Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Dialect Perception and Language Development in Pasil
|Title:||Dialect Perception and Language Development in Pasil|
|Authors:||Gonzales, Ryn Jean Fe|
|Contributors:||Gonzales, Ryn Jean Fe (speaker)|
|Date Issued:||03 Mar 2017|
|Description:||The Kalinga province in the Cordillera Region of the Philippines is known for its high ethnolinguistic diversity. These ethnoliguistic groups are very cohesive and have very strong sense of identity. With language development happening in different parts of the province, there was a need to revisit one of its municipalities, Pasil, to find out its language development need. In 2010 and in 2014, a sociolinguistic survey was conducted in Pasil to determine the (1) language vitality of Pinasil* , (2) extensibility of materials from Kalinga Lubuagan [knb], a related variety (Gieser and Busenitz 1974; Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2016), and (3) possibility of language development in Pasil, if Kalinga Lubuagan materials are not acceptable. This paper presents the results of the dialect perception study aspect of the language survey conducted in 8 Pasil villages, representing its seven sub-tribes. In addition, data gathered from the village of Balbalasang** in Balbalan municipality was also included in the analysis. There were several instruments used in this research but this paper will focus on the data gathered using a participatory tool called Dialect Mapping (Hasselbring 2008). This tool was used to elicit the speakers’ perception of linguistic similarity, language use, level of understanding and comprehension of the different varieties spoken in their community, and materials extensibility. The study found that the use of written Kalinga Lubuagan materials could not be extended to Pasil. Though there may be high intelligibility between the two, Lubuagan is perceived to be different so it has very low acceptability. On the question of which Pinasil variety should be used as written standard, all villages made their spoken variety as their first choice, of course. However, six out of eight villages made the Guinaang variety as one of their top choices. Further, this study affirms that the issue of identity is not only more significant in the speakers’ acceptance of materials than intelligibility, but also in the sustainability of language development efforts in general. References: Busenitz, Robert, Richard Gieser, and Dave Ohlson. 1974. “Kalinga Survey Report”. Manila, Philippines. Hasselbring, Sue. 2008. Steps for Nine Participatory Tools for Language Programs. SIL International. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, ed. 2016. Ethnologue:Languages of the World. 19th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com. * Pinasil is a toponym for the language spoken in Pasil Municipality. ** Also listed as a dialect of Kalinga Lubuagan [knb] like the varieties spoken in Pasil.|
|Appears in Collections:||
5th International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation (ICLDC)|
Please email email@example.com if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.