the

Classroom. Communication Education. EBSCO Publishing

Joos, M. (1972). The Five Clocks. A Linguistic Excursion Into the Five Styles of English
Usage. New York. Harcourt.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

158
Labucay, I.D. (2011). Internet Use in the Philippines. Social Weather Stations.
Philippines.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman’s Place. Cambridge University Press.

Lapus, J. (2009). Use Mother Tongue to Improve Learning. Multilingual Philippines.

Retrieved from https://mlephil.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/use-mother-
tongue-to-improve-learning-lapus/

Lewis, M.P., Simons, G.F., & Fenning, C.D. (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the World,
Nineteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.

Lewis, M.P, & Simons, G.F. (2015). Sustaining Language Use: Perspectives on Community-
Based Language Development. SIL International.

Lewis, M.P., & Simons, G.F. (2010). The Sustainable Use Model for Language
Development. Thailand. Payap University.

Lewis, M.P., & Simons, G.F. (2009). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS.
Dallas, Texas: SIL International.

Lillehaugen, D. (2016). Why write in a language that almost no one can read? Twitter
and the development of written literature. Language Documentation &
Conservation, 10, 356-393. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24702

Lyddy, F., Farena, F., Hanney, J., Farrell, L., & O’neill, N.K. (2013). An Analysis of
Language in University Students’ Text Messages. A Journal on Computer
Mediated Communication, 19, 546-561. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12045

Macapagal-Arroyo, G. (2009). President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo State of the Nation

Address. Retrieved from http://www.mukamo.com/gloria-macapagal-
arroyo-sona-2009.pdf

Manlove, R.F. (1990). The Social Inequality in Urban Philippines. Philippine Studies:
Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints. Ateneo de Manila University.

Mazman, G., & Usluel, K. (2011). Gender Differences in Using Social Networks.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (2), 133-
139.

159
McFarland, C.D. (1981). Linguistic Atlas of the Philippines. Manila: Linguistic Society of
the Philippines.

Mindanao Trust Fund. (2016). Supporting Social and Economic Recovery in conflict-
communities in the Mindanao, Southern Philippines.

Mora, A. (2014). Language Ecology. Key Concept in International Dialogue. Center for
Intercultural Dialogue.

Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology. Language Change and Linguistic

Imperialism in the Pacific Region. London and New York: Routledge.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1998). Code-Switching. In Florian Coulmas (Ed.). The Handbook of

Sociolinguistics (pp. 149-160). Blackwell Publishing. doi:
10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998.00015.x

Nahhas, R.W. (2007b). The Steps of Language Survey: An Outline Practical Methods. SIL
MSEAG Survey Team.

Omar, H., Embi, M.A., & Yunus, M.M. (2012). Learner’s Use of Communication
Strategies in an Online Discussion via Facebook. Selangor, Malaysia: Elsevier
Ltd.

Peersman, C., Daelemans, W., Vandekerckhove, R., Vandekerckhove, B., &

Vaerenbergh. L.V. (2016). The Effects of Age, Gender and Region on Non-
standard Linguistic Variation in Online Social Networks. CLiPS, Department of
Linguistics, University of Antwerp. Belgium.

Pertierra, R. (2005). Mobile Phones, Identity, and Discursive Intimacy. An

Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1 (1), 23-44. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.2005124

Philippine Statistic Authority. (2015). Population of Region XII: SOCKSSARGEN (Based

on the 2015 Census of Population). https://psa.gov.ph/content/population-
region-xii-soccsksargen-based-2015-census-population

Philippines & Panrehiyong Sentro sa Wikang Filipino. (2006). Diksyunaryong: English-

Maguindanaon-Filipino. Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. Panrehiyong Sentrosa
Wikang Filipino. Manila, Philippines.

Philippines mobile internet trends. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/OnDevice/philippines-mobile-internet-trends

160
Philippine Web Design. (2011). Map of Mindanao. The Ethnic Groups of the Philippines.
http://www.ethnicgroupsphilippines.com/philippines-profile/map/map-of-
mindanao/

Roman, A.G. (2006). Texting God: SMS and Religion in the Philippines. Communicatio
Socialis, 39 (2), 156-166.

Scannell, K. (2012). Translating Facebook into Endangered Languages. Retrieved from

https://borel.slu.edu/pub/fel12.pdf

Schiffmann, H. (1998). Diglossia as Sociolinguistic Situation. In Florian Coulmas (Ed.).

The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 141-148). Blackwell Publishing.
Blackwell Publishing. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998.00014.x

Skoropinski, X. (2013). An Exploration of the Responses of Stakeholders to a Mother

Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) Programme Being
Implemented in Pilot Schools in Mindanao, Philippines. SIL International.

Sorensen, A.P. (1971). Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American

Anthropologist Journal, 69 (6), 670–684. In Pride and Holmes.

Sullivan, R.E. (1986). A Maguindanaon Dictionary: Maguindanaon-English, English

Maguindanaon. Notre Dame University, Institute of Cotabato Cultures.
Cotabato City, Philippines.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (8th
Ed.). William Morrow & Co.

Tannen, D. (1983). Oral and Literate Strategies in Oral and Written Discourse. In
Richard W. Bailey & Robin Melanie Fosheim (Ed.). Literacy for life: The
demand for reading and writing. New York. The Modern Language
Association.

Thomson, R., & Muracher, T. (2001). Predicting Gender from Electronic Discourse.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (2), 193-208.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication: Social
Interaction and the Internet. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Text? The Sociolinguistics of Young People’s Text

Messaging. Discourse Analysis Online. Retrieved from
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-01.html

161
Trotta, J. (2011). Time, Tense and Aspect in Nonstandard English: An Overview.
Studia Interdisciplinaria, Linguistica et Litteraria. Institutionen för språk och
litteraturer, 139-158. Göteborg, Sweden

Uy-Tioco, C.S. (2013). Texting capital: mobile phones, social transformation, and the
Reproduction of power in the Philippines. An MA Thesis. George Mason
University.

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (5th Ed.). Victoria, Australia:

Blackwell Publishing.

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Wodak, R., & Benke, G. (1998). Gender as a Sociolinguistic Variable: New Perspective
on Variation Studies. In Florian Coulmas (Ed.). The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics (pp. 88-104). Blackwell Publishing. doi:
10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998.00010.x

162
 APPENDIX A
Individual Sociolinguistic Questionnaire

 If you have to explain the question, make sure you do NOT suggest an
answer. Note in your notebook (near the answer) that you had to explain the
question.
 Shaded items are NOT to be read aloud.
 Items in parentheses ( ) give information about when or how to ask a question.
Items in brackets
[ ] require a choice depending on whatever is appropriate.
 Write exactly what the subject answers.

Informed Consent

I am Manap B. Mangulamas. I am taking my MA in Linguistics at Payap University

in Chiang Mai. I am writing my MA thesis entitled “Maguindanaon language usage in
computer mediated communication in Mindanao, Philippines.” In lieu to this, I want
to collect text messages and Facebook instant messages data from the high school and
university students, as well as from the older Maguindanaon speakers. I will gather
text messages from your personal phone and Facebook instant messaging. The
information to be shared will be treated with utmost privacy and only for academic
purposes. The questions to be asked are not difficult; they are questions about yourself
and your language. You do not need to be afraid. You can answer according to what
you think. If there is a question that you do not feel comfortable answering, that is
OK, you do not have to answer. It will take about 30-45 minutes, but if something
comes up, do not feel like you have to stay. The data you provide will help us all
understand better how, we, Maguindanaon people actually use the various languages
we speak, and it will help guide any future language development work for the
Maguindanaon language.

Is this something you could help me with?

INFORMED CONSENT: Given: □ Not Given: □

NOTE: If they say no, number this questionnaire and go on to the next subject. It is
important to keep this “rejected” questionnaire in the numbering so we know how
much non-response there was.

163
I. Socio-Demographic Information

Question Answer
1. Questionnaire Number
2. Survey
3. Interview Location
4. Interviewer’s Name
5. Date
6. Language of Elicitation
7. Language of Response
8. Interpreter Name (if needed)
9. Comments
10. What is your name?
11. Gender
12. How old are you?
13. Are you married already or not yet?
14. (if married) How many children do you have?
15. What is your religion?
16. What is (was) your work?
17. Up to what level of education did you complete?
a. If elementary, what
grade?
b. If high school, what
level?
c. If college, what
Education
course?
d. If vocational, what
field?
e. Name of
school/university?
18. Where were you born?
(village, sub-district, district, province)
19. Have you lived anywhere else for more than a
year? Where? When? How long did you live
there?
20. So you grew up here, right?
(modify wording if necessary)
21. (Don’t ask if it is obvious) Where do you live
now?
SCREENING CRITERIA #1: YES □ NO □
Grew up here, Live here now, and, If they have lived elsewhere, it is not a significant amount of
recent time.
22. What language did you speak first?
23. Can you speak any other languages?
a. (if yes) What languages
24. Of all the languages you speak, which language
do you speak best?
a. … second best?
b. … third best?
SCREENING CRITERIA #2: Speaks MAG either first OR best. YES □ NO □
25. Where was your father born?
a. What [people group/tribe/clan] is your father
from?
b. What language did your father first speak as
a child?

164
 c. What language did your father usually speak
to you when you were a child?
26. Where was your mother born?
a. What [people group/tribe/clan] is your
mother from?
b. What language did your mother first speak
as a child?
c. What language did your mother usually
speak to you when you were a child?
27. When you were a child, what language did your
parents speak to each other?
28. (if married) Now I’m going to ask you some
questions about your spouse. Where was your
[husband/wife] born?
a. What people group is your [husband/wife]
from?
b. What language did your [husband/wife]
speak first as a child?
29. What languages do you speak…
a. with your parents?
b. with your grandparents?
c. with your siblings?
d. with non-MAG friends?
e. with MAG co-workers?
f. with non-MAG co-workers?
g. With a government worker?
h. at the market with MAG people?
i. at the market with non-MAG people?
j. at a funeral?
k. at the wedding
l. at a village meeting?
m. (if have children) with your children?
n. (if old and have children) with your
grandchildren / nieces / nephews?
o. So, in your house, what language do you use the
most?
p. What languages do you speak with MAG
friends?
q. At present, what language do you speak with
MAG classmates at school?
r. …with non-MAG classmates at school?
s. …with your teacher?

II. Mobile Phone Texting or SMS

Question Answer
30. In average, how many text messages you sent per
day?
31. What language(s) do you normally use when
texting?
32. Do you prefer to text in MAG or in other
languages?
(if yes) a. What percentage of your

165
 Question Answer
total text messaging is in
MAG?
(if not) b. Why?
33. What languages do you use when texting with
your…
a. Father
b. Mother
c. Sister
d. brother
e. relatives (cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, etc)
f. classmate
g. friend
h. teacher
i. co-worker
j. boss or superior
k. boyfriend
l. girlfriend
m. stalker or stranger
34. If you text in MAG, about how many people do
you use MAG with in texting?
a. Father
b. mother
c. sister
d. brother
e. relatives (cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, etc)
f. classmate
g. friend
h. teacher
i. co-worker
j. boss or superior
k. boyfriend
l. girlfriend
m. stalker or stranger
35. Do you ever mix languages in the same text
message?
(if yes) a. What languages?
(if no) b. Why?
36. Aside from MAG, what language(s) do you
normally use when texting?
37. When you text with your fellow MAG, what
language do you normally use?
38. Given you both MAG speakers…
a. What particular topic do you normally use MAG
in texting
b. What particular topic you do not use MAG in
texting?
39. Do you use abbreviation in MAG texting?
a. Do you find it useful?
(if yes) b. List five (5) MAG
words you abbreviated

166
 Question Answer
most in texting
(if no) a. Why?
40. Do you use emotion icons (emoticons) when
texting in MAG?
a. Do you find it useful?
(if not)
b. Why?

III. Facebook Instant Messaging

Question Answer
41. In average, how many FB instant messages you sent
per day?
42. What language(s) do you normally use when
chatting on FB?
43. Do you use MAG when posting something on your
FB wall?
(if not) a. Why?
44. Do you prefer to use MAG in FB chatting or in
other languages?
(if not) a. Why?
45. What languages do you use when chatting with
your…
a. Father
b. mother
c. sister
d. brother
e. relatives (cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, etc)
f. classmate
g. friend
h. teacher
i. co-worker
j. boss or superior
k. boyfriend
l. girlfriend
m. stalker or stranger
46. If you chat in MAG, about how many people do
you use MAG when chatting?
a. Father
b. mother
c. sister
d. brother
e. relatives (cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, etc)
f. classmate
g. friend
h. teacher
i. co-worker
j. boss or superior
k. boyfriend
l. girlfriend

167
 Question Answer
m. stalker or stranger
47. In a particular chatting messages, approximately
how many percent of MAG do you use?
a. What percentage of your total FB messaging is
in MAG?
48. Aside from MAG, what language(s) do you
normally use when chatting on FB?
49. When you chat with your fellow MAG, what
language do you normally use?
50. Given you both MAG speakers…
a. What particular topic do you normally use MAG
when chatting on FB?
b. What particular topic you do not use MAG in
chatting?
51. Do you use abbreviation in FB chatting in MAG?
a. Do you find it useful?
(if not)
b. Why?
52. Do you use emotion icons (emoticons) when
chatting on FB in MAG?
a. Do you find it useful?
(if not)
b. Why?

IV. Language Vitality

Question Answer
53. Do you think it is appropriate for the young and
older MAG speakers to use MAG in texting and FB
chatting?
(if not) a. Why?
54. As MAG speaker, will you continue using MAG in
texting and FB chatting?
55. Do you find texting and FB chatting in MAG
useful?
a. Why don’t they text in
MAG?
(if not)
b. Why don’t they chat in
MAG
56. How many of your family and friends do you think
are using MAG in texting or FB?
(if not) a. Why?
57. Twenty years from now, do you think there will still
be MAG speakers using MAG in texting and FB
chatting?
a. How do you feel about
(if not) that?
b. Why?

168
V. Literacy

Question Answer
58. Have you ever read or written MAG outside of
texting and FB messaging?
a. What kinds of things do
you read in MAG?
(if literate in MAG) b. What kinds of things do
you write in MAG?
c. How did you learn to read
and write in MAG?
59. Do you see any advantage in being able to read and
write MAG?
(if yes) a. What advantage(s)
60. If you use MAG for texting or chatting on FB but
have never had a class to learn how to read and write
MAG, how did you learn to do it for texting?
61. Was it hard to learn to use MAG in texting or FB
without a class?
if yes a. Why?
if not b. Why not?
62. If you use MAG in texting and FB, is the spelling
that you and your friends use always the same?
a. Do different spellings ever
make a message hard to
(if not) understand?
b. How often does that
happen?
63. Do you think it would make any difference to the
text and FB users if the MAG spelling was
standardized?
64. If you already text or FB in MAG, but have never
had a MAG literacy class, would you be interested
in taking a literacy class to standardize MAG
writing?
65. Is texting and FB chatting in MAG useful for
younger and older literacy skills of MAG speakers?
(if yes) a. How?
(if no) a. Why?

169
 APPENDIX B
Language Ecology Questions:

1. What is the classification in relation to other languages?

2. Who are the users? This is a question of linguistic demography, locating
its users with respect to locale, class, religion or any other relevant
grouping;
3. What are the domains of use? This is the question of sociolinguistics,
discovering whether its use is unrestricted or limited in specific ways;
4. What concurrent languages are employed by its users? We may call this a
problem of dialinguistics, to identify the degree of bilingualism present
and the degree of overlap among the languages;
5. What internal varieties does the language show? This is the task of a
dialectology that will recognize not only regional, but also social and
contractual dialects;
6. What is the nature of its written traditions? This is the province of
philology, the study of written texts and their relationship to speech;
7. To what degree has its written form been standardized, i.e. unified and
codified? This is the province of prescriptive linguistics, the traditional
grammarians and lexicographers.
8. What kind of institutional support has it won, either in government,
education, or private organizations, either no regulate its form or
propagate? We may call this study glottopolitics;
9. What are the attitudes of its users towards the language, in terms of
intimacy and status, leading to personal identification? We may call this
the field of ethnolinguistics;
10. Finally, we may wish to sum up its status in a typology of ecological
classification, which will tell us something about where the language
stands and where it is going in comparison with the other languages of
the world.
(Haugen, 1972: 336)

170
Variables and questions to distinguish diglossic situation (Schiffman, 1998)

1. Function - The functional differentiation of discrepant varieties in a

diglossia is fundamental, thus distinguishing it from bilingualism. H
and L are used for different purposes, and native speakers of the
community would find it odd (even ludicrous, outrageous) if
anyone used H in an L domain, or L in an H domain.
2. Prestige - In most diglossias examined, H was more highly valued
(had greater prestige) than was L. The H variety is that of “great”
literature, canonical religious texts, ancient poetry, of public
speaking, pomp and circumstance. The L variety is felt to be less
worthy, corrupt, “broken,” vulgar, undignified, etc.
3. Literary heritage - In most diglossic languages, the literature is all in
H variety; no written uses of L exist, except for “dialect” poetry,
advertising, or “low” restricted genres. In most diglossic languages,
the H variety is thought to be the language; the existence of L
variety is sometimes denied or it is claimed to be spoken only by
lesser mortals (servants, women, and children). In some traditions
(e.g., Shakespeare's plays), L variety would be used to show certain
characters as rustic, comical, uneducated, etc.
4. Acquisition - L variety is the variety learned first; it is the mother
tongue, the language of the home. H variety is acquired through
schooling. Where linguists would therefore insist that the L variety
is primary, native scholars see only the H variety as the language.
5. Standardization - H is strictly standardized; grammars, dictionaries,
canonical texts, etc. exist for it, written by native grammarians. L is
rarely standardized in the traditional sense, or if grammars exist,
they are written by outsiders.
6. Stability - Diglossias are generally stable, persisting for centuries or
even millennia. Occasionally L varieties gain domains and displace
the H variety, but H only displaces L if H is the mother tongue of an
elite, usually in a neighboring polity.
7. Grammar - The grammars of H are more complex than the
grammars of the L variety. They have more complex tense systems,
gender systems, agreement, and syntax than the L variety.
8. Lexicon - Lexicon is often somewhat shared, but generally there is
differentiation; H has vocabulary that L lacks, and vice versa.

171
9. Phonology - Two kinds of systems are discerned. One is where H and
L share the same phonological elements, but H may have more
complicated morphophonemics. Or H is a special subset of the L-
variety inventory. (But speakers often fail to keep the two systems
separate.) A second type is one where H has contrasts that L lacks.
10. Difference between diglossia and standard with dialects - In diglossia,
no one speaks the H variety as a mother tongue, only the L variety.
In the standard with dialects situation, some speakers speak H as a
mother tongue, while others speak L varieties as a mother tongue
and acquire H as a second system.
11. Distribution of diglossia in language families, space, and time -
Diglossia is not limited to any geographical area or language
family, and diglossias have existed for centuries or millennia
(Arabic, South Asia). Most diglossias involve literacy, but oral
diglossias are conceivable.
12. What engenders diglossia and under what conditions?
(a) The existence of an ancient or prestigious literature,
composed in the H variety, which the linguistic culture
wishes to preserve as such.
(b) Literacy is usually a condition, but is usually restricted to a
small elite. When conditions require universal literacy in H,
pedagogical problems ensure.
(c) Diglossias do not spring up overnight; they take time to
develop.

172
 The FAMED Conditions Description

The Function scale is used to assess the degree to which the desired uses for the
local language are available. (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 167)

Corresponding to
Level Description
EGIDS
Adequate literature exists in this language for
FI every Function for which writing in this language 4 (Educational)
is desired.
Enough literature exists in this language for some
F2 Functions to exemplify the value of literacy in 5 (Developing)
this language.
The language is being used orally for the
F3 Functions of day-to-day life, but there is no 6a (Vigorous)
written use of the language.
Some members of the community use the
6b (Threatened) to
F4 language orally for the Functions of day-to-day
8a (Moribund)
life, but an increasing number no longer do so.
There is enough oral use of this language to
8b (Nearly Extinct)
F5 represent the identity of the group, but not
and 9 (Dormant)
enough for full communication.
The language is no longer used but there are
F6 enough archival materials that some Functions 10 (Extinct)
could be restored in the future.
The language is no longer used and there is little
F7 10 (Extinct)
or no documentation.

173
The Acquisition scale is used to assess the degree to which the skills needed for use
of the local language are being acquired. (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 170)

Corresponding to
Level Description
EGIDS
Literacy in this language is being taught by
A1 trained teachers under the auspices of a 4 (Educational)
sustainable institution.
There are adequate materials in this language to
support literacy instruction in the language and
A2 some members of the community are successfully 5 (Developing)
learning to read and write about some bodies of
knowledge in the language.
There is full face-to-face transmission of this
language to all children in the home and
A3 6a (Vigorous)
community; literacy acquisition, if any, is in
another language.
Only some of the child-bearing generation are
A4 transmitting the language by normal means to 6b (Threatened)
their children.
The only transmission of the language is for
7 (Shifting) to
A5 identificational use (often in institutional settings
9 (Dormant)
rather than the home).
A6 There is no transmission of this language. 10 (Extinct)

174
The Motivation scale is used to assess the degree to which members of the speech
community are motivated to use the local language. (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 175-76)

Highest EGIDS
Level Description
Potential
Members of the speech community perceive the
M1 4 (Educational)
benefits of reading and writing in this language.
Some members of the speech community perceive
M2 the benefits of reading and writing in this 5 (Developing)
language, but the majority of them still do not.
Members of the speech community perceive the
benefits of using this language for face-to-face
M3 6a (Vigorous)
communication, but they perceive no benefits in
reading and writing it.
Some members of the child-bearing generation
perceive the benefits of using this language for
M4 6b (Threatened)
face-to-face communication, but others find more
benefit in shifting to another language.
The child-bearing generation perceives no
7 (Shifting) to
M5 practical benefit in using this language, though
9 (Dormant)
they still perceive symbolic benefit.
Descendants of the language community associate
M6 neither practical nor symbolic benefits with the 10 (Extinct)
language.

175
The Environment scale is used to assess the degree to which the external policy
environment supports the use of the local language. (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 178)

Corresponding to
Level Description
EGIDS
The external policy environment calls for the
cultivation of this language and cultural identity
and the policy-making bodies are putting this
E1 4 (Educational)
into practice by sanctioning an official
orthography and using their institutions to
transmit literacy in this language.
The external policy environment encourages the
development of this language, but the policy-
E2 5 (Developing)
making bodies are making no investment in the
implementation of such policy
The external policy environment has nothing to
5 (Developing),
E3 say about ethnolinguistic diversity or language
6a (Vigorous)
development and thus raises no impediment.
The external policy environment affirms the oral
6a (Vigorous),
E4 use of this language, but calls for the language to
6b (Threatened)
be left in its current state and not developed.
The external policy environment is hostile toward
7 (Shifting) to
E5 ethnolinguistic diversity and calls for the
9 (Dormant)
elimination or suppression of this language.

176
The Differentiation scale looks at the degree to which there is a complementary
distribution of those functional assignments to languages in the repertoire, and the
degree to which those norms of use are disseminated and re-enforced within the
speech community. (Lewis & Simons, 2015: 183-84)

Corresponding
Level Description
to EGIDS
Members of the language community have a set of
4
D1 shared norms as to when to use this language orally
(Educational)
and in writing versus when to use other languages.
Members of the speech community have a set of shared
norms as to when to use this language orally versus
5
D2 when to use other languages, but for writing some use
(Developing)
this language while others use another language for
many of the same Functions.
Members of this speech community have a set of
shared norms as to when to use this language orally 6a
D3
versus when to use other languages, and they never use (Vigorous)
this language in written form.
Some members of the child-bearing generation use this
language orally for Functions of day-to-day life, while 6b
D4
others use a different language for many of the same (Threatened)
Functions.
The only Functions for this language that remain for all 7
in the speech community are identificational and there (Shifting) -
D5
is a set of shared norms as to when and how they use 8
the language as a marker of their ethnic identity. (Moribund)
For some members of the speech community the only
remaining Functions for this language are 9
D6
identificational, while others use a different language (Dormant)
for many of the same Functions.
Descendants of the language community do not use this 10
D7
language for any Functions (oral or written). (Extinct)

177
 Formality Scale (Adapted from Joos, M., 1972)

Formality Style Description

Frozen It is the most formal style that usually used in respectful
situation or formal ceremony. It is also called oratorical style
which characterized by the very careful, has fixed form, and
has symbolic or historical nature.
Formal Generally, it is used in the formal events, talks about the
serious problem such as in the formal speeches and official
meeting. The characteristics of formal language are its careful
and standard speech, low tempo speech, technical vocabulary,
complex and divergence grammatical structure, use of full
name address, avoidance of main word repetition and its use of
synonyms.
Consultative It is used in some group discussion, regular conversation at
school, companies, trade speech conversation, etc. it was the
most operational among the other styles. One of the
characteristics of consultative language is its tendency of
average speed, which is higher than formal style. The sentence
tend to be shorter (resemble or indeed, phrase) and less well
planned (tend to spontaneous). Since it is spontaneous, people
tend to repeat some unnecessary words, choose the wrong word
choice or use many slang or jargon.
Casual It is often used in the conversation between friends or family. It
is usually applied in daily conversation, in relaxed time such as
when they picnic or sport, etc. It also uses colloquial words
(informal words, and usually apply in daily conversation). In
this style people often use slang language where the sentences
tend to be shortened and the disappearing word.
Intimate It is a style among intimate members of a family or friends
that do not need a complete language with clear
articulation. It is enough to use short utterances. Another
characteristic of this style is grammar unnecessarily used
here, because it can bring disorder to this intimate style.

178
 Maguindanaon Truncated Words in CMC

Truncated mag Formal forms Meaning Processes

words (underwent)
nduken enduken why? vowel deletion
/ǝn.du.kǝn/
mpia mapia good vowel deletion
/ma.pia/
ngin i btad ngka ngin i betad nengka how are you? vowel deletion
/ŋin i bǝ.tad ŋǝŋ.ka/
pgkan pegkan eating vowel deletion
/pǝɡ.kan/
pmbatya pembatya /pǝm.ba.tia/ reading vowel deletion
mpia bun mapia bun i am fine vowel deletion
/ma.pia bun/
ndaw ka endaw ka where are you? vowel deletion
/ǝn.daw ka/
slm salam peace (islam vowel deletion
/sa.lam/ greetings)
mpia mgbi mapia magabi /ma.pia. good evening vowel deletion
ma.ɡa.bi/
mpya mpta mapia mapita /ma.pia. good morning vowel deletion
ma.pi.ta/
sk b i mataw saki bo i mataw /sa.ki. i will take of this vowel deletion
bo. i ma.taw/
txt k namay2x text ka namay-may text me later vowel deletion
/tekst na.maj.may/
mnsan k gid manisan ka gaid you are pretty vowel deletion
/ma.ni.san ka ɡaid/
muli t dn muli ta den we go home vowel deletion
/mu.li ta dǝn/
mst k dn san musta ka den san how are you vowel deletion
/mus.ta ka dǝn san/ there?
txt k seka text ko seka i will text you vowel deletion
/tekst ko sǝ.ka/
kman kan? kiman kan did you eat vowel deletion
/ki.man kan/ (already)?
ngin pnggulan ngin penggulan nengka what are you vowel deletion
nngka /ŋin pǝŋ.ɡu.lan ŋǝŋ.ka/ doing?
k ok ok vowel deletion

179
 /o.k/
ingt bo ingat bo take care vowel deletion
/i.ŋat bo/
pgli ako dn paguli ako den i am going home vowel deletion
/pa. u.li a.ko dǝn/
pmsa k? pamasa ka? are you buying? vowel deletion
/pa.ma.sa ka/
plo ako s pdian pelo ako sa padian i am going to the vowel deletion
/pǝ.lo a.ko sa pa.dian/ market
wslam wassalam peace be upon vowel and consonant
/wa.sa.lam/ you, too deletion
(response
greetings)
dw k dn? endaw ka den? /ǝn.daw where are you? vowel and consonant
ka dǝn/ deletion (clipping)
aslmo alykom assalamo alaykom peace be upon vowel and consonant
/a.sa.la.mo a.laj.kom/ you (greetings) deletions
ddn dala/dili den no more/not vowel deletion,
/da.la dǝn di.li dǝn/ anymore merging
dka pdxa dika pedsiya are you not vowel deletion, siy
/di.ka pǝd.sia/ coming? replaced by ‘x’
xa k s wlay siya ka sa walay come to the/our vowel deletion siy
/sia ka sa wa.laj/ house replace by ‘x’,
xa ka siya ka come here ‘siy’ replaced by ‘x’
/sia ka/
pd2g kan pedtulog kan are you sleeping? vowel deletion,
/pǝd.tu.loɡ kan/ logogram
ngin2 nginto why logogram
/ŋin.to/
pangilu2 pangiluto /pa.ŋi.lu.to/ cooking logogram

180
 APPENDIX C
Text Examples
ID: 10
Contents:
2016-02-13 19:38:17 Sent
,salm! (Translation: Islamic greetings ‘Peace’)
2016-02-13 19:47:01 Received
alaykumisalam. (Translation: Response ‘Peace be unto you’)
2016-02-13 19:50:59 Sent
,musta (Translation: How are you?)
2016-02-13 19:52:15 Received
,oke bun, kiman kan? kain tayo. (Translation: I am Ok, did you eat? (You)
come and we will eat.)
2016-02-13 19:53:36 Sent
,cge sukran pakasebod ka,,, (Translation: Ok thank you, (you eat) be healthy)
Ga kanduli kmi ngyun,,,,,,,,(Translation: We are having family gathering now)
Daming pagkain,,,,(Translation: Too much foods)
2016-02-13 19:54:11 Sent
,,,,ga spagethe,,,,, kmi ngayun!!!!(Translation: We are preparing spaghetti
now)
2016-02-13 19:54:48 Received
ndikamun man pang invite. (Translation: You did not invite me)
2016-02-13 19:56:01 Sent
Haahaaaahaaa (Translation: [Laugh])
2016-02-13 19:57:01 Sent
,kayan akuman kc dalà pasa walay nmi na edsudikawno (Translation: I
ashamed because our house is not so nice and you may criticize it)
2016-02-13 20:08:03 Received
hah anu aku ikaw? joke, ndi nman aku ganun. miskinan kami bo a tao
(Translation: [Laught] What am I, like you?, joke, I am not like that, we are
also poor)
2016-02-13 20:09:19 Sent
Hhhaaa,,,joke boman but dont worry welcome kaman,,,jjahha (Translation:
[Laugh] it is only a joke, but don’t worry you are welcome here,,,[laugh].

181
 Kc alam monaman ang dhln dib? (Translation: I am sure you know the
reason, right?)
2016-02-13 20:13:04 Received
my welcome vah nadi pinapapunta sa hous nyo? (Translation: If I am
welcome, why you do not want me to go to your house)
2016-02-13 20:14:16 Sent
,,,,jahaahh,,,sa sunod nlang kc nd paman tapos ehhh (Translation: [Laugh],
next time because our house is not yet finished (filler))
2016-02-13 20:16:42 Received
hah mas pangit paman ang hous namin peo ndi ko nalang ikinakahiya. mas
mabuti nga para malaman nyo kung anu ako (Translation: [Laugh], our
house is not nice, but I am not embarrassed. Also, our house is the reflection
of who we are)
2016-02-13 20:18:34 Sent
,,,,sobra kànaman jan! (Translation: You are too much)
Wagmong mliitin ang buhay nyu,,,,, (Translation: Don’t belittle your family
house)
2016-02-13 20:21:34 Received
ndi ko naman minamaliit proud din aku kung anu aku ngayon, dahil alam
kung makakaahun din kami.. malimo so allaho taallah. (Translation: I am not
demeaning our house, in fact I am proud because this who we are at the
moment, because I know time will come we will have better life..In Allah’s
grace.
2016-02-13 20:55:27 Sent
,,,uay dapat tiwala kang,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yan ang gusto ko,,, (Translation: Yes,
that trust it, that is what I like (about you).

ID: 16
Contents:
2016-01-28 13:58:06 Received
Bai Samraida, pls do not include (1,500) in the expenses the slot of Datucali
bcoz he will not acompany, only 5 pax from SLC. shukran: cc LSG Gov.
(Translation: Bai Samraid, please do include (1,500) in the expenses the slot of
Datucali because he will not accompany, only 5 participants from SLC. Thank
you. Cc LSG Governor)
2016-01-28 14:03:59 Sent
Uwai sir (Translation: Yes, sir)
2016-01-28 14:06:38 Received

182
 Nor, daka umpan muli ka enduka pakaasis sa kapangiluto sa pegken na
pamebpractice anya, adn lakaw ako sa Davao taman sa Akad. Shukran
(Translation: Nor, please stay so that you can help in the food preparation of
the people that are practicing, I need to go to Davao until Sunday)
2016-01-28 16:05:41 Sent
Ano? At cnong nor? (Translation: What? Who is Nor?)
2016-01-28 16:08:37 Received
Jejeje hnd yan para sau tayan (Translation: [Laugh],that is not for you, my
dear)
2016-01-28 16:31:16 Sent
Awn (Translation: Ah ok)

ID: 7
Contents:
2016-02-23 12:34:23 Received
.ping anu pla ung..? (Translation: Ping, what is all about?)
2016-02-23 14:30:39 Sent
mis lng kita!!! (Translation: I just missed you)
2016-02-23 16:20:39 Received
.weeh.. (Translation: Ossshh)
2016-02-23 16:21:26 Sent
benal man babo !!! extend a pana mambow (Translation: It is true, Aunt!!! Can
you extend my connection)
2016-02-23 16:22:28 Received
.pti gni aku paexpir dn aku (Translation: My credit is expiring, too)
2016-02-23 16:24:40 Sent
awh hehe (Translation: Really [laugh]
2016-02-23 20:30:55 Sent
daka man magelek pangit dka man mka dapeng f na may mangyari na ganun!!
(Translation: Don’t worry, dear, you will never be assumed if something
happens like that)
2016-02-23 20:32:17 Received
.wrong sent ka yta.. (Translation: Message wrong sent..)
2016-02-23 20:33:32 Sent
hahaha c pangit kc babo!jeje (Translation: [Laugh], my dear’s fault, aunt!
[laugh])

183
2016-02-23 20:35:04 Sent
pendraman ku gud babo na buntis aku tox un kunwari glit aku (Translation: I
made a drama that I am pregnant and I am pretending I am moody)
2016-02-23 20:36:49 Received
.bkit my nangyri na vah sainyo ping by gnun ka mgsalita sknya.. (Translation:
Is something happened between the two of you and talked like that..)
2016-02-23 20:38:31 Sent
wala !!!pero nga ga drama gane aku!! (Translation: No!!! I am only making up
story!!)
2016-02-23 20:40:17 Sent
kay naga sakit kc ulo ku babo tox sabe ku kc xkanya pegkalaleng aku ! kaya
gane nd nia mtanggap na sia ang gawen kung panakip butas! Haha
(Translation: I have a headache and I told him I am ‘craving for something’!
And he could not accept that I am making him a ‘covering hole’)
2016-02-23 20:41:54 Received
.bkit my nangyri na vah sainyo ping by gnun ka mgsalita sknya.. (Translation:
Is something happened between the two of you and talked like that..)
2016-02-23 22:09:51 Sent
oa !!! dala pawn mambo !!katawan nengka bun meka anden dn planu ku !haha
godnyt babo!!! (Translation: OA [overacting], nothing happened yet!! You may
know I have plans! [laugh] good night, auntie!!!)

ID: 17
Contents:
2016-01-13 16:46:39 Sent
Papa. Pwede pa ba magkuha ulit ng diploma sa mahad kahit nakakuha na?
May nagpapatanong lang
2016-01-13 18:25:12 Received
De Den,
2016-01-13 18:26:43 Sent
Paano kung nasunog? Si Kuya Aldrich man i pabagidsa
2016-01-13 18:28:23 Received
Certification
2016-01-13 18:31:40 Sent
Certification na nasunog? Awn. Basi mambo nambamatan nengka bon
kinasunog sa campo. Kena mataga intu certificate haha

184
ID: 41
Contents:
2015-12-20 09:59:03 Received
Lila san kanu dn sa pgkalilangan? (Translation: Lila, are you are the
wedding venue?)
2015-12-20 09:59:31 Sent
Oway. Dikan pdsya? (Translation: Yes. Are you coming?)
2015-12-20 10:00:11 Received
Didn ka saguna pan limudso meting (Translation: I can’t because the
meeting just started)
2015-12-20 10:00:43 Sent
Dapen mapenu i bamagayanan man ah. (Translation: The chairs are not yet
all occupied (filler)
2015-12-20 10:01:39 Received
Kasi mga bai mga datu mga invite nilan (Translation: Because only higher
class people are invited)

ID: 23
Contents:
2016-02-11 18:39:39 Received
Ngelow. (Translation: Hello)
2016-02-11 18:41:01 Sent
musta giyera san? (Translation: How is the skirmishes there?)
2016-02-11 18:50:06 Received
Ah pakaingel bo basuka nlan ah. (Translation: Ah, their bombs only make
noises)
2016-02-11 18:50:42 Sent
as in .. na dikaw katyagka mambuh (Translation: As in.. are you not really
disturb?)
2016-02-11 18:52:55 Received
Mejo lng suled zka mguwi kau bks.? (Translation: A little bit my cousin, are
you going home tomorrow?)
2016-02-11 18:56:10 Sent
inshallah suled (Translation: In Allah’s will, my cousin)
2016-02-11 19:01:46 Received
Ai na uwy. (Translation: Oh, ok)
2016-02-11 19:13:29 Sent
seka? (Translation: You?)

185
2016-02-11 19:16:23 Received
Amayka muli c rabz suled. (Translation: Yes, if Rabz will go home, my
cousin)
2016-02-11 19:31:20 Sent
na uai suled (Translation: Ah ok, my cousin)

ID: 80
Contents
2015-03-06 21:24:33 Received
PYDA NAPAXAD NNGKA? (Translation: Paida, have you done it?)
2015-03-06 21:28:05 Sent
..dala pun nkalimutan ko na kac ung iba...:) (Translation: Not yet, I forgot the
others)
2015-03-06 21:29:03 Received
MADAMI NA ANSWERAN M0? (Translation: Have you answered most?)
2015-03-06 21:30:00 Sent
...pedo pro diko sinulat dun.... (Translation: Only a few, but I did not write it
there)
2015-03-06 21:30:16 Sent
nabasa m naung aklat? (Translation: Have you the book?)
2015-03-06 21:30:42 Received
OK ND KANA MAG ANSWER? (Translation: Ok, are you not going to answer
[the questions]?)
2015-03-06 21:31:00 Received
UO. GAMTN M0? (Translation: Yes, are you using it?)
2015-03-06 21:31:32 Sent
hnd Jan n muna sau basahin m lang ung basic topics Jan... (Translation: No,
just keep it and read only the basic topics)
2015-03-06 21:33:17 Received
MAG ANSWR KAPA? (Translation: Are you going to answer?)
2015-03-06 21:34:10 Sent
...bagatulog ako den ba...bkit bkas n exam mo???? (Translation: I feel sleepy,
is your exam by tomorrow?)
2015-03-06 21:35:57 Received
UO KUNIN Q NALANG YAN NALANG OK NA. (Translation: Yes, I will get [the
book] if everything is OK]
2015-03-06 21:35:58 Received
D2 AK0 NAGA TNGN NG T.V (Translation: I am here and just watching T.V)

186
2015-03-06 21:36:39 Sent
go ka d2 s taas.... (Translation: Come upstairs)
2015-03-06 21:37:40 Received
E DUWAL NNGKAV0 XIA. (Translation: Handed be over [object])
2015-03-06 21:39:31 Received
XUKRAN. (Translation: Thank you)
2015-03-06 21:39:56 Sent
afwan....good luck s exam (Translation: You’re welcome and good luck for the
exam)
2015-03-06 21:48:17 Received
NDAW NNGKA E NI XULAT E ANSWR PDA? (Translation: Where did you
write your answer, Paida?)

187
 RESUME
Name: Manap Balabagan Mangulamas

Date of Birth: 28 August 1981

Place of Birth: North Cotabato, Philippines

Institutions Attended: 2017, MA in Linguistics, Payap University, Thailand

2013, Bachelor of Arts in English, University of

Southern Mindanao, Philippines

2004, Bachelor of Arts in Agricultural Engineering,

University of Southern Mindanao, Philippines

188