Indigenization of Filipino: The Case of the Davao City Varietya

Jessie Grace U. Rubrico, PhD

Faculty of Education, University of Malaya

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
drrrubrico@gmail.com

Language Links Foundation, Incorporated

www.languagelinks.org
jessiegrace@languagelinks.org

Abstract

Filipino, the national lingua franca of the Philippines, is perceived as the Metro Manila
Tagalog which has pervaded the entire country through media, local movies, and
educational institutions. There are, however, emerging varieties of Filipino which deviate
from the grammatical properties of Tagalog. These are influenced by non-Tagalog
speakers whose native language competencies interfere with their usage of Filipino. These
deviations from Tagalog are undeniably distinctive and are used by a significant segment
of the non-Tagalog population in the country. The Filipino Variety of Davao City (FVD) is
a case in point. Using as data actual language use –by people in the street and on
cyberspace, this paper shows the indigenization of Filipino through linguistic description
of FVD - its features, morphosyntax, and innovations and how they deviate from those of
Tagalog. The indigenization of Filipino, an emergent phenomenon in the Philippine
linguistic landscape, empowers non-Tagalog Filipino speakers to actively participate in its
evolution, and to bring about the de-Tagalization of the evolving national language.

Keywords: Filipino, national lingua franca, indigenization of Filipino, Davao City Filipino,
emerging Filipino varieties, de-Tagalization of Filipino, Taglish.

________________________
a
This research paper is the first of a series on the varieties of Filipino spoken in Philippine urban
centers. Synchronic descriptions of these varieties are significant in defining principles and
parameters for a putative grammar of Filipino.

Copyright © 2012 by Jessie Grace U. Rubrico. All rights reserved

Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

Filipino is the national lingua franca of the Philippines. It is Tagalog-based, although ‘Pilipino-
based’ would be more technically or politically correct. Constitutionally mandated to evolve into
the country’s national language, its basis for development and enrichment are “existing
Philippine and other languages.” As it evolves, Filipino undergoes modifications by its non-
Tagalog speakers to suit the grammars of their native languages; thus, the birthing of emerging
varieties of Filipino which deviate from the grammatical properties of Tagalog. This
phenomenon paves the way for its indigenization, the process of “changing the language to suit
the communicative needs of non- native users . . . the process through which it is accommodated
and adapted to its speakers and their circumstances” (Kachru, 1982 cited in Kadenge, 2009,
p.156). This paper describes the indigenization of Filipino through linguistic description of FVD
features, morphosyntax and innovations to explore how these deviate from those of Tagalog.

1.0 Introduction

“The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed
and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages” (Article XIV, Section 6 of
the 1987 Constitution).1 The evolving Filipino has ushered in (1) the rampant lexical borrowing
from English and, to a lesser extent, from other Philippine and foreign languages; and (2) the
“Tagalog-English code switching” commonly known as Taglish (Bautista, 2004, p. 226). Thus,
the Tagalog variety of Metro Manila (FMM) came into being. Commonly referred to as Filipino,
FMM has eventually found its way to other parts of the country through the media, local movies,
and educational institutions. The non-Tagalog users of Filipino, however, freely apply the
grammar of their respective languages on Tagalog. Such is the case of Filipino speakers in
Davao City.

Davao City is the capital of Region XI (Davao Region), which includes the provinces of Davao
del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, and Compostela Valley. Situated at the southeastern
part of the island of Mindanao, it is considered one of the largest cities in the world with a land
area of 2,443.61 square kilometers. A vibrant metropolis with an upbeat economy, it is a “key
player in the flourishing trading hub called the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East
ASEAN Growth Area or BIMP-EAGA” which provides “access and linkage to the 20 million
market of Mindanao and the 51.4 million market of the East ASEAN Growth Area.”2 Its tri-
media is dynamic and brisk with quite a number of local newspapers, television and radio
stations. Moreover, the city is a melting pot of the diverse cultures of natives and migrants,
expatriates and Filipinos alike, who prefer to settle in the city.

The Davao City population of 1,147,116 in 2000 Census of Population and Housing has
increased to 1,464,301 in 2010 (LGPMS 2010 Census: Metro Davao). Considered the Center for
Learning and Education in Mindanao, its average literacy rate is 95.17%.3

1
The Supreme Court e-library:
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index7.php?doctype=Constitutions&docid=a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645
58f6f05f5e6
2
http://www.davaocity.gov.ph/about/business-leisure.htm
3
http://www.zamboanga.com/z/index.php?title=Davao_City

2
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

Cebuano, referred to as Bisaya or Binisaya by the people of Davao, is the language of the
majority of the populace. One in every three (33.32%) is Cebuano.4 The regional quarterly
publication of the Davao NCSO gives the following ethnolinguistic groups distribution in Davao:
Cebuano, 74.56%; Tagalog, 3.86%; Hiligaynon, 3.43%; Bagobo, Guiangao, 3.16%; Davaweño,
1.26%; Tagacaolo, 2.38%; Bilaan, 1.67%; Ilocano, 1.01%; Waray, 0.55%; Manobo, 2.15%;
Maguindanao, 1.91%; Mandaya, 2.01%; other languages, 2.04%; uncertain, 0.01%.5 According
to Ethnologue 2009, Davawenyo is 'a synthesis of Filipino, Cebuano, and other Visayan
dialects.’ The language is classified as “Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Philippine, Greater
Central Philippine, Central Philippine, Mansakan, Davaweño.”6 Other languages widely used in
Davao City are English and Filipino. English is used in universities and other institutions of
learning as well as in government offices, commerce and trade. Next to Cebuano, the people of
Davao use their own variety of Filipino in their day to day discourse.

2.0 The Filipino Language

“The Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a
common national language to be known as Filipino,” (Article XV Section 3 (2), 1973 Philippine
Constitution). Filipino is the country’s national language in the becoming. It is anchored on
Tagalog, renamed Pilipino in 1959 by virtue of the Department of Education Order No. 7, s.1959
(Yap, 2010) issued by then Secretary Jose E. Romero in order to lessen the hostile attitude of the
non-Tagalogs toward the national language. Pilipino, however, is not just Tagalog. It is Tagalog
plus hispanismos (Spanish loanwords), respelled in accordance with the Tagalog orthography.
Some examples of these are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Spanish Loanwords in Pilipino

Pilipino Spanish English Gloss

kabayo caballo horse
sibuyas cebollas onion
trabaho trabajo work
bakasyon vacación vacation
ambisyon ambición ambition
kumusta ¿cómo está? how are you?

The following are also loaned from Spanish: months of the year -Pebrero (February, Sp.
febrero), Hunyo, (June, Sp. junio); days of the week –Lunes (Monday), Biyernes (Friday, Sp.
Viernes) and Sabado (Saturday); and time expressions –a la una (one o’clock), segundo

4
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2002/pr02123tx.html. According to SIL, 91% to 97% of
Davao residents use Cebuano in its Ethnologue (2009) at
http://www.christusrex.org/www3/ethno/Phil.html
5
http://davao.islandsphilippines.com/davao_dialect.html citing Statistical Variable, Regional
QuarterlyPublication, National Census & Statistics Office, Davao City.
6
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL
International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.

3
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

(second), minuto (minute), oras (hour/time) from horas. Time expressions, except for horas, are
generally borrowed in their original spelling just like alambre (wire), gramo (gram), pulgada
(inch), kilometro (kilometer), metro (meter), abuso (abuse), amigo (friend), gusto (like), and
antemano (beforehand).

Borrowing from Spanish has gradually diminished; hispanismos have been integrated into the
Pilipino lexicon while lexical borrowing from English has proliferated. Taglish, a blend of the
clips Tag(alog) and (Eng)lish, is widely used. Tagalog tabloids, dailies, weeklies, magazines,
telecasts, broadcasts, sitcoms, and blogs of Filipinos on cyberspace are suffused with English
words – respelled or otherwise, and used in accordance with the grammar of Tagalog. The
following words are borrowed from English and respelled: anawnser (announcer), diksyunari
(dictionary), masaker (massacre), mentaliti (mentality), sektor (sector), isyu (issue), adbertisment
(advertisement), titser (teacher), blakbord (blackboard), kompyuter (computer), websayt
(website), bolpen (ballpen), drayber (driver), nars (nurse), pulis (police), taksi (taxi), bilding
(building), keyk (cake), teybol (table), etc. Some loanwords are borrowed in their original
spelling like apartment (apartment), blog (blog), bag (bag), basket (basket), and abroad
(abroad).7

The Spanish and English words listed above are used not only in Filipino but in other Philippine
languages as well. Cebuano speakers, for instance, use all these words in their ordinary
conversations. This is not surprising as both Spanish and English are languages of former
Filipino colonizers, hence, part of the country’s history. The 1987 Constitution provides that as
the national language evolves, “it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing
Philippine and other languages" (Art. XIV, Sec. 6, 1986 Constitution). This mandates the
incorporation of words from non-Tagalog Philippine languages and foreign languages, including
those which have been part of the country’s history, into the lexicon of the national language to
further enrich it.

There are 171 living languages of the Philippines, ten of which have a million or more speakers.
These ten languages, referred to as major languages, are: Tagalog (23,853,200); Cebuano
(15,807,260); Ilocano (6,996,600); Hiligaynon (5,770,000); Bikol (4,583,034); Waray-Waray
(2,570,000); Pampangan (1,905,550); Pangasinan (1,162,040); Tausug (1,062,000 );
Magindanaw (1,000,000).8 Another source, citing the 2000 census by the National Statistics
Office of the Philippines, enumerates the following twelve (12) languages as having at least a
million speakers: Tagalog (22,000,000), Cebuano (20,000,000), Ilokano (7,700,000), Hiligaynon
(7,000,000), Bikol (Northern and Southern: 3,700,000), Waray-waray (3,100,00), Kapampangan
(2,400,000), Pangasinan (1,540,000), Maranao (1,150,000), Maguindanao (1,100,000), Kinaray-
a (1,051,000) and Tausug (1,022,000).9 What percentage of the Filipino lexicon is sourced from
these languages?

7
For data and discussion on this, read Rubrico’s “Metamorphosis of Filipino as National Language,” at
www.languagelinks.org/onlinepapers/fil_met.html.
8
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL
International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/
9
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Languages_of_the_Philippines#List_of_Speakers_per_Language

4
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

Renato Perdon (cited in Cayabyab, 2008) cites the number of entries from the non-Tagalog
Philippine languages in the official dictionary published by the Commission on Filipino
Language in 1991, namely: Hiligaynon, 564 words; Cebuano, 526; Samar-Leyte or Waray-
waray, 459; Tausug, 328; Bicol, 301; Maranao, 222; Ilocano, 122; Maguindanao, 99;
Pangasinan, 82; Kapampangan, 51; Samal, 23; Tingian, 16; Isneg, 12; and Tagbanua, 12. On the
other hand, Tagalog, the basis of Filipino, has 8,463 words; Spanish, 5,210; English, 1,907;
Chinese, 232; Malay, 176; Latin, 70; French, 46; Sanskrit, 29; Arabic, 28; German, 25; Mexican,
20; and Japanese, 13. The number of loanwords must have undoubtedly increased twenty (20)
years since then, thus, expanding the lexicon of the evolving national language.

The use of Filipino has spread dramatically since its inception 1973. It is understood by almost
all Filipinos. The 2000 Census of Population and Housing reports that, “Nine out of ten can
speak Tagalog (sic).” About ninety-six percent (96.4%) of the household population who have
gone to school can speak Filipino. Figure 1 below shows the percentages of population aged 5
years old or over who can speak Filipino across regions.10

Figure 1 Percentage of Filipino-speaking Filipinos by Region

Source: http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html

The spread of Filipino nationwide is predictable for a number of reasons. First, it is taught in all
levels of learning in both public and private schools all over the country. Second, it is used as
medium of instruction and as language of the academe for intellectualization. Third, it is the
currency of communication in the national tri-media, which are potent and effective tools for
language dissemination. Tabloids in Filipino are circulated in the urban centers; local radio
stations, which service the grassroots all over the country, set aside airtime for national broadcast
in Filipino from their mother stations in Manila every day; most FM radio stations in the urban
centers incorporate Filipino into their programming; television channels with national viewership
use Filipino in their sitcoms, talk shows, news, variety shows and telenovelas (soap serials which
are translated to Filipino from Spanish, Korean, and other foreign tongues).In addition, actors
and actresses of Tagalog movies freely use Filipino. They are influential among their young
admirers whose tendency is to readily adopt their language. Additionally, the country’s young
people are occupied with emergent genres of pop songs and discourse which lean towards their
own Filipino language ideolects. Filipino, furthermore, is traded freely on cyberspace. Filipinos

10
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html

5
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

from all over the world meet in various online fora, write blogs, twit and interact with each other
in Filipino, which they call Tagalog. Coming from different regions of the country, they find a
lingua franca in Filipino.

Thus, the following questions are asked: Are Filipino and Tagalog different languages or one and
the same? Has Tagalog radically changed? Is Filipino the contemporary Tagalog?

The Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF, Commission on Filipino Language), considers

“Tagalog,” “Pilipino” and “Filipino” as varieties of Tagalog. “Filipino is that speech variety
spoken in Metro Manila and other urban centers where different ethnic groups meet. It is the
most prestigious variety of Tagalog” (Nolasco, 2007). The non-Tagalog language advocates
agree with the viewpoint of KWF, by regarding Filipino as sugar-coated Tagalog masquerading
as the national lingua franca for political correctness and acceptance.11

The academicians, on the other hand, have more or less adopted a unified idea about Filipino.
Filipino linguist Ernesto A. Constantino (2011) says: "Ang pinili naming wika na idedebelop bilang
wikang pambansa natin, ang tinawag naming linggwa prangka o Filipino" (We chose to develop as
national language that which we refer to as the lingua franca or Filipino). Cruz (1997) argues
that Filipino is the English-Tagalog code switch. Flores (1996) remarks that Filipino is the
language of the "kulturang popular na nagmula sa Metro Manila at pinapalaganap sa buong kapuluan"
(popular culture that originated from Metro Manila and disseminated all over the archipelago).
These statements clearly show a consensus among academicians that Filipino is the lingua franca
of Metro Manila which has inevitably pervaded the regional urban centers through educational
institutions, print and broadcast media, movies, pop songs that local bands sing, etc. Following
this line of thinking, Filipino is a dialect of Tagalog.

There are, however, emerging varieties of Filipino which deviate from the grammatical
properties of Tagalog. These are influenced by non-Tagalog speakers whose native language
competencies interfere with their usage of Filipino. These deviants are undeniably distinctive and
are used by a significant segment of the non-Tagalog population in the country and abroad. By
“deviant” is meant the difference of these languages from Tagalog is so evident that Tagalog
speakers intuitively judge the morphosyntactic/syntactic constructions of these languages as
“ungrammatical” or “ill-formed”. Tagalog speakers, for instance, will not consider grammatical
this text from Davao Tagalog 101 (Bulseco, 2012): "Alam man nakin `yan ba!" or "Saan nakin
kita nakita gani?" (Tagalog: Alam ko na man yan; Saan nga ba kita nakita?; English: I already
know that; Where have I seen you before?)

Pamela Constantino (2009) says that since Filipino is “the lingua franca and second language,
varieties of this are being formed as a result of interference or mixing of the first languages of the
speakers. So if a Cebuano will use Filipino, (something like) this could not be avoided: Nagbasa
ako ng libro (Tag., bumasa ako ng libro). Before 1973, the said sentence was wrong because
Tagalog indeed was the basis. But now this is considered as the Cebuano variety of Filipino.”
This gives a clear picture on the direction Filipino is going to take: de-Tagalization.

11
This issue has been hotly discussed in many e-groups and forums in the internet like the following:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wika/; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DILA-philippines/;
http://www.FilipinoWriter.com; http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.filipino/; etc.

6
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

As Filipino evolves it has gradually deviated from Tagalog. Rubrico (1998) cites the differences
of Tagalog and Filipino as described by Constantino, namely: Filipino has (1) more phonemes –
28 compared to 20 in Tagalog;12 (2) a different orthography; (3) a different grammatical
construction; and (4) a tendency to borrow heavily from the English language. To elaborate on
the third Constantino criteria, Filipino exhibits a radical deviation from the Tagalog phonotactics,
i.e., its syllable structures do not conform to the phonotactic constraints of Tagalog. It has
effectively departed from the putative phonemic clustering in Tagalog. Note for instance the
consonant cluster at the onset of the second syllable in istrayk13 giving the syllable structure
CCVC which departs from the CV or CVC structure of Tagalog. Another case in point is the
marked difference in the morphosyntactic processes of some varieties of Filipino from those of
Tagalog.

This paper looks into the morphosyntactic processes of the Filipino variety of Davao City
(FVD), which the Davaweños call Davao Tagalog, to explore how these deviate from that of
Tagalog. It specifically explores the Filipino language Davaweños use in day-to-day
communication in the streets and on cyberspace.

3. 0 Methods

Data collection for this study was initially done during the researcher’s frequent visits to Davao
City from 2005 to 2007 while interacting with friends, acquaintances and people on the streets;
listening to homilies in churches and to local radio stations; watching local telecasts; observing
Filipino classroom instructions; reading the local papers and billboards and signage along the
city’s streets. A few clauses described in the study were sourced from billboards, a short dialog
between the researcher and a petrol station attendant, and a homily. The bulk of the data,
nevertheless, was sourced from blog sites of Davaweños and from an online edition of a local
newspaper. The reason for this was twofold: (1) the Filipino variety online has been observed to
be identical with the variety used in ordinary day to day discourse; and, (2) the orthography
provided by the speakers themselves is the researcher’s primary data on written text. Checking
online in 2012 showed the integrity of the data collected in 2005 to 2007. (Although some of the
original blog sites cited are no longer accessible, majority of the words, phrases and clauses used
in this paper are still evident in today's online sites, groups and communities.)

Data gathered were grouped according to their morphosyntactic feature deviations from those of
Tagalog. Representative FVD clauses were then parsed for morphosyntactic analysis. Data from
classrooms, radio stations and television channels14 of Davao City were not used because of their
similarity to the Filipino spoken in Metro Manila (FMM). This might be due to the H status of
FMM in the speech community’s diglossia (Fergusson, 1959 cited in Sridhar, 1996). Hence,

12
Filipino has 28 phonemes: /a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, ň, ng, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z/; Tagalog
has 20: /a, b, k, d, e, g, h, i, l, m, n, ng, o, p, r, s, t, u, w, y/.
13
http://tl.w3dictionary.org/index.php?q=istrayk; www.athina984.gr/node/20682;
www.tagalog-dictionary.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?s=strike;
www.wikapinoy.com/glossary/index.php/.../Tagalog+English,istrayk.xhtml
14
This was observed in a class of Sining Pangkomunikasyon (Communication Arts) in Brokenshire College in
Davao City last Sept 09, 2005 and in local radio and television stations. However, this description of Filipino
language use in these domains is not conclusive.

7
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

textbooks used in classrooms follow the national curriculum for Filipino; the academe’s Filipino
conforms to the grammar of Tagalog; announcers and broadcasters who are generally part of a
national network use FMM. A sample of FMM Davao is, nevertheless, discussed briefly in (4.1).

4.0 The Filipino variety of Davao City

There are two varieties of Filipino in Davao City: (1) the Tagalog - English code switch or
Taglish (Bautista, 2004; Cruz, 1997); and (2) the Tagalog - Bisaya code mix. The former is not
treated comprehensively in this paper because it closely resembles FMM. The latter, also labeled
TAGBIS by its speakers, is treated in this study as the Filipino variety of Davao.

4.1 Tagalog-English code mix (Taglish)

The Tagalog-English code mix which resembles the Metro Manila variety of Filipino is
considered FMM, not FVD. This is seen in billboards and signage and used by television and
radio hosts as well as some of the locals. It retains the original spelling of loanwords, even when
attached to Tagalog (TAG) affixes. Examples (1a) and (1b) are from blogsites
(www.tristancafe.com/forum/46 and
mannypacquiao.ph/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12132&sid=996b764ed88d5d35bfd3c495f4a7cb63
respectively); clauses (1c, d, and e) are from billboards along the city’s main thoroughfares. The
italicized words are borrowed from English.

1a) Nagpapakaserious sa work and naglilibang sa net

Eng: pretending to be serious at work and keeping busy at the internet,

kung bakit pa kasi ako nainlove.

why did i have to fall in love.

1b) Bro, dont do that... naglilibang si pareng bobby alvarez, eh...

Eng: brother. . . . . . our friend bobby alvarez is relaxing, you know.

1c) Let’s go na po, sa paborito nato!

Eng: Come now, let’s go to our favorite (place)!

1d) Dad, I love it here, BUY NA, NOW NA!

Eng: . . . . . . . . . . buy now, this instant.

1e) MAGRECYCLE NA
Eng: recycle now

Three things are observed in the examples above. First, English words are borrowed in their
original spelling. Second, morphosyntactic rules of the native language are applied on these
words. Note the blending of Filipino affixes (in italics) and English root words (in their original

8
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

spelling) in the following verbal constructions: nagpapakaserious (pretending to be serious),

nainlove (fall in love) and magrecycle (to recycle). The third observation is code-mixing, which
is another feature of this variety. All the clauses above exhibit a degree of ease in shifting from
Filipino to English, or vice versa. They are very Taglish, except in (1c) where the Bisayan lexical
item nato (1st Person, Plural, Genitive) is used instead of Tagalog natin. Because of the
similarity of this variety to FMM, this will not be discussed any further.

4.2 The Tagalog Bisaya (FVD), also known as TAGBIS or BISLOG.

The second variety of (FVD) is indigenous to the Davaweños; a blending of Bisaya15 and
Tagalog. Lizada (2005) calls this “Tagalog na Binisaya” (Bisayan Tagalog) in his column,
Papa's Table, in Sunstar Davao. This lingo is also referred to casually as BISLOG from the clips
Bis(ayang) (Taga)log or TAGBIS from Tag(alog) Bis(aya). Note sample sentences (2a-c) from
“Tagalog na Binasaya”. The italicized words are awkward or ill-formed in Tagalog.

2a) Dahil wala ako-ng magawa ay naglibang-libang ako.

Because neg 1SGen-link do-Apt IM amuse-Perf 1PNom16

Because I could do nothing, I amused myself /kept myself occupied.

2b) Wag lang dagat na magtabok kami dahil takot akong

neg just sea that ConAF-cross 1PNom because afraid 1SGen-link

sumakay ng bangka para tumabok.

board- ConAF indefM canoe to cross

Not just the sea where we need to cross because I’m afraid to board a canoe to cross.

2c) mas mabuti kung muhawa na lang mi kay kusog lagi17 ang ulan!
more good if AFleave-Con just 1PGen because hard part the rain

It is better if we just leave because the rain is really hard (it’s raining hard)

Let’s look at clauses (2a-2c). The Verb naglibang-libang in the context of (2a) is from
TAGlibang (to amuse or to keep busy), which does not appear in this form (viz., Vaf –
Rootlibang-totalReduplication) in TAG. In BIS, libang affixed with ma- means “to defecate.”
Libang does not co-occur with the affix mag- in BIS.

15
The people of Mindanao call their language Bisaya or Binisaya. For them, Cebuano is the language of the
people of Cebu. Bisaya and Cebuano mean the same in this paper and are used interchangeably.
16
Abbreviations: neg, negative; 1SGen-link, 1stPerson-Singular-Genetive-Linker; Apt, Aptative; IM,
Inversion Marker; Perf, Perfected; 1PNom, 1stPerson Plural Nominative; ConAF, Contemplated-
ActorFocus; indefM, indefinite Marker; 1PGen, 1stPerson Genetive.
17
BIS particle lagi puts emphasis on what is stated.

9
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

In (2b), BIS root tabok (TAGtawid) is affixed with two actor-focus affixes mag- and -um- to
convey the infinitive “to cross.” The prefix mag- is found in both TAG and BIS. The infix –um-
is Tagalog in this context, hence, tumabok (TAGtumawid) is a blend of a BIS root word and
TAG affix. It is also infixed to TAG and BIS root sakay deriving Verb sumakay. It should be
noted at this point that although the affix –um- is rarely heard in the contemporary BIS, its been
used until the 1960s when older people would say `umari ka’ (come here); `umanhi ka’ (you
come); `kumaon kamo’ (you eat) `sumalom ka’ (you dive). Thus, infix -um-, though relegated to
the imperative utterances of older people nowadays, is also a BIS affix.

The sentence in (2c) is Bisaya with one TAG word, mabuti; verb muhawa (rootword: hawa,
TAGalis; English depart); the phrase ang ulan is both BIS and TAG.

The foregoing examples show that, generally, TAG is the lexifier in this code-mix; yet it is
always convenient and natural for speakers to use BIS words in expressing emphasis, assertions,
confirmations, and other modes of emotion in the discourse. This is shown in the insertion of BIS
particles in clauses (2d-i) and (2l-n) from “Galenga Talaga Niya Gyud, Uy!”
(http://thespoke.net/blogs/yeoj/archive/2006/01/12/931047.aspx). This is one feature of FVD.

2d) Mabait bitaw18 gyud si Weng

good-natured part really AM19 Weng

Tag: Totoong mabait si Weng.

Eng: Weng is really good-natured.

2e) Huwag lagi ba! 20

neg part part

Tag: Sinabi nang huwag!

Eng: You shouldn’t do that!

2f) Galenga talaga niya gyud, uy!21

excellent really 3SGen part

Tag: Ang galing niya talaga!

Eng: She really is excellent!

Besides the particles, note the two morphemes in galenga, [galeng and –a], in (2f). The
morpheme –a is usually affixed to BIS adjectives to express intensity, like dakoa (how big),
gamaya (how little or how small).

Another process observed in FVD is deriving verbs from question words via affixation as shown
in (2g).

18
BIS particle bitaw signifies agreement on what is being stated;
19
AM, actor marker
20
BIS particle ba here expresses the impatience of the speaker.
21
BIS particles gyud from gayud expresses certainty while uy at clause final express delight or surprise.

10
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

2g) Anohin man22 natin yan?

what-Con part 1PGen that

Tag: Aanhin natin iyan?

Eng: What shall we do with that?

The BIS correspondence of TAGano is unsa. This can be made into a verb by affixation –e.g.,
mag-unsa (what will one do), unsaon (how to do something), maunsa (what will happen). This is
one of the morphological properties of interrogative morphemes in BIS. Another example is
given in (2h) where the BIS verbal affix na- is prefixed to TAG root ano:

2h) Na-ano ka diyan, Bryan?

ProgAF-what 1SNom there Bryan

Tag: Anong nangyari sa iyo diyan, Bryan?

Eng: What happen to you there, Bryan?

Affixation of BIS verbal affixes to TAG roots are done in accordance with BIS morphological
rules. This is another feature of FVD. Other examples are given below:

2i) Hindi pa man siya nag-dating, uy. 23

neg part part 3SNom ProgAF-arrive part

Tag: Hindi pa siya dumarating kasi.

Eng: S/he has not arrived yet. (What’s taking her/him so long?)

Clauses (2j-k) taken from Raut (2005).

2j) Ayaw kasi nilang mag-lapit sa akin, di ayaw ko na ring

neg because 3PGenLinker ConAF-come near to 1SLoc so neg 1SNOm part part

maglapit sa kanila.
ConAF-come near to 3PLoc

Tag: Ayaw kasi nilang lumapit sa akin, eh di ayaw ko na ring lumapit sa kanila.
Eng: Because they don’t want to come near me, so I don’t also want to go near them.

From the foregoing examples, it is shown that the TAG Vaf –um- is generally replaced with mag-
in FVD. In (2k), BIS Vaf gi- is affixed to TAGsabi and in (2l) BIS Vaf maka- is affixed to
TAGinis in accordance with BIS morphosyntax. Note the BIS translation of the clause.

22
BIS particle man is used here after a question word for euphony.
23
BIS particle pa means “yet”; The TAGhindi pa phrase here means “not yet.” BIS uy particle expresses irritation or
anxiety.

11
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

2k) Gisabi kasi ni Helen na mag-absent si Bernard bukas

PerfOF24-say because AM Helen that ConAF-absent AM Bernard tomorrow

Tag: Sinabi kasi ni Helen na aabsent si Bernard bukas.

Eng: Because Helen said that Bernard will be absent tomorrow

2l) Maka-inis man yan siya, uy!

AptCon-irritate part that 1SNom part

Tag: Nakakainis talaga siya!

Bis: Makalagot man na siya uy!
Eng: S/he really makes one mad!

A remarkable innovation in FVD is the nakin form of the TAG personal pronoun ko. The pre-
post first person singular genetive pronoun in BIS is ako which when put after the verb becomes
nako. The TAG correspondence for nako in (2m) is ko.

2m) Alam man nakin `yan ba!

know part 1SGen that part

Tag: Alam ko na man yan.

Eng: I already know that.

In (2n), nakin seems a redundancy considering that TAGkita conveys the I-You duality.

2n) Saan nakin kita nakita gani?25

where 1SGen PerfAF-see part

Tag: Saan nga ba kita nakita?

Eng: Where have I seen you before?

Clause (2o) is a dialog between the researcher (A) and an attendant (B) in a petrol station in Ulas,
a suburb in Davao City. This is given a free translation to English. A speaks in FMM26 and B
answers in FVD.

2o) A: (FMM): Saan ang Marco Polo Hotel? (Where is the Marco Polo Hotel?)
B1: (FVD/BIS): Medyo layolayo pa. (FMM: Medyo malayo pa.)
(English: It’s A bit farther on.)
A: (FMM): Saan kami dadaan? (Where do we pass?/Which way do we take?)

24
PerfOF, perfected Object Focus
25
Kita is a Tagalog pronoun that express the I-You paradigm as in Mahal Kita (I love you) or Isumbong
kita (I’ll tell on you). BIS particle gani is used here to express remembrance of something or someone.
26
The researcher uses FMM as she is not a native speaker of Tagalog and uses the Filipino variety of Metro Manila

12
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

B2: (FVD) (Pointing to the map):

Ulas tayo. (FMM: Nasa Ulas tayo. Eng: We are in Ulas).
B3: Bankerohan man ito. (This is Bankerohan.)
B4: Kung dito ka magdaan, trafik man gud ngayon.
(FMM: Kung dito ka dumaan, matrafik kasi ngayon.
English: If you take this road, the traffic is heavy now)
B5: Pero mas ideal dito. (FMM: Pero mas maigi dito.
English: But this is the best way.)

These actual dialog (2o) and homily transcripts in (2j-k) show the same FVD features of clauses
sourced from the internet.

5.0 Features of FVD: How do they differ from those of Tagalog?

5.1 The combination of words from BIS and TAG in a clause, including the insertion of BIS
particles, like bitaw, gyud, lagi ba, gyud, uy.

The Bisayan-Tagalog code-mix is a feature of FVD. Not only does it integrate BIS
lexicon into Filipino but it also stamps FVD’s character into the evolving national language. It
alters Tagalog clauses with the insertion of BIS particles. Moreover, it renders FVD clauses
indigenous as it allows for BIS morphosyntax processes on TAG lexical items, making these
words unintelligible to Tagalog speakers.

5.2 The application of BIS morphosyntactic rules on TAG morphemes in the clause.

5.2.1 The suffixing of –a to adjectives to convey their intensive form, like in (2f) where
–a is suffixed to adjective galing, deriving galenga. This is not grammatical in Tagalog which
marks intensive adjectives with ang instead. The interjection in (3a) below is ill-formed in TAG;
(3b) is the acceptable form:

3a) *Galenga ni Kulasa!

3b) Ang galing ni Kulasa!

Eng: How excellent Kulasa is!

5.2.2 The affixation of BIS Vaf on TAG words. Note the use of verbal affixes mag- or
nag- in lieu of the TAG –um- or other more appropriate affixes of the language; or, the use of
BIS Vaf gi- in lieu of TAG –in-. The use of BIS Vaf in the derivation of verbs from TAG words
in FVD is a strong argument for the difference between FVD and Tagalog.

13
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

5.3 The innovation in FVD pronoun.

The use of the pronoun nakin, TAG ko, in FVD is illustrated in (2m and 2n). The
researcher is not sure whether there are other pronoun innovations in FVD. Further study is
needed to come up with conclusive statements on this innovation.

There may be other features of FVD which are not mentioned in this paper. This is a seminal
study of the TAGBIS variety of FVD which hopes to initiate more comprehensive studies by
scholars of the Filipino language, documenting how its variants differ from Tagalog as it evolves
into the national language.

6.0 Conclusion

Two varieties of Filipino are spoken in Davao City: FMM and FVD. FMM, also referred to as
Taglish, is the Tagalog-English code switch of Metro Manila which has pervaded the area. FVD,
on the other hand, is the Tagalog-Bisaya code mix indigenous to the Davaweños. Commonly
referred to as Tagalog na Binisaya, TAGBIS, or BISLOG, it combines Tagalog and Bisaya in
clauses.

A linguistic description of FVD has been presented in this paper. This study has shown two
significant features of FVD, namely: (1) most words in its clauses are from the TAG lexicon;
and, (2) these Tagalog words are processed using BIS morphosyntactic rules. There is, therefore,
a TAG lexicon–BIS affixation construction. Can clauses consisting of Tagalog words with BIS
affixes derived through BIS morphosyntactic rules be called Tagalog still? If they are, is FVD a
dialect of Tagalog? If it is, why do native Tagalog speakers disown it? 27 Their native linguistic
intuition judges this variety of Tagalog as ungrammatical. And rightly so because, despite FVD’s
seemingly Tagalog form, it still violates the rules of grammar of their language. It is not Tagalog.

On the other hand, can these clauses be considered BIS because they are derived through BIS
morphosyntactic rules? Native speakers of Bisaya or Cebuano will never agree that these FVD
clauses are BIS. For them, these are definitely Tagalog. So if native speakers of both Tagalog
and Cebuano disown this language, what is FVD then?

FVD is the germination of Filipino per se evolving into a language distinct from Tagalog. The
national language provisions of both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are aimed at a language
different from Tagalog; a language that emerges from usage of Filipino by Filipinos, inclusive of
Tagalog and non-Tagalog speakers. As Nemenzo (2005) has aptly articulated, "The core of the
real Filipino language is the Filipino as spoken in Davao and not the Balagtas Tagalog in
Bulacan [Luzon]. . . A language and its usage should grow and that is what is happening in

27
Two cases prove this: First is the comment of Professor Prospero R. Covar, Filipinologist, who said (in a personal
conversation in 2008) that he cannot understand anymore the Tagalog of his sister who has been based in Davao
City for over 20 years. The Covars are Tagalog native speakers from Laguna Province. Second is a blogger’s
comment on FVD: “I have a hard time teaching Filipino (or Tagalog) to my son. . . I noticed that every time he tries
to speak Tagalog, he mixes it up with some Bisaya words. I am trying my best to correct his grammar in Filipino but
still the same, he speaks Filipino the Davao way.” (Source: http://www.probinsyana.com/2012/01/16/how-
davaoenos-speak-tagalog/)

14
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

Davao."28 Filipino is a language evolving in its usage. Its movement toward the non-Tagalog
urban centers of the country has paved the way for its indigenization, allowing Filipino speakers
all over the Philippines to freely explore the national language in the context of their native
tongues; empowering them to actively participate in its development.

The indigenization of Filipino is an emergent phenomenon in the Philippine linguistic landscape.

FVD has blazed the trail by adopting Filipino on its own terms. It has indelibly imprinted into
Filipino its own features and characteristics –resulting in an innovation that is distinct and
significant from the morphosyntactic domain; features that definitely sets it apart from Tagalog.

Other non-Tagalog Filipino speakers have also been observed to be using their respective
varieties of Filipino, which clearly deviate from Tagalog grammaticality. Documenting these
varieties can contribute toward defining principles and parameters governing the evolving
national language; and, ultimately, toward the diminution of its Tagalog centricity or de-
Tagalization.

28
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/jan/23/yehey/metro/20050123met1.html

15
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

References

Almario, V.S. (1997). Mulang Tagalog hanggang Filipino. Daluyan, 8 (1-2), 1-10.

Constantino, E.A. (1996). Mga linggwistik na llusyon sa Pilipinas. In Constantino and Atienza
(Eds.). Mga Piling Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan (pp.179-186). Quezon City: UP Press.

Constantino, E.A. (2011, December). Ang Filipino bilang pambansang wika ng ating bansa.
Paper read at the 11th Philippine Linguistics Congress. Quezon City, Philippines.

Constantino, P.C. & Atienza, M. M. (Eds.) (1996). Mga piling diskurso sa wika at lipunan.
Quezon City: UP Press.

Cruz, I.R. (1997). Ang Filipino sa internet. Daluyan, 8 (1-2), 69-74.

Flores, P.D. (1996). Pamamangka sa maraming ilog: Ang deseminasyon ng Filipino at

ang mga daluyan ng kulturang popular. In Constantino and Atienza (Eds.). Mga Piling
Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan (pp. 219-230). Quezon City: UP Press.

Kadenge, M. ( 2009). African Englishes: The Indigenization of English Vowels by Zimbabwean

Native Shona Speakers. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 3 (1).

Paz, C.J. (1995). Ang wikang Filipino atin ito. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino-Diliman,
University of the Philippines.

Raut, Roderick. (2005, May). “Pagkakaisa sa gitna ng pagkakaiba-iba.” A homily delivered

during the Tagalog Service at the Davao City UCCP.

Sridhar, K.K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In McKay, S.L. & Hornberger, P.F. (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp.47-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blogsites

Ato ni Bai`! (2005, April 1). Bisaya Bloggers. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from
bisayabloggers.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_bisayabloggers_archive.html
Bulseco, R.M. (2012, January 05). Why Davao Tagalog is funny and equally amazing: Davao
Tagalog 101. Life and Works of RM Bulseco. Retrieved January 12, 2012, from
http://rmbulseco.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-davao-tagalog-is-funny-and-equally.html#more

Galenga talaga niya gyud, uy! (2006, January 12). The Spoke. Retrieved January 31, 2006,
from http://thespoke.net/blogs/yeoj/archive/2006/01/12/931047.aspx

How Davaoenos speak Tagalog (2012, January 16). Probinsyana. Retrieved January 31, 2012,
from http://www.probinsyana.com/2012/01/16/how-davaoenos-speak-tagalog/

16
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

Manny Pacquiao, the Destroyer. PhilBoxing Forum. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from
mannypacquiao.ph/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12132&sid=996b764ed88d5d35bfd3c495f4a7cb63.

Wala Lang Gusto Ko Lang Magkwento (n.d.). TristanCafe Forums. Retrieved January 7, 2007
from www.tristancafe.com/forum/46

Online References

Bautista, M.L.S. (2004). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse

[Electronic version]. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5 (2), 226-233.

Cayabyab, R. (2008, April 18). The vibrancy of Filipino as a language. Retrieved July 12, 2007,
from http://emanila.com/philippines/2008/04/18/the-vibrancy-of-filipino-as-a-language/

City Population & Average Annual Growth Rates Davao City, Various Census Dates.
Retrieved December 27, 2010, from
http://www.davaocity.gov.ph/gen_info/demographics.php

Constantino, P.C. (2000).Tagalog/Pilipino/Filipino: Do they differ? (Senga, A.,Translator).

Retrieved August 23, 2009, from
http://emanila.com/philippines/2009/01/16/tagalog-pilipino-filipino-do-they-differ/

Davao City: Population Expected To Double in 24 Years (Results from the 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, NSO) Number: 2002-123. September 3, 2002. Retrieved December
27, 2011, from http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2002/pr02123tx.html

Davao City (Region XI), Total Population by Barangay (May 1, 2000). National Statistics
Coordination Board Regional Division XI (Davao Region). Retrieved June 20, 2011, from
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru11/secstat/population/davaocity.htm

Davao City. (n.d). Zamboanga.com. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from

http://www.zamboanga.com/z/index.php?title=Davao_City

Davao dialect backed as RP national language. (2005, January 23). The Manila Times. Retrieved
September 23, 2006, from
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/jan/23/yehey/metro/20050123met1.html

Davao Language(s) and Dialect(s). Retrieved April 4, 2009, from

http://davao.islandsphilippines.com/davao_dialect.html citing "Statistical Variable", Regional
QuarterlyPublication, National Census & Statistics Office, Davao City.

Istrayk ng Customs workers, illegal. (2008, September 27). Athina.web Retrieved January 12,
2010, from http://www.athina984.gr/node/20682 27/09/2008

17
Indigenization of Filipino : The Case of the Davao City Variety (Rubrico 2012)

Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition.
Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. (Online version). Retrieved September 21, 2010 from
http://www.ethnologue.com/

Lizada, R. (2005, January 19). Tagalog na Binasaya (Part Two). Sun Star Davao Online.
Retrieved December 27, 2005, from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/dav/2005/01/19/life/lizada.tagalog.na.binasaya.html

Local Government Unit (LGU) Profile of Davao City, 2010. Local Governance Performance
Management System. Retrieved December 30, 2011 from
http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpmsv2/cmshome/index.php?pageID=23&frmIdDcfCode=7&fLguTyp
e=CM&frmIdRegion=14&frmIdProvince=76&frmIdLgu=1464

Nolasco, R. (n.d.). Filipino and Tagalog, Not So Simple. Retrieved from

http://www.dalityapi.com/2007_08_01_archive.html

Population of Davao. Population flags and capital cities for all countries Retrieved April 5,
2009, from http://population-of.com/en/Philippines/C3/Davao/

Rubrico, J.G.U. (1998) The Metamorphosis of Filipino as National Language. Language

Links.org Retrieved July 23, 2010, from
www.languagelinks.org/onlinepapers/fil_met.html

The 1973 Constitution of the Philippines. Supreme Court e-library. Retrieved June 07, 2010 from
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index7.php?doctype=Constitutions&docid=a45475a11ec72b8
43d74959b60fd7bd64558f82c40d9d

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Supreme Court e-library. Retrieved June 07, 2010 from
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index7.php?doctype=Constitutions&docid=a45475a11ec72b8
43d74959b60fd7bd64558f6f05f5e6

Wika Pinoy Tagalog-English Dictionary. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from

www.wikapinoy.com/glossary/index.php/.../Tagalog+English,istrayk.xhtml

Yap, F.A. A Look @ Global Filipino Orthography. Towards Modernization and

Standardization. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from
http://larc.sdsu.edu/files/2010/03/Yap-A-LOOK-@-GLOBAL-FILIPINO-
ORTHOGRAPHY.pdf

18