Critical Inquiry in Language Studies

ISSN: 1542-7587 (Print) 1542-7595 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcil20

Decentering language: displacing Englishes from

the study of Englishes

Ruanni Tupas

To cite this article: Ruanni Tupas (2019): Decentering language: displacing Englishes from the
study of Englishes, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2019.1641097

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2019.1641097

Published online: 19 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 39

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcil20
CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2019.1641097

Decentering language: displacing Englishes from the study

of Englishes
Ruanni Tupas
University College London, London, UK

ABSTRACT
Much has been written about the linguistics, pragmatics and
politics of the pluralization of English under conditions of
colonization and globalization. By and large, however, the
focus of the work on World Englishes has understandably
been on “Englishes” rather than the “world”. This paper
explores the theoretical potential of strategically displacing
“Englishes” from the study of World Englishes and, instead,
train our lens on the study of the “world” by operationalizing
such strategic decentering in the context of Philippine English
studies. Thus, the specific argument of this paper concerns the
need to train our lenses on what constitutes “Philippine” in
Philippine English. This crucial modifier of English is rarely
discussed, much more unpacked and critiqued, thus “English”
remains relatively disconnected from its very complex “local”
moorings. In the end, however, a strategic decentering of
English from the study of Philippine English will strengthen
the conceptual power of our accounting of the critical role of
English in Philippine society. This mobilizes the field to go
beyond the study of Philippine English and into Unequal
Philippine Englishes.

Introduction
This paper operationalizes the idea of strategic decentering of Englishes – or
decentering language in the study of language through the prism of
Philippine English (PE) studies. Essentially, the paper proposes an approach
to the study of Englishes which strategically suspends training our lens on
such Englishes and, instead, examine the “world” in which they are
embedded. Within a broader perspective, it argues that in our desire to
study language in society, we must not assume that language is central to
speakers’ lives as is usually the case when we study the role of language in
society. This implies substantial changes in how we frame our research
questions, methodologies, analyses and conclusions. Strategic decentering
of language – and more specifically Englishes in this paper – shares similar
experiences with scholars who investigated the social life of language but
looked beyond language itself to make sense of how language is used (e.g.,

CONTACT Ruanni Tupas [email protected]

© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 R. TUPAS

Canieso-Doronila, 1994; Lorente, 2017). In some cases, methodological

adjustments had to be made, for example by letting go of set research
questions and simply let issues and questions emerge from people’s everyday
engagements with their own social lives (Motha, 2014; Tupas, 2015a).
PE is, of course, a part of a constellation of World Englishes (WE) which
have emerged out of the imperial, then “postcolonial”, spread of English
(Kachru, 1986). The paradigm of WE has had significant impact on research
on English language education (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2007), politics of English
(e.g., Tupas, 2004), second language acquisition (e.g., Bolton, 2018), language
contact (e.g., Lim, 2007), assessment (e.g., Lowenberg, 2002), among many
other related fields. One key assumption of studies of the Englishes of the
world is that the spread of English has led to its pluralization and localization
because of the cultural mediation of the so-called “non-native” speakers of
English. These different Englishes are legitimate Englishes, and this has been
proven by research on their structural, semantic, pragmatic and rhetorical
dimensions. The Englishes of the world, in other words, have produced their
own local grammar and lexicon, indicating that their speakers have taken
ownership of their own use of the language (Widdowson, 1994).
By and large, however, studies on the pluralization of English have focused
more on what has happened to English itself and less on the enduring social
materialist conditions under which such linguistic changes have occurred. In
other words, studies on World Englishes have broadly been about the
“Englishes” and much less about the “world” or what Kandiah (1995) refers
to as the “realities of the world” (p. xii) and “realities of the modern order”
(p. xiv). What happens then if we reframe our study of the pluralization of
English by decentering English from World Englishes? In the case of this
paper, the key arguments are straightforward: that in the study of Philippine
English, there has been an overwhelming focus on “English” but also
a silencing of its key modifier, “Philippine”. What happens to “English” if
we decenter it from the study of “Philippine English” and, instead, begin with
an unpacking of its main modifier, “Philippine”?

Philippine English studies

Studies on Philippine English have had a long historical trajectory, making it
one of the earliest extensively researched postcolonial Englishes in the world,
with Tay (1991) claiming early on that the “Philippines has perhaps produced
the most comprehensive research on an indigenized variety of English” in
Southeast Asia (p. 323). I would, therefore, no longer repeat much of what
has been written about it for around 50 years now – from its linguistics
(Bautista, 2000; Llamzon, 1969) to its politics (Gonzalez, 1976; Tupas, 2001,
2004); from its pragmatic and social dimensions (Gonzalez, 2004; Martin,
2014) to its pedagogical implications (Bernardo, 2011); from attitudes
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 3

towards it (Bautista, 2001; Borlongan, 2009) to its nature as a contact lan-

guage (Enriquez, 2012; Gonzales, 2017) – but attempt to broaden the frame
through which we study it with the hope that it will surface more clearly the
entanglements of different sociolinguistic, cultural and socioeconomic con-
ditions and phenomena which generate, animate and/or saturate the possi-
bility of a phenomenon called “Philippine English”. Suffice it to say that
Philippine English studies for the past five decades have generated ample
evidence of the patterned and socioculturally shaped use of English in the
Philippines, consequently affirming the reality of the globalization/pluraliza-
tion of English around the world. Thus, “Englishes, as opposed to English,
are relevant to the twenty-first-century conversations of English education”
(Kirkland, 2010, p. 293).
Nevertheless, the unspoken given in Philippine English studies is that
either the Philippines is essentially the geographical location of English
being investigated or that it is spoken by an undifferentiated group of
speakers called “Filipinos”. Thus, Philippine English refers mainly to
English in the Philippines or English spoken by Filipinos. This has led
work in the area to focus mainly on its linguistic system and the pragmatic
possibilities it creates for its speakers. Such work, alongside other studies in
the vibrant field of World Englishes (Bamgbose, 1998; Bolton, 2006; Kachru,
1986; Platt, Weber, & Ho, 1984), has helped legitimize local uses of English
and helped Filipino speakers, especially those who use the language already
with some degree of comfort or ease, assert their ownership over the lan-
guage. Such linguistic ownership early on took on an explicitly political –
“post-colonial” – position which Gonzalez (1976) referred to as linguistic
emancipation with Filipinos taking “the language for their own creative uses,
an emancipation which is bound to result in novelty in the creative uses of
the patterning of English at the lexical and syntactic level, in addition to
semantic and phonological innovation” (453). However, there is more to the
modifier “Philippine” than what it currently references in the literature. It is
a historically, culturally, ideologically, and socioeconomically enabled modi-
fier, owing to the fact that the Philippines has had multiple experiences of
colonization, is multilingual but whose languages are unequally distributed
and valued, is globally entrenched but whose people avow strong ethnolin-
guistic regional loyalties, and is distinctly stratified along class lines. These
intersecting social phenomena organize the network of meanings of
“Philippine” in Philippine English, thus if we strategically suspend talk on
English(es) and train our lenses on what it is that defines and frames it, we
may be able to expand or enrich our descriptions and appraisals of English
and its speakers. What is the nature of Philippine English if we begin our
examination of this sociolinguistic phenomenon with “Philippine” rather
than with “English”? As a matter of extension, we can also then ask about
the nature of “World Englishes” if we make as our central object of
4 R. TUPAS

investigation the cultural, economic and sociopolitical constitution of “the

world” in which the Englishes are produced and embedded.

“Philippine” in Philippine English

As mentioned in the earlier section, the paper approaches Philippine English
through the principle of strategic decentering of language – suspend talk on
English and focus on articulating and unpacking the multimeaninged modi-
fier, “Philippine”. Thus, the strategic decentering of English(es) from
“Philippine English” inevitably leads us to explicating the modifier
“Philippine” in terms of how it implicates the country’s multilingual land-
scape. To put it in another way, the privileging of “English” in Philippine
English displaces the centrality of multilingualism as a lens through which we
should examine the role of language – any language or language variety for
that matter – in society. Thus, what is meant by the principle of strategic
decentering of the English language as an approach to Philippine English is
decentering the main subject of investigation and divesting oneself of the
pervasive belief in the presumed or putative centrality of language (English in
our case in this paper) in social life. Consequently, the question would be:
what happens to “English” and what could be the implications for the
research and teaching of English if we operationalize such strategic decenter-
ing in our work in the pluralization of English?
In the following paragraphs, we will discuss six fundamental (but over-
lapping) social phenomena characterizing the Philippines which, in turn,
organize the meanings with which “Philippine” in Philippine English is
imbued. These are: inequalities of multilingualism (Tupas, 2015b), strong
regional ethnolinguistic loyalties (Gonzalez, 1980), enduring coloniality of
Filipino experience (Schirmer & Shalom, 1987), globalized political economy
and cultural dispositions (Lorente, 2017; Parreñas, 2001), and markedly class-
based social structure (Anderson, 1988; Fuwa, 2006). They are mutually
constitutive of each other, thus there is a need to discuss them as
a coherently organized network of pervasive social conditions and phenom-
ena which shape contemporary Filipino life.

Inequalities of “Philippine” multilingualism

Just like most countries, the Philippines is typically described as
a “multilingual society” (Hidalgo, 1998, p. 23), and rightly so because at
least 175 indigenous languages are spoken across the archipelago
(Kaufman, 2017) consisting of 7,106 islands, although only more than
200 of which are habitable. However, such a description – “multilingual” –
is acutely limiting because it simply refers to an accounting of languages
as spoken by different groups of speakers. More often than not, the use of
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 5

“multilingual” ignores the fact that various kinds of inequalities shape and
imbed speakers of languages in question (Mohanty, 2010; Tupas, 2015b;
Nolasco et al, 2010). For example, by virtue of their relationship with their
speakers, some languages are more powerful than others, thus these
powerful languages are not only imbued with positive values and accorded
higher prestige by society, but they are also institutionally legitimized and
privileged either as Medium-of-Instruction (MOI) or as languages of
work. Thus, behind the façade of linguistic diversity is a hierarchy of
languages (Mahboob and Cruz, 2013). In the case of the Philippines, the
English language reigns supreme, not because it is pervasively used in
everyday communication (because it is not), but because it is the most
powerful, both symbolically and materially. Speakers of the language –
especially those who speak the standard variety of Philippine English – are
viewed as educated, trustworthy and credible (Borlongan, 2009), and are
the ones preferred in high-paying jobs (Salonga, 2015).
The rapid spread of the national language – Tagalog-based Filipino – has
also contributed to the perpetuation of inequalities of multilingualism in the
Philippines. The language was originally envisioned as an anti-colonial lan-
guage, a symbol of Filipino’s resistance to the dominance of colonially-
induced structures and ideologies which have governed Filipinos’ everyday
life and socioeconomic and political affairs since the Philippine-American
War of 1899–1902. English, according to famed Filipino historian Renato
Constantino (1970), “became the wedge that separated the Filipinos from
their past and later was to separate educated Filipinos from the masses of
their countrymen” (p. 432), thus a local language had to be established as
a national language as a way to counter the dominance of English in the
country.1 Tagalog-based Filipino, however, has taken on a sweeping discur-
sive role as the language of resistance, thus further diminishing the status of
all other Philippine languages most of whom are spoken as mother tongues
by Filipinos outside Manila and its neighboring provinces which constitute
the Tagalog region (Tupas & Lorente, 2014). This explains why in the history
of language policy-making and debates in the country, ethnolinguistic regio-
nal animosity – or what Hidalgo (1998) describes as “regional recalcitrance”
or “regional ethnocentrism” (p. 23) – has further animated the problem of
language in the country, with many speakers of other mother tongues
strongly opposed to the institutionalization of Tagalog-based Filipino as
either the national language or as an MOI. Such regional animosity is not
limited to language alone; in fact, it is symptomatic of a much broader inter-
regional politics that has saturated national politics for some time now
because of the contention that the unequal distribution of political power
and economic resources in the country is due mainly to the dominance of
“Imperial Manila” or the prevalence of “Tagalog imperialism” (Kaufman,
2017, p. 169).
6 R. TUPAS

Enduring colonialism and the making of globally competitive Filipinos

Thus, inequalities of multilingualism demonstrate how linguistic hierarchies
are, in fact, embedded in larger social forms of inequalities which are colo-
nially-, class-, and ethnolinguistically-shaped. When the Philippines achieved
political independence from the United States in 1946 after around 50 years of
being under colonial rule, such independence was by and large a nominal one
because postcolonial economic and political affairs continued to be regulated
by colonial templates of thinking and rule, except that this time American rule
was more indirect than direct. This is a condition referred to as coloniality:
“long-standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but
that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production
well beyond the strict limits of colonial administration” (Maldonado-Torres,
2010, p. 97). A classic example of these from the Philippines was the largely
unchanged structure and content of the educational system, reconfigured to
some extent in 1974 when the country experimented on a bilingual form of
education but trappings of coloniality could clearly be gleaned through the
continuing privileging of English as the Medium of Instruction (MOI) in
science and mathematics. Thus, “the early postwar Filipino educational think-
ing was almost a carbon copy of the American colonial position on all issues”
(Foley, 1978, p. 69). Another example were constitutional provisions which
allowed Americans (even after they turned over official governance of the
country to Filipinos) to continue owning land and operate businesses in the
Philippines (Pomeroy, 1970; Schirmer & Shalom, 1987).
All this was compounded by the emergence in the 1950s of what are referred
to as Bretton Woods international economic institutions such as the “twins”
(Bello, 2005) World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Bank (IMF) for
the purpose of spearheading the economic rehabilitation of the world which was
then ravaged by World War II. As is well-known by now (Bello, 2009; Schirmer
& Shalom, 1987), these US- and Europe-led institutions were responsible for
radically altering the economic infrastructures of developing countries in need
of cash inflow for “development” projects. Economic interventionism intensified
in the 1980s when the country was forced to accept structural adjustment
reforms as dictated by the IMF and WB in exchange for bailout and payment
strategies because of the country’s massive external debts (Bello, 2009). Such
reforms involved cutting back on spending on basic social services such as
education, health care and transportation, along with the privatization of gov-
ernment assets and deregulation of prices of basic commodities such as oil,
water, gas and rice, all purportedly to maximize efficiency, minimize wasteful-
ness of resources and increase productivity. Consequently, as the power of the
state to intervene in economic affairs slowly diminished (or was curtailed), it
became increasingly clear as well that “the market” – which was supposed to
operate on its own and correct by itself – was in fact controlled by inter-state
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 7

agencies such as the WB and IMF whose interests they protect(ed) were pri-
marily those of companies and institutions in developed countries such as the
United States (Broad, Cavanagh, & Bello, 1990). In other words, the structural
adjustment policies imposed upon the Philippines reinforced IMF’s “grip on
Philippine underdevelopment” (Lindio-McGovern, 2003, p. 519). More than
three decades ago, WB would categorically claim that structural adjustment
policies worked (Broad et al., 1990, p. 144), but recently it has admitted – albeit
in very subtle terms – to the “inadequacy” of such prescriptions to alleviate the
lives of people in developing countries (Bello, 2005; Mkandawire & Soludo,
1999, p. xi). These prescriptions in fact brought these countries into further
subservience to the economic and political dictates of powerful capitalist
nations. Thus, with the Philippines’ perpetual quest for “global competitiveness”
(Bernardo, 2008; Lorente, 2017; Navera, 2018), its role in the global market from
the 1970s has not been as engine or controller of globalization but as “a
subordinated supplier of mobile, cheap labor” (Lindio-McGovern, 2003,
p. 525) to industrialized countries, resulting in Filipinos becoming “servants of
globalization” (Parreñas, 2001), deploying “scripts of servitude” (Lorente, 2017)
to find work elsewhere under harsh living or working conditions. In this light,
when we speak of globalization in the Philippines, it is not possible (and in fact,
irresponsible) to ignore the export of labor as one of its defining features,
“mainly in response to the debt crisis brought about largely by the
International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) structural adjustment policies” (Lindio-
McGovern, 2003, p. 513).
Therefore, what we see in “Philippine” is how colonial practices and
structures of relations coalesce with newer forms of economic and political
control through the neoliberal infrastructures of the global market. In this
sense, the enduring coloniality of Filipino life is real, especially because our
economic and cultural dispositions are to a large extent oriented towards
harnessing our bodies – including our ways of speaking – to become “glob-
ally competitive”. The implication here for Philippine English studies is that
if we shield “English” from its materialist social embeddedness central to
which is the enduring coloniality of conditions within which English is
supposedly fractured, mangled and/or transformed by Filipino speakers, we
lose sight of the fact that the pluralization of English cannot naively be
celebrated as a triumph of the country’s speakers over the English language.
Having colonized the English language – as Filipino poet Gemino Abad
famously pronounced (Abad, 1997) – does not mean its speakers have been
freed from conditions of coloniality. As we will see in the following section,
English is deeply enmeshed in class-based inequalities in the country.
8 R. TUPAS

The prevalence of class

When the discourse of “being globally competitive” is deployed to justify
particular language or language-in-education policies, what is hidden from
the discourse is the fact that rush towards global competitiveness is not an
egalitarian, equalizing undertaking. Competition in the market is fierce and
unequal. On the one hand, the logic of the market is such that there are
niched places of work requiring different skills and competencies but, on the
other hand, mastery of highly marketable skills and competences is only
available largely through either quality education or favorable home and
social environments. This explains why – to give one example – the social
structure of Filipino OFWs (or Overseas Foreign Workers) is one that
reflects the class-based social structure back in the Philippines (Johnson,
2010; Lindio-McGovern, 2003; Ong & Cabañes, 2011; Parreñas, 2001).
A small group of Filipino OFWs or elite migrants are products of elite
Philippine universities as well, most of whom come from well-to-do and
highly educated families in the first place. Investigating one particular group
of such elite Filipinos in London, Ong and Cabañes (2011) found that “their
actual physical encounters with fellow Filipinos in public political events is
limited” (p. 198), and whose “practices of engaging with homeland political
issues while disengaging with ‘other’ Filipino people are embedded in, and
potentially amplify, long-existing class divides in Philippine society” (p. 200,
italics as original). They too look down on language or communicative
practices associated with lower-income Filipinos workers, thus reflective of
class conflict among Filipinos (Tolentino, 2010; see Reyes, 2017, for a critical
discussion on Taglish as an index of coloniality, race and class in the
Philippines). On the other hand, domestic helpers and other lowly-paid
Filipinos abroad come from much less ideal educational and home environ-
ments (Lindio-McGovern, 2003).
The case of the Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO) industry in the
Philippines – the second largest source of investment for the Philippines
today – mirrors a similar class-driven pattern: only 3–4 of 100 applicants
make it (Forey & Lockwood, 2007), and those who make it come from
relatively privileged backgrounds compared to the great majority of appli-
cants who do not make the cut. The latter are blamed for their sub-standard
education, including either their lack of proficiency in English or their use of
“undesirable” Englishes because of “deficient” language learning opportu-
nities at home (Salonga, 2010, 2015; Tupas & Salonga, 2016). In the words of
Salonga (2015), “only particular kinds of people, usually those who are
privileged … can take part in what the industry has to offer” (p. 139).
The specific examples of class-based issues in the Philippines in this
section broadly follow the class-shaped contours of the politics of language
in the country, except that these contours historically have been
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 9

overshadowed by ethnolinguistically-motivated positions and language

choices. When the Philippines “chose” Tagalog as the national language
in 1937 (still under American colonial rule) over other Philippine lan-
guages, especially Cebuano which was then spoken by a more numerically
larger group of speakers, speakers of other Philippine languages – again
especially Cebuano – have persistently resisted the imposition of Tagalog
as the national language (Gonzalez, 1980). Such resistance would take on
various forms and practices, including the refusal to sing the national
language and instead sing it in the English language, the vigorous promo-
tion of literature in the vernacular languages and, simply, using English
rather than Tagalog in everyday conversation. Of course, the national
language issue has also been exploited for political reasons by local (non-
Tagalog) politicians who would rehearse arguments against Tagalog as
a threat to regional cultures and languages. However, as some scholars
have argued, the politics of language in the Philippines has always been
centrally class-driven, with regional calls to resist the national language
and, instead, promote the use of English, a case of social elite rivalries,
rather than ethnolinguistic/regional differences. The English-speaking
regional elites, in resisting Tagalog, were engaged in such a resistance
because the rise of the national language would give Tagalog-speaking
elites an edge over other regional elites in terms of access to some of
society’s material and symbolic goods.

From Philippine English to unequal Philippine Englishes

What then becomes of “English” in Philippine English if we use a much
broader lens through which we can describe, interpret and evaluate its use in
the country? We have expounded above that the modifier “Philippine” is
semantically constituted by various but interlaying meanings drawn from the
country’s complex historical, sociopolitical and socioeconomic make up.
Philippine English is English that is embedded in and saturated by inequal-
ities of multilingualism in colonially-induced and class-shaped structures of
social relations. Therefore, it is clear that the dominant construct of
“Philippine English” as a geographical marker or a referent to an undiffer-
entiated group of speakers of the language is acutely narrow; there is more to
Philippine English than simply spoken in the Philippines or spoken by
Filipinos. Recently, there have been attempts to expand the conceptual
coverage of Philippine English, for example by surfacing the plurality of
English language use in the country along class and ethnolinguistic lines
(Gonzales, 2017; Martin, 2014; Tupas, 2004), and this is a welcome develop-
ment as it recognizes the incontrovertible diversity of the language. However,
more work is needed to consolidate all possible considerations to reconcep-
tualize “Philippine English” as an inclusive but interrogative construct. Thus,
10 R. TUPAS

“Philippine English” – to be more appropriate and accurate in describing and

interrogating the nature of English in the Philippines – would have to be
reconceptualized as unequal Englishes, or more specifically unequal
Philippine Englishes.
First of all, English in the Philippines is not and has never been
a monolithic variety of English. Because its use is class-inflected and ethno-
linguistically-marked, among other social factors, Filipinos speak different
Philippine Englishes. The trouble with much work on Philippine English,
claims Gonzales (2017), is that English spoken in Manila (the national
capital) takes up the bulk of data used to describe English in the country
which scholars then describe as “Philippine English”. Thus, “researchers
attempting to acknowledge existing studies utilizing ICE-PH2 as their pri-
mary data source may want to relabel ‘Philippine English’ data as ‘Manila
English’ data” (p. 91). English in Manila is simply not interchangeable with
English in the Philippines. Martin (2014) also interrogates the homogenizing
studies of Philippine English but through a different lens: “the variety is
widely used only among the educated class” (p. 81). English spoken by the
“educated class” is not representative of the prevalent use of English in the
Philippines, a point acknowledged by Sibayan & Gonzalez (1996) when they
alerted us to five possible class-based varieties of Philippine English but only
a small elite group of speakers uses the “educated” variety. Tupas (2004)
articulated the same view about the lens used to describe “Philippine English”
and called for a broader view of its use as a plural language through a study
of the country’s “marginalized varieties” (p. 55). These are the varieties
spoken by the country’s “vast majority” (Sibayan & Gonzalez, 1996,
p. 163). The same point was articulated by Parakrama (1995) more than
twenty years ago in relation to World Englishes studies when he referred to
“the unquestioned paradigm of the “educated standard” (p. xii).
Nevertheless, while scholars rightly expose the homogenizing tendencies of
Philippine English studies, the work on the diversity of Englishes is largely
oriented towards describing these various potential Philippine Englishes in
decontextualized ways. That is, the approach taken is largely descriptive,
assumes a static view of language use, and hardly takes the view that the
varieties being described are implicated in the lives of their speakers. In other
words, behind the façade of a diversity of Philippine Englishes are their
speakers who, depending on their social positioning, deploy particular vari-
eties of Philippine English which sustain either their privileged or margin-
alized status in society. Philippine Englishes – or any other English for that
matter – cannot simply be treated as a linguistic phenomenon which must be
differentiated according to their unique structural or semantic features.
A critical sociolinguistics assumes that these Englishes are inextricably
embedded in the lives of their speakers – in colonially- and class-induced
social relations with which inequalities of multilingualism are intertwined –
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 11

thus these Englishes are not mere linguistic construction but, more impor-
tantly, historical and sociocultural construction as well. To put it in another
way, the various Philippine Englishes are lived trajectories of individual
Filipino speakers. Whereas Constantino (1970) referred to English as
a wedge created between Filipino elites and the Filipino masses, this time
Filipinos of various social classes and ethnolinguistic affiliations – with
differentiated access to English which remains the most powerful language
in the country – generate different Englishes which participate in the con-
tinuing practices of stratification and division in Philippine society.
The key point to make is the centrality of inequality in the production of
Philippine Englishes – we cannot make a claim simply in terms of the
plurality and distribution of Philippine Englishes. More importantly, such
Englishes are unequal and unequally distributed as well. Bautista (2001)
already made this point quite strongly almost two decades ago: “The fact is
that for poorly educated Filipinos, English will remain a foreign language,
inadequately learned, incorrectly used, ‘wrong’” (p. 31). The use of one over
another has material consequences in the life of the speaker. Thus, while
there has been typically no resistance to the claim that proficiency in English
is needed for an individual to become competitive in the job market or aim
for social mobility, what is not openly admitted or highlighted is the fact that
different family and social backgrounds, as well as differentiated access to
quality education, frame any Filipino’s learning of the most desired kind of
English language proficiency, or what Bautista (2000) describes as “the
standard of standards” (p. 17) in English in the Philippines. In other
words, everyone endorses English but not everyone benefits from it because
the English one learns differs from that of others, and such differences are
framed in unequal terms.
We can recall one recent classic case of unequal Englishes in the country.
A beauty queen, Janina San Miguel, daughter of a jeepney driver and
a laundrywoman, chose to speak in English during the interview portion of
a Miss Philippines competition. She eventually won one of the coveted titles
(due mainly to her performance in earlier categories), but what came after
her allegedly non-standard, embarrassing use of English was nothing short of
a national political disaster. From the perspective of the national collective,
Janina San Miguel fell short of the ideal proficiency in English, and thus
became the poster girl for what was wrong with Philippine education (Tupas,
2013). It was one of the most pilloried and mocked displays of English
language use in the country, leading one senior legislator in the Philippine
Congress (who was then the main proponent of the return of the English-
only policy in education) to say that such a “sensational failure” was “tor-
menting to watch” (Miss Philippines World’s ear-splitting English,
Miss Philippines World’s ear-splitting English, 2008). San Miguel eventually
relinquished her crown in the months following the controversy. Such an
12 R. TUPAS

instantiation of unequal Englishes is replicated in the everyday and working

lives of Filipinos, for example in the call center industry where various kinds
of Englishes help determine individual workers’ chances of landing a job, or
position them vis-à-vis their customers most of whom are speakers of
American English (Salonga, 2010, 2015; Tupas & Salonga, 2016); or in
Philippine classrooms where opportunities for the learning of “good”
English are largely inaccessible to teachers and pupils from socioeconomi-
cally disadvantaged and more rural educational environments (Martin,
2010). In these examples, we find that particular uses of English have
material consequences for their speakers and these are because the speakers
are located in a complex nexus of historical, socioeconomic and sociocultural
conditions which shape the way they speak, including the way they learn and
use English.
Thus, when we investigate unequal Englishes in the country (for recent
studies on unequal Englishes in other contexts, see Dovchin, Sultana, &
Pennycook, 2016; Lee & Jenks, 2018; Sabaté-Dalmau, 2018), we do not
merely describe their structural or semantic features, but also attempt to
find out what these Philippine Englishes do to their speakers and their
speakers’ interlocutors – and why (Salonga, 2015; Tupas & Salonga, 2016).
This is what Pennycook refers to as the need to examine the “effects” (1994/
2017, p. ix) of unequal Englishes on people’s lives. Therefore, recasting the
study of Philippine Englishes along the lines of historically- and socially-
constructed inequalities will necessarily retrain our focus on the speakers of
these Englishes. We begin to describe and interrogate their lives and seek to
understand why they speak the way they speak. The structures and meanings
of Philippine Englishes, on the one hand, as well as the life trajectories of
their speakers, on the other hand, are not separate objects of investigation but
are, in fact, interlinked historical and social phenomena which must be
examined singularly in order to arrive at a fuller, more coherent under-
standing of English in the Philippines.

Conclusion
How did we arrive at a reconceptualized study of English in the Philippines
in terms of unequal Philippine Englishes? It is through our attempt at the
strategic decentering of English(es) from “Philippine English” and, instead,
training our lenses on the modifier, “Philippine”, the argument being that
“English” cannot simply be devoid of its material and symbolic embedded-
ness in society. In the process of unpacking and examining the multilayered
meanings of “Philippine”, we have identified several socioeconomic, socio-
political, cultural and historical accounts of Philippine society. These
accounts are consolidated into three key dimensions:
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 13

(1) Inequalities of “Philippine” multilingualism

(2) Enduring colonialism and the making of globally competitive Filipinos
(3) The prevalence of social class

If we begin our examination of Philippine English by first locating it

within its social milieu, we generate a view of English in the country as
plural, thus Philippine Englishes which are distributed as unequal Philippine
Englishes, which therefore have material and symbolic “effects” on their
speakers. We see here that in the strategic decentering of English in
Philippine English, we actually reaffirm the significance of the study of
English, except that it is no longer a language that simply demands linguistic
and semantic description but, more importantly, a language that demands
critical scrutiny because it implicates and is implicated in structures of power
and inequality in society. Unequal Philippine Englishes, in other words, are
intricately interwoven with the lives of their speakers, many of whom – in
fact, most of whom (see Sibayan & Gonzalez, 1996; Lorente, 2017; Salonga,
2010) – speak the kinds of Philippine Englishes which do not live up to the
ideal – thus, desirable – standard of English that brings forth material and
symbolic benefits. It may be argued that the general notion of Unequal
Englishes recentralizes English, thus it defeats the purpose of engaging in
strategic decentering of English(es). In fact, the purpose is precisely to help
us take a fresh lens through which we can see and examine the machinations
of English language use in specific contexts. It does not invalidate or ignore
the possibility of unequal distribution of linguistic and material resources in
society. Instead, it helps us understand better how the Janina San Miguel
phenomenon described above remains an English problem which intersects
with all other social, ideological, political and cultural problems in society.
“It is a pity,” argue Pennycook, Kubota, and Morgan (2017), “that so much
work has focused on putative varieties of English from a world Englishes
perspective, when what we really need to address are the questions of
unequal Englishes” (p. xiv). This paper in essence works broadly within
this need to address questions of unequal Englishes but what we have done
is to suggest a way to articulate such a need through the strategic decentering
of English(es) from the study of Philippine English, one of the most
researched in the World Englishes paradigm. We have for at least four
decades now extensively examined the linguistic and cultural impact of the
global spread of English, and indeed we owe much to World Englishes for
demolishing the (unfounded) belief that there is only one proper way to use
English, and it is through the use of the standard variety spoken by the so-
called traditional “native speakers” of the language. But the globalization of
English has also brought forth uneven benefits to its speakers around the
world. As I articulated in a paper several years ago, “In our desire to celebrate
the Englishes of the world – mangled, purged and transformed through
14 R. TUPAS

postcolonial desires – purportedly fracturing our colonial consciousness and

shaking the grounds of political and cultural dependence, we forgot ‘the
world’” (Tupas, 2001, p. 93).
In the same way that we should not forget the “Philippine” in Philippine
English through unequal Philippine Englishes, we should also not forget the
“world” in World Englishes. Now is the time to operationalize strategic
decentering of English(es) in order to begin to uncover, unpack and trans-
form the world’s unequal Englishes.

Notes
1. There is no space in this paper for a comprehensive discussion of the rise of Tagalog –
later renamed as Filipino – as the national language of the Philippines, but much has
been written about this topic. See Gonzalez (1980), Tinio (2009) and Tupas & Lorente
(2014).
2. International Corpus of English – Philippines.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Abad, G. (1997). Standards in Philippine English: The writers’ forum. In M. L. S. Bautista
(Ed.), English is an Asian Language (pp. 163‒176). Sydney, Australia: The Macquarie
Library Pty. Ltd.
Anderson, B. (1988). Cacique democracy in the Philippines: Origins and dreams. New Left
Review, 169(May–June), 3–31.
Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World
Englishes, 17(1), 1‒14. doi:10.1111/weng.1998.17.issue-1
Bautista, M. L. S. (2000). Defining standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical
features. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University Press.
Bautista, M. L. S. B. (2001). Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading Philippine
universities toward Philippine English. Asian Englishes, 4(1), 4‒32. doi:10.1080/
13488678.2001.10801062
Bello, W. (2005, June 22). Is the structural adjustment approach really and truly dead?
Transnational Institute. Retrieved from https://www.tni.org/en/article/is-the-structural-
adjustment-approach-really-and-trully-dead
Bello, W. (2009). Neoliberalism as hegemonic ideology in the Philippines: Rise, apogee, and
crisis. Philippine Sociological Review, 57, 9‒19.
Bernardo, A. B. (2008). English in Philippine education: Solution or problem. In
M. L. S. Bautista & K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives
(pp. 29‒48). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Bernardo, A. S. (2011). ‘De-hegemonizing’ the ‘hegemonized’: An exploratory study on the
dominion of American English in the oldest university in Asia. Journal on English
Language Teaching, 1(3), 7‒22.
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 15

Bolton, K. (2006). Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.
Bolton, K. (2018). World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition. World Englishes, 37(1),
5‒18.
Borlongan, A. M. (2009). A survey on language use, attitudes, and identity in relation to
Philippine English among young generation Filipinos: An initial sample from a private
university. Philippine ESL Journal, 3, 74‒107.
Broad, R., Cavanagh, J., & Bello, W. (1990). Development: The market is not enough. Foreign
Policy, 81(Winter), 144‒162.
Canieso-Doronila, M. L. (1994). Learning from Life: An ethnographic study of functional
literacy in fourteen Philippine communities (vol. 2: Main Report–Abridged version).
Abridged by P.B. Arinto and P. Flores. Philippines: UP-ERP-CIDS, LCCP &
DECSBNFE.
Constantino, R. (1970). The mis-education of the Filipino. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 30
(3), 428‒444.
Dovchin, S., Sultana, S., & Pennycook, A. (2016). Unequal translingual Englishes in the Asian
peripheries. Asian Englishes. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/
13488678.2016.1171673
Enriquez, M. A. T. (2012). Philippine English and Taglish from a language contact perspective
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Foley, D. (1978). Colonialism and schooling in the Philippines from 1898 to 1970. In
P. Altbach & G. P. Kelly (Eds.), Education and colonialism (pp. 69‒92). New York,
London: Longman.
Forey, G., & Lockwood, J. (2007). “I’d love to put someone in jail for this”: An initial
investigation of English in the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for
Specific Purposes, 26, 308‒326. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.09.005
Fuwa, N. (2006). Pathways out of rural poverty: A case study in socio-economic mobility in
the rural Philippines. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(1), 123‒144. doi:10.1093/cje/
bel015
Gonzales, W. (2017). Philippine Englishes. Asian Englishes, 19(1), 79‒95. doi:10.1080/
13488678.2016.1274574
Gonzalez, A. (1976). Content in English language materials in the Philippines: A case study of
cultural and linguistic emancipation. Philippine Studies, 24(4), 443‒454.
Gonzalez, A. (1980). Language and nationalism: The Philippine experience thus far. Quezon
City, Metro Manila, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Gonzalez, A. (2004). The social dimensions of Philippine English. World Englishes, 23(1),
7–16. doi:10.1111/weng.2004.23.issue-1
Hidalgo, C. A. (1998). Language choice in a multilingual society: The case of the Philippines.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 130(1), 23‒33. doi:10.1515/
ijsl.1998.130.23
Johnson, M. (2010). Diasporic dreams, middle-class moralities and migrant domestic workers
among Muslim Filipinos in Saudi Arabia. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 11(3‒
4), 428‒448. doi:10.1080/14442213.2010.512921
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native
Englishes. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Kandiah, T. (1995). Foreword. In A. Parakrama (Ed.), De-hegemonizing language standards:
Learning from (post)colonial Englishes about ‘English’ (pp. xv‒xxxvii). Houndmills,
Basingstoke, and Hampshire: Palgrave.
16 R. TUPAS

Kaufman, D. (2017). Keeping the language Ark afloat in New York City. In M. Borjian (Ed.),
Language and globalization: An ethnoethnographic approach. London, New York:
Routledge, pp. 165-177.
Kirkland, D. E. (2010). English(es) in urban contexts: Politics, pluralism, and possibilities.
English Education, 42(3), 293‒306.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes paperback with audio CD: Implications for interna-
tional communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lee, J. W., & Jenks, C. J. (2018). Aestheticizing language: Metapragmatic distance and
unequal Englishes in Hong Kong. Asian Englishes. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/13488678.2018.1448962
Lim, L. (2007). Mergers and acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English
particles. World Englishes, 26(4), 446‒473. doi:10.1111/weng.2007.26.issue-4
Lindio-McGovern, L. (2003). Labor export in the context of globalization: The experience of
Filipino domestic workers in Rome. International Sociology, 18(3), 513‒534. doi:10.1177/
02685809030183004
Llamzon, T. A. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Manila, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
Lorente, B. P. (2017). Scripts of servitude: Language, labor migration and transnational
domestic work. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lowenberg, P. H. (2002). Assessing English proficiency in the expanding circle. World
Englishes, 21(3), 431‒435. doi:10.1111/weng.2002.21.issue-3
Mahboob, A., & Cruz, P. (2013). English and mother-tongue-based multilingual education:
Language attitudes in the Philippines. AJELS: Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 1,
1‒19.
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2010). On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development
of a concept. In W. Mignolo & A. Escobar (Eds.), Globalization and the decolonial option
(pp. 94–124). New York, NY: Routledge.
Martin, I. P. (2010). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the
Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 269‒
286). London, UK: Routledge.
Martin, I. P. (2014). Philippine English revisited. World Englishes, 33(1), 50‒59.
Miss Philippines World’s ear-splitting English an eye-opener for RP – Solon. (2008, May 15).
GMA News Online. Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/showbiz/content/
84929/miss-philippines-world-s-ear-splitting-english-an-eye-opener-for-rp-solon/story/
Mkandawire, P. T., & Soludo, C. C. (1999). Introduction. In P. T. Mkandawire & C. C. Soludo
(Eds.), Our continent, our future: African perspectives on structural adjustment (pp. xii‒
xiv). Dakar, Senegal: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa.
Mohanty, A. K. (2010). Languages, inequality and marginalization: Implications of the double
divide in Indian multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205,
131‒154.
Motha, S. (2014). Race and empire in English language teaching. New York, USA: Teachers
College Press, Columbia University.
Navera, G. S. (2018). The technicist framework and the teaching of speech communication in
the Philippines. In I. P. Martin (Ed.), Reconceptualizing English education in multilingual
societies: English in the Philippines (pp. 140–152). New York, NY: Springer.
Nolasco, R., Datar, F., & Azurin, A. (Eds.) (2010). Starting where the children are: A
collection of essays on mother tongue-based multilingual education and language issues
in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: 172+Talaytayan MLE Inc.
 CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 17

Ong, J. C., & Cabañes, J. (2011). Engaged, but not immersed: Tracking the mediated public
connection of Filipino elite migrants in London. South East Asia Research, 19(2), 197‒ 224.
doi:10.5367/sear.2011.0044
Parakrama, A. (1995). De-hegemonizing language standards: Learning from (post)colonial
Englishes about ‘English’. Houndmills, Basingstoke, and Hampshire. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave.
Parreñas, R. S. (2001). Servants of globalization: Women, migration and domestic work. Palo
Alto, USA: Stanford University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994/2017). The cultural politics of English as International Language (reis-
sued). London, UK; New York, USA: Routledge Linguistics Classics series.
Pennycook, A., Kubota, R., & Morgan, B. (2017). Preface. In B. Lorente (Ed.), Scripts of
servitude: Language, labor migration and transnational domestic work (pp. xi‒xv). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Platt, J. T., Weber, H., & Ho, M. L. (1984). The New Englishes. London, UK: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Pomeroy, W. J. (1970). American neo-colonialism: Its emergence in the Philippines and Asia.
New York, NY: International Publishers.
Reyes, A. (2017). Inventing postcolonial elites: Race, language, mix, excess. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 27(2), 210–231. doi:10.1111/jola.2017.27.issue-2
Sabaté-Dalmau, M. (2018). ‘I speak small’: Unequal Englishes and transnational identities
among Ghanaian migrants. International Journal of Multilingualism. Advance online pub-
lication. doi:10.1080/14790718.2018.1428329
Salonga, A. O. (2010). Language and situated agency: An exploration of the dominant linguistic
and communication practices in the Philippine offshore call centers (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Salonga, A. O. (2015). Performing gayness and English in an offshore call center industry. In
R. Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 130–142).
B Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schirmer, D. B., & Shalom, R. S. (1987). The Philippines Reader: A history of colonialism,
neocolonialism, dictatorship, and resistance. MA, USA: South End Press.
Sibayan, B. P. & Gonzalez, A. (1996). Post-imperial English in the Philippines. In J. A.
Fishman. A. W. Conrad & A. Rubal-Lopez (eds.) Post-imperial English: Status change in
former British and American Colonies, 1940–1990 (pp. 139–172). Berlin: Germany/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tay, M. (1991). Southeast asia and hong kong. In (ed).), English around the world – socio-
linguistic perspectives (pp. 319-332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tinio, M. T. T. P. (2009). The triumph of Tagalog and the dominance of the discourse on
English: Language politics in the Philippines during the American colonial period
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Tolentino, R. B. (2010). Jejemon. Bulatlat.com. Retrieved from http://www.bulatlat.com/
main/2010/05/03/jejemon/
Tupas, R. (2001). Global politics and the Englishes of the world. In J. Cotterril & A. Ife (Eds.),
Language across boundaries (pp. 81–98). London, New York: British Association for
Applied Linguistics in association with the Continuum Press.
Tupas, R. (2004). The politics of Philippine English: Neocolonialism, global politics, and the
problem of postcolonialism. World Englishes, 23(1), 47–58. doi:10.1111/weng.2004.23.
issue-1
Tupas, R. (2013). Beauty Contestant. In J. Barker, E. Harms, & J. Lindquist (Eds.), Figures of
Southeast Asian modernity (pp. 43–45). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
18 R. TUPAS

Tupas, R. (2015a). ‘My way of speaking, appearance, all of myself has to change’: A story of
inclusion and exclusion in an unequal learning space. In R. Rubdy & B. S. Selim (Eds.),
Conflict, exclusion and dissent in the linguistic landscape (pp. 170–184). Balingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tupas, R. (2015b). Inequalities of multilingualism: Challenges to mother tongue-based multi-
lingual education. Language and Education, 29(2), 112–124. doi:10.1080/
09500782.2014.977295
Tupas, R, & Lorente, B. (2014). Language education and nation-building: assimilation and
shift in southeast asia (pp. 165–180). (, Eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tupas, R., & Salonga, A. (2016). Unequal Englishes in the Philippines. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 367–381. doi:10.1111/josl.2016.20.issue-3
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–389.
doi:10.2307/3587438