Cover not available

Article published In: Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 49:1 (2025) ► pp.79–111

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Revisiting the Philippine ethnolinguistic vitality

The case of Bugkalot language in a multilingual community

ORCiD logo with link | Central Luzon State UniversityNueva Ecija
ORCiD logo with link | Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
ORCiD logo with link | Department of Education-Nueva Ecija
ORCiD logo with link | Central Luzon State UniversityNueva Ecija
ORCiD logo with link | Central Luzon State UniversityNueva Ecija
Published online: 28 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.24035.vil
Abstract
Socio-political factors and pragmatism are frequently cited for language attrition and endangerment. Thus, UNESCO has drawn attention to language vitality research as it is pivotal for language planning and revitalization programs. Bugkalot is an indigenous language that strives for survival in a multilingual community. Based on UNESCO’s framework, this ethnographic study investigated the degree of vitality of the Bugkalot language. Today, the language is definitely endangered due to the disruption of intergenerational transmission. Tagalog and Ilocano now dominate the domains of language use and have begun to penetrate the homes. Likewise, Bugkalot language has dwindling social domains and is not used in school. It has no conventional orthography, insufficient documentation, and is spoken by the minority. Nonetheless, the community shows a positive attitude toward their heritage language. The findings of this study may help persuade the language community and the authorities to establish language revitalization programs.
Abstract (English)
Itinuturing na ilan sa pangunahing dahilan ng pagkawala o pagbabadyang mawala ng mga wika ay ang mga sosyo-politikal na salik at pragmatismo. Sa ganitong konteksto, binigyang-pansin ng UNESCO ang pananaliksik tungkol sa kasiglahan ng wika bilang mahalagang programa para sa pagpaplano at pagpapalakas ng mga ito. Isa ang wikang Bugkalot sa mga nanganganib na wika sa multilinggwal na komunidad. Batay sa balangkas ng UNESCO, siniyasat ng pag-aaral na ito ang antas ng estado ng kasiglahan ng wikang Bugkalot. Sa kasalukuyan, ang wikang Bugkalot ay nanganganib na mawala dahil sa kabiguang maipasa ang wika mula sa isang henerasyon patungo sa susunod, sapagkat itinuturing ang mga bata bilang mga subtractive bilinguals. Bilang mga wikang sinusuportahan ng gobyerno, ang Tagalog at Ilocano ay nangibabaw sa iba’t ibang larangan at nagagamit na ring wika sa mga tahanan. Gayundin, ang wikang Bugkalot ay may pababang bilang ng mga gamit sa lipunan at hindi ginagamit sa paaralan. Wala itong ortograpiya, kulang sa dokumentasyon, at sinasalita ng iilan. Gayunpaman, ang komunidad ay nagpapakita ng positibong pagtingin sa kanilang sariling wika. Itinuturing nila ito bilang ugat ng kanilang pamana ng kultura. Ang mga natuklasan ng pag-aaral na ito ay maaaring magbigay ng kaalaman sa komunidad ng wika at mga awtoridad upang magtaguyod ng mga programa upang palakasin ang wikang Bugkalot. Sa isang multilinggwal na komunidad, ang pagpapanatili ng mga minoryang wika ay naging mas komplikadong hamon sa harap ng globalisasyon at modernisasyon.
Abstraktaĵo
Revizite al filipina etnolingvistika vivipovo: La kazo de la bugkalota lingvo en multlingva komunumo
Oni ofte citas socipolitikajn faktorojn kaj pragmatismon se temas pri lingva forfrotiĝo kaj lingva endanĝeriĝo. Tiurilate, Unesko atentigis pri esplorado koncerne la vivipovon de difinita lingvo ĉar tio estas ŝlosila se temas pri lingvoplanaj kaj lingvorevivigaj programoj. La bugkalota estas indiĝena lingvo kiu batalas por pluvivo en multlingva komunumo. Surbaze de la kadro proponita de Unesko, la nuna etnografia studo esploris pri la nivelo de vivipovo de la bugkalota lingvo. Hodiaŭ la lingvo estas nepre en danĝero pro interrompo de intergeneracia transdonado. La tagaloga kaj ilokana jam dominas la domajnojn de lingvouzo kaj komencas enpenetri la hejmojn. Same, la bugkalota lingvo okupas reduktiĝantajn sociajn domajnojn kaj ne estas utiligata en lernejoj. Al ĝi mankas konvencia ortografio, ĝi estas nesufiĉe dokumentita, kaj ĝin parolas minoritato. Tamen la komunumo montras pozitivan sindetenon rilate sian heredaĵan lingvon. La eltrovoj de la nuna studo povus eble konvinki la lingvan komunumon kaj la instancojn, ke ili starigu lingvorevivigajn programojn.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Statement of the problem
    • 1.2Conceptual framework of the study
    • 1.3Theoretical framework of the study
  • 2.Review of Related Literature and Studies
    • 2.1Language vitality and endangerment
    • 2.2Indigenous peoples’ languages in the Philippines
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research design
    • 3.2Site of fieldwork
    • 3.3Participants
    • 3.4Data collection and research procedures
    • 3.5Data analysis technique
    • 3.6Methods of validation
  • 4.Results and Discussion
    • 4.1Ethnolinguistic vitality assessment
      • UNESCO factors 2 and 3. The absolute number of speakers and proportion of speakers within the total population
      • UNESCO factor 4. Trends in existing language domains
      • UNESCO factor 5. Response to new domains and media
      • UNESCO factor 6. Materials for language education and literacy
      • UNESCO factor 7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, including official status and use
      • UNESCO factor 8. Community members’ attitudes toward their own language
      • UNESCO factor 9. Amount and quality of documentation
    • 4.2Current Status of Bugkalot Language
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
References (64)
References
Amery, R. (2019). The homecoming of an Indigenous Australian diaspora as impetus for language revival: The Kaurna of the Adelaide plains, South Australia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(1), 81–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderbeck, K. (2015). Portraits of Indonesian language vitality. ICAL 2012 Proceedings, 21, 19–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arzadon, M., Igcalinos, A., Zubiri, L., Cortez, A., Awid, M., & Gumba, L. (2016). Regional research on the use of language (s) in classrooms in ethnolinguistic communities: Philippines. Research Gate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asian Development Bank. (2002). Indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities and poverty reduction: Philippines. [URL]
Asuncion, Z. & Madrunio, M. (2017). Domains of language among Gaddang speakers in Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 481, 1–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, P. (2008). One Thousand Languages: Living, endangered and lost. University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ayao-ao, S., Casiano, M., & Pelila, J. R. (2023). If these languages could talk: The extinct languages of the Philippines, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publication, 6(3), 127–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banda, F., & Jimaima, H. (2017). Linguistic landscapes and the sociolinguistics of language vitality in multilingual contexts of Zambia. Multilingua, 36(5), 595–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., & Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a ‘subjective vitality questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(2), 145–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brenzinger, M., Yamamoto, A., Aikawa, N., Koundiouba, D., Minasyan, A., Dwyer, A., Grinevald, C., Krauss, M., Miyaoka, O., Sakiyama, O., Smeets, R., & Zepeda, O. (2003). Language vitality and endangerment: UNESCO expert meeting on safeguarding endangered languages. [URL]
Brenzinger, M. (2011). Indicators for assessing language vitality. In M. Brenzinger (Ed.), Language Endangerment Throughout the World (pp. ix–xii). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., Skirgård, H., Ritchie, A., Cardillo, M., Meakins, F., Greenhill, S., & Hua, X. (2021). Global predictors of language endangerment and the future of linguistic diversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(2), 163–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castro, N. (2002). Indigenous Languages for Development: The Philippine Experience. In Lo Bianco, J. (ed.). (2002). Development and Language: Global Experiences and Local Effects. Language Australia, Ltd. Pp. 67–74Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiblow, S., & Meighan, P. J. (2022). Language is land, land is language: The importance of Indigenous languages. Human Geography, 15(2), 206–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clément, R., & Norton, B. (2021). Ethnolinguistic vitality, identity and power: Investment in SLA. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 154–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, L., & Marsden, E. (2016). Cognitive perspectives on classroom language learning. In The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 281–294). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devy, G. N., & Davis, G. V. (2020). Orality and Language. Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drożdżowicz, A., & Peled, Y. (2024). The complexities of linguistic discrimination. Philosophical Psychology, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dwyer, A. M. (2011). Tools and techniques for endangered-language assessment and revitalization, In vitality and viability of minority languages, October 23–24, 2009. New York: Trace Foundation Lecture Series Proceedings. Preprint. Online: [URL]
Eames, A. (2019). Imperialism’s effects on language loss and endangerment: Two North American cases of resilience, the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy and Wôpanâak language communities (Published thesis, Harvard University).
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (Eds.) (2024). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Twenty-seventh edition. SIL International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eduardo, J. P., & Gabriel, A. G. (2021). Indigenous peoples and the right to education: The Dumagat experience in the Provinces of Nueva Ecija and Aurora, in the Philippines. SAGE Open. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ethnicity in the Philippines (2020 Census of Population and Housing) | Philippine Statistics Authority | Republic of the Philippines. (2023). [URL]
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. (pp. 307–348). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. (2000). English, Filipino, and other languages at the crossroads: Facing the challenges of the new millennium. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2)5–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grenoble, L., & Whaley, L. (1998). Toward a typology of language endangerment. Endangered languages, Ed. Grenoble and Whaley. Cambridge University Press. 22–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grenoble, L. A. (2011). Language ecology and endangerment. In P. K. Austin & J. Sallabank, (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greymorning, S. (2000). Culture and language: The political realities to keep trickster at bay. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 20(1), 181–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Headland, Thomas. (2010). Why the Philippine Negrito languages are endangered. In Endangered Languages of Austronesia. Margaret Florey, (Ed.) Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Headland, Thomas N. (2003). “Thirty endangered languages in the Philippines,” Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 47, Article 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinton, L., Huss, L., & Roche, G. (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackie, C. H. (2024, March 4). Empirical Evidence on the Impact of Globalization on Cultural Diversity. Linkedin. from [URL]
Lantaya, L. J., Bonifacio, R., Jabagat, G., & Maluenda, R. (2021). Beyond extinction: Preservation and maintenance of endangered Indigenous languages in the Philippines. ResearchGate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, N. H., & Van Way, J. R. (2016). Assessing levels of endangerment in the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat) using the Language Endangerment Index (LEI). Language in Society, 45(2), 271–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Legarda: Let us save our native languages. (2018). [URL]. [URL]
Legère, K. (2007). “Vidunda (G38) as an endangered language?” in Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. Doris L. Payne and Jaime Peña, 43–54. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 551. 103–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEntee-Atalianis, L. (2011). The value of adopting multiple approaches and methodologies in the investigation of ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 321, 151–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohamed, N. & Hashim, N. H. (2012). Language Vitality of the Sihan Community in Sarawak, Malaysia. Kemanusiaan, 19(1), 59–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moring, T., C. Husband, C. Lojander-Visapa¨a¨, L. Vincze, J. Fomina, & N. Ma¨nty. (2011). Media use and ethnolinguistic vitality in bilingual communities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher (Ed.) (2010). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger, 3d ed. UNESCO Publishing. [URL]
Norris, M. J. (2010). Canada and Greenland. In C. Moseley (Ed), Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. UNESCO Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onnis, G. (2020). Borrowing and language vitality assessment: Sardinian as a donor language in comparison with Māori. Proceedings of the Lancaster Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and English Language, 121, 5–29Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quakenbush, J. S. (2009). Tracking Agutaynen language vitality: 1984–2009. In 11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Aussois, France in.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reysio-Cruz, M. (2019, August 19). Saving PH diverse languages from extinction | Inquirer News. INQUIRER.net. [URL]
Romaine (2007). Preserving endangered languages. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(2), pp.115–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schalley, A. C., & Eisenchlas, S. A. (2020). Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development: Social and Affective Factors. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sides, D. (2020). “Language Endangerment in an Urbanizing Tanzania”. Honors Theses. 901. [URL]
Stanford, J., & Whaley, L. J. (2010). The sustainability of languages. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability: Annual Review, 61, 111–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajolosa, T. D. (2012). Predicting the ethnolinguistic vitality of an endangered Philippine language: The case of three Batak communities in Palawan. [URL]
Tehan, T. M. (2017). An evaluation of So language vitality in Thailand. [URL]
Tian, Youlan, & Zhou Xiomei. 田有兰, 周晓梅. (2013). An Abroad Research on the Education of Endangered Minority Languages 国外少数民族濒临语言教育研究. Guizhou Ethnic Studies 贵州民族研究, 197–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tingsheng, Z., & Suhua, H. (2015). Vitality and endangerment of the Lalo language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 38(2), 225–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (2013). Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization: An Introduction. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNESCO (2003). Language vitality and endangerment. UNESCO Ad Hoc ExpertGroup on Endangered Languages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
United Nations Organization, ―Indigenous Languages, United Nations Organization of Indigenous People, [URL], 2018.
Valdez, C. (2015). The endangered dialect of the Bugkalots (Master’s Thesis). Quirino State University. Quirino, Philippines.
Webster, J. & Safar, J. (2020). Ideologies behind the scoring of factors to rate sign language vitality. Language and Communication, 741, 113–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickström, B. A., Nagy, N., Rieger-Roschitz, A., & Vizi, B. (2023). Language (re) vitalization: What characterizes a sensible policy?. Language Problems and Language Planning, 47(2), 113–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yagmur, K., & Ehala, M. (2011). Tradition and innovation in the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 101–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yagmur, K., & Kroon, S. (2003). Ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions and language revitalisation in Bashkortostan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(4), 319–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeng, J., Li, X. (2023). Ideologies underlying language policy and planning in the Philippines. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 101, 405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Banguis, Rovy M., Fatima T. Evangelista, Norhanie S. Domato-Macarao, Janice B. Manlangit & Mark B. Ulla
2025. Mapping the ethnolinguistic vitality of the Subanen language: socio-economic influences on language attitudes and sustainability. Cogent Arts & Humanities 12:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue