CURRENT POLICIES GOVERNING the USE of LANGUAGE in PHILIPPINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS by Dr

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

CURRENT POLICIES GOVERNING THE USE OF LANGUAGE IN PHILIPPINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS By Dr. Yolanda S. Quijano, Director IV and Mrs. Ofelia H. Eustaquio, Education Program Specialist II I. INTRODUCTION The Republic of the Philippines is an archipelago made up of 7,107 islands, located in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, about 800 km off the Southeast Asian mainland. The island group is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea, on the south by the Celebes Sea and on the west and north by the South China Sea. It has a land area of 298,170 sq. km. terrain is mostly mountains with narrow to extensive coastal lowlands (see map1). Map 1 – The Republic of the Philippines (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications./the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html) 1 The Philippines produces timber, petroleum, nickel, cobalt, silver, gold, salt and copper. Its agriculture products are sugarcane, coconuts, rice, corn, bananas, cassavas, pineapples, mangoes, pork, egg, beef and fish. The country has electronic assembly, garments, footwear, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, wood products, food processing, petroleum refining and fishing as its industries. The July 2007 records estimated a population of 91,077,287. Of this 34.5% are of 0-14 year comprising 16,043,257 males/15,415,334 females, 61.3% are in the 15- 64 years bracket with 27,849,584 males/28,008,293 females, and 4.1% of the population with 1,631,866 males/2,128,953 females are 65 years and above. Of the said population, 80.9% of the Filipinos are Roman Catholics, 5% are Muslims, 2.8% are Evangelical, 2.3% are Iglesia ni Kristo, 2% are Aglipayan, 4.5% are other Christians while other comprising 1.8% have other beliefs and still others are unspecified, 0.6% and none, 0.1% (2000 census). The local languages across the country are numerous and serve the purpose of daily living and interactions with others within specific communities. The use of many languages in daily life is normal and widely accepted. Gonzales (2004) noted that the average Filipino is quadrilingual and the Philippines is a multilingual society with over a hundred separate languages. But at the present and by consensus, the Tagalog-based Filipino is widely understood and used in all domains of life. II. MAJOR LANGUAGES OF THE PHILIPPINES A. Regional Languages In a country of thousands of islands, many different languages evolved. There are different estimates about the number of Philippines languages. Ethnologue (2005) reports that there are 171 living languages spoken by the different ethno-linguistic groups of the Philippines. Belves (2002) reports that eight of these are considered major languages in the country. These are: 1) Bikol, 2) Cebuano, 3) Hiligaynon, 4) Ilokano or Iloko, 5) Kapampangan, 6) Pangasinan or Pangasinense 7) Tagalog, and 8) Waray or Samarnon. McFarland (1993), on the other hand, estimates 120 languages and lists the same eight with the addition of Maranao and Maguindanao, which are actually dialects of the same language but are considered different by their users for political and historical reasons. Map 2 on the next page shows the areas where each major regional language are spoken: 1) Bicol is spoken by 3,700,000, 2) Cebuano - by 20,000,000 people, 3) Hiligaynon - by 7,000,000, 4) Ilokano or Iloko - by 7,700,000, 5) Kapampangan - by 2,400,000, 6) Pangasinan or Pangasinense - by 1,540,000, 7) Tagalog - by 22,000,000 8) Waray or Samaron - by 3,100,000. 2 Map 2 – Major Languages of the Philippines The Philippine languages are further divided into subgroups. The first three groups are considered to be closely related to each other. 3 Northern Philippine languages such as Ilokano, Kapampangan, Pangasinense, and Sambal languages are concentrated in northern and central Luzon. Some languages in Mindoro such as Iraya and Tadyawan are included in this group. The Yami language (also known as Tao of Orchid Island in Taiwan) is also member of this group. Meso Philippine languages are perhaps the group with the most speakers and is the most geographically widespread, covering Central Luzon, the Visayas and many parts of Mindanao. Certain languages spoken in Palawan and Mindoro such as Tagbanwa, Palawano, and Hanunoo constitute their own respective subgroups. The largest subgroup are the Central Philippine languages which are composed of Tagalog; Bicol language; Visayan languages such as Cebuano, Hiligaynon and Waray-Waray; and Mansakan Langugaes. Southern Philippines languages such as Maranao, Maguindanao, Manobo languages, and Subanun languages are concentrated in Mindanao. Many Southern Philippine languages have been influenced by Malaysian, Indonesian, Sanskrit and Arabic words. The other three groups below are thought to be more distantly related to the previous three languages. Southern Mindanao languages are languages such as Tboli and Blaan which are spoken in Southern Mindanao. Sama-Bajaw languages are mainly centered in the Sulu Archipelago as well as parts of Borneo. One language, Abaknon, is spoken on Capul Island near Samar, which is far from other Sama languages. Other languages in this group are Yaken and Sama. Sulawesi languages have two representatives in the Philippines, the Sangil and the Sangir languages. B. National Language The decision to have a national language dates back to the time of former President Manuel L. Quezon, who took the initiative and leadership in bringing about a national policy decision on this matter. He issued Executive Order 134 in 1937 proclaiming the adoption, development and use of a national language. The National Assembly, the law-making body at that time created the National Language Institute in 1936, which, after due study recommended that Tagalog be the basis of the national language. On August 13, 1959, the use of “Pilipino” as the official name of the national language was declared then by Secretary Jose E. Romero through Department of Education Order No. 7. In the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the law mandates that the national language of the Philippines is Filipino. The change of “P” to 4 “F” was based on the alphabet developed by the Institute of National Language which increased the number of letters from 20 to 28 including “F”. Filipino is widely used across the country, particularly in the urban centers. Filipino, as it evolves, incorporates vocabulary from the other Philippine major languages and non-local languages used in the Philippines, i.e. English, Arabic and Spanish. Arabic is not widely spoken in the Philippines but there is a small percentage from the Administrative Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) who can decode Arabic for the purpose of reading the Qur’an. But with the institutionalization of the Madaris schools by the Department of Education (DepED), Arabic is now learned and in other areas where it is necessary. III. CURRENT LANGUAGE-IN-EDUCATION POLICIES A. The Legal Basis The 1987 Constitution specifically provides that the “national language of the Philippines is Filipino and as it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. For the purpose of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and until otherwise provided by law, English”. Subsequently, Department Order No. 53, s. 1987 entitled “The 1987 Policy of Bilingual Education” was issued. The policy on bilingual education aims at the achievement of competence in both Filipino and English. The policy statement also emphasizes that “the aspiration of the Filipino nation is to have its citizens possess skills in Filipino to enable them to perform their duties and responsibilities as Filipino citizens and in English in order to meet the needs of the country in the community of nations.” Within this context, the following have been identified as the goals of the bilingual education policy: 1) enhance learning through two languages to achieve quality education; 2) propagate Filipino as the language of literacy; 3) develop Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity; 4) cultivate and elaborate Filipino as a language of scholarly discourse, i.e. continue its intellectualization; and 5) maintain English as an international language for the Philippines and as a non-exclusive language of science and technology. As defined in the implementing guidelines, bilingual education means the separate use of Filipino and English as media of instruction in different subject areas. Filipino is used as medium of instruction in Social Studies, Social Sciences, Music, Arts, Physical Education, Home Economics, Practical Arts and Character Education. English on the other hand is used as medium of instruction in Science, Math and Technology subjects. Further, it provides the use of English and Filipino as media of instruction starting Grade I in all schools and the use of the vernacular in the locality or place where the schools is located was prescribed as auxiliary to the media of 5 instruction but only when necessary to facilitate understanding of the concepts being taught in English, Filipino or Arabic, as the case maybe. DECS Order No. 11 s. 1987 was issued in the pursuance to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8190 known as “An Act Granting Priority to Residents of the Barangay, Municipality or City where the School is Located, in the Appointment or Assignment of Classroom Public School Teachers”. The Order provides the guidelines to be followed in hiring teachers where it clearly stated that the first priority shall be residents of the barangay where the public elementary school is located which allows the use of local language specifically where local culture should be enhanced in cultural minorities. On May 17, 2003, Executive Order No. 210 entitled “Establishing the Policy to Strengthen the Use of the English Language as a Medium of Instruction in the Educational System” was issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Recommended publications
  • Axis Relationships in the Philippines – When Traditional Subgrouping Falls Short1 R. David Zorc <Dzorc1@Comcast.Net> AB

    Axis Relationships in the Philippines – When Traditional Subgrouping Falls Short1 R. David Zorc <[email protected]> AB

    Axis Relationships in the Philippines – When Traditional Subgrouping Falls Short1 R. David Zorc <[email protected]> ABSTRACT Most scholars seem to agree that the Malayo-Polynesian expansion left Taiwan around 3,000 BCE and virtually raced south through the Philippines in less than one millenium. From southern Mindanao migrations went westward through Borneo and on to Indonesia, Malaysia, and upwards into the Asian continent (“Malayo”-), and some others went south through Sulawesi also going eastward across the Pacific (-“Polynesian”)2. If this is the case, the Philippine languages are the “left behinds” allowing at least two more millennia for multiple interlanguage contacts within the archipelago. After two proposed major extinctions: archipelago-wide and the Greater Central Philippines (Blust 2019), inter-island associations followed the ebb and flow of dominance, expansion, resettlement, and trade. Little wonder then that “unique” lexemes found on Palawan can appear on Mindoro or Panay; developments throughout the east (Mindanao, the Visayas, and southern Luzon) can appear in Central Luzon, and an unidentified language with the shift of Philippine *R > y had some influence on Palawan and Panay. As early as 1972, while writing up my dissertation (Zorc 1975, then 1977), I found INNOVATIONS that did not belong to any specific subgroup, but had crossed linguistic boundaries to form an “axis” [my term, but related to German “SPRACHBUND”, “NETWORK” (Milroy 1985), “LINKAGE” 3 (Ross 1988. Pawley & Ross 1995)]. Normally, INNOVATIONS should be indicative of subgrouping. However, they can arise in an environment where different language communities develop close trade or societal ties. The word bakál ‘buy’ replaces PAN *bəlih and *mayád ‘good’ replaces PMP *pia in an upper loop from the Western Visayas, through Ilonggo/Hiligaynon, Masbatenyo, Central Sorsoganon, and 1 I am deeply indebted to April Almarines, Drs.
  • Determiners, Nouns, Or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly Occurring Forms in Philippine Languages

    Determiners, Nouns, Or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly Occurring Forms in Philippine Languages

    Determiners, Nouns, or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly Occurring Forms in Philippine Languages Lawrence A. Reid Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Dec., 2002), pp. 295-309. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28200212%2941%3A2%3C295%3ADNOWPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T Oceanic Linguistics is currently published by University of Hawai'i Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/uhp.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Sat Feb 16 23:46:32 2008 Determiners, Nouns, or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly Occurring Forms in Philippine Languages' Lawrence A.
  • Contributors

    Contributors

    iii Contributors ERIC ALBRIGHT received his MA in Applied Linguistics from GIAL (Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, Texas) in 2000, and earlier, worked as a software developer. Joining SIL International, he worked among the Bidayuh of Sarawak, Malaysia from 2001-2003, advising them in the fields of literacy, orthography development and lexi- cography. In 2006, he co-founded Payap Language Software, part of the Linguistics Institute at Payap University in Thailand. I WAYAN ARKA is a Fellow in Linguistics at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies (RSPAS) at The Australian National University. He received his PhD from Sydney University in 1999. He returned to Udayana University in Bali-Indonesia for three years before he moved again to Australia (in April 2001) to take up a fellowship at the RSPAS, ANU. Wayan’s interests are in descriptive, theoretical and typological aspects of Austronesian languages of Indonesia. His recent books published by Pacific Linguistics are Balinese Morphosyntax: A lexical-functional approach (2003) and The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: some new empirical studies, co-edited with Malcolm Ross (2005). Wayan is currently working on a number of projects including research on voice in the Austronesian languages of eastern Indonesia (funded by an NSF grant, 2006-2009, in collaboration with Matt Shibatani and Fay Wouk), and a large-scale machine-usable grammar, dictionary and corpus of Indonesian (funded by an ARC Discovery grant, 2008-10, in collaboration with Jane Simpon, Avery Andrews and Mary Dalrymple). He has done extensive fieldwork for his Rongga Documentation Project (funded by the ELDP, 2004-6), and organised capacity building programmes for language documentation, maintenance and revitalisation in Indonesia.
  • Teaching and Learning an Endangered Austronesian Language in Taiwan

    Teaching and Learning an Endangered Austronesian Language in Taiwan

    9 Teaching and Learning an Endangered Austronesian Language in Taiwan D. Victoria Rau°, Hui-Huan Ann Chang°, Yin-Sheng Tai°, Zhen-Yi Yang°, Yi-Hui Lin°, Chia-Chi Yang°, and Maa-Neu Dong† °Providence University, Taiwan †National Museum of Natural Science This paper provides a case study of the process of endangered language acquisition, which has not been well studied from the viewpoint of applied linguistics. It describes the con- text of teaching Chinese adult learners in Taiwan an endangered indigenous language, the teachers’ pedagogical approaches, the phonological and syntactic acquisition processes the learners were undergoing, and applications to other language documentation and revitaliza- tion programs. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to address the research questions.This study demonstrates cogently that language is a complex adaptive system. In phonological acquisition, the trill was the most difficult phoneme to learn. Systematic variations for the variables (ŋ) and (s) were found to be constrained by both markedness and interference. Furthermore, learners also tended to interpret Yami orthography based on their knowledge of English. In word order acquisition, learners performed much better than expected, partially because the present tense, coded by the SV word order, is the norm in Yami conversations. However, students still inaccurately associated word order with sen- tence type rather than with tense distinction. The Yami case provides an integrated model for endangered language documentation, revitalization and pedagogical research, which would be of interest to people working with other languages and the language documenta- tion field in general. 1. INTRODUCTION. There are several different approaches to the categorization of language endangerment.
  • Morphology and Syntax of Gerunds in Truku Seediq : a Third Function of Austronesian “Voice” Morphology

    Morphology and Syntax of Gerunds in Truku Seediq : a Third Function of Austronesian “Voice” Morphology

    MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF GERUNDS IN TRUKU SEEDIQ : A THIRD FUNCTION OF AUSTRONESIAN “VOICE” MORPHOLOGY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS SUMMER 2017 By Mayumi Oiwa-Bungard Dissertation Committee: Robert Blust, chairperson Yuko Otsuka, chairperson Lyle Campbell Shinichiro Fukuda Li Jiang Dedicated to the memory of Yudaw Pisaw, a beloved friend ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my most profound gratitude to the hospitality and generosity of the many members of the Truku community in the Bsngan and the Qowgan villages that I crossed paths with over the years. I’d like to especially acknowledge my consultants, the late 田信德 (Tian Xin-de), 朱玉茹 (Zhu Yu-ru), 戴秋貴 (Dai Qiu-gui), and 林玉 夏 (Lin Yu-xia). Their dedication and passion for the language have been an endless source of inspiration to me. Pastor Dai and Ms. Lin also provided me with what I can call home away from home, and treated me like family. I am hugely indebted to my committee members. I would like to express special thanks to my two co-chairs and mentors, Dr. Robert Blust and Dr. Yuko Otsuka. Dr. Blust encouraged me to apply for the PhD program, when I was ready to leave academia after receiving my Master’s degree. If it wasn’t for the gentle push from such a prominent figure in the field, I would never have seen the potential in myself.
  • LCSH Section K

    LCSH Section K

    K., Rupert (Fictitious character) K-TEA (Achievement test) Kʻa-la-kʻun-lun kung lu (China and Pakistan) USE Rupert (Fictitious character : Laporte) USE Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement USE Karakoram Highway (China and Pakistan) K-4 PRR 1361 (Steam locomotive) K-theory Ka Lae o Kilauea (Hawaii) USE 1361 K4 (Steam locomotive) [QA612.33] USE Kilauea Point (Hawaii) K-9 (Fictitious character) (Not Subd Geog) BT Algebraic topology Ka Lang (Vietnamese people) UF K-Nine (Fictitious character) Homology theory USE Giẻ Triêng (Vietnamese people) K9 (Fictitious character) NT Whitehead groups Ka nanʻʺ (Burmese people) (May Subd Geog) K 37 (Military aircraft) K. Tzetnik Award in Holocaust Literature [DS528.2.K2] USE Junkers K 37 (Military aircraft) UF Ka-Tzetnik Award UF Ka tūʺ (Burmese people) K 98 k (Rifle) Peras Ḳ. Tseṭniḳ BT Ethnology—Burma USE Mauser K98k rifle Peras Ḳatseṭniḳ ʾKa nao dialect (May Subd Geog) K.A.L. Flight 007 Incident, 1983 BT Literary prizes—Israel BT China—Languages USE Korean Air Lines Incident, 1983 K2 (Pakistan : Mountain) Hmong language K.A. Lind Honorary Award UF Dapsang (Pakistan) Ka nō (Burmese people) USE Moderna museets vänners skulpturpris Godwin Austen, Mount (Pakistan) USE Tha noʹ (Burmese people) K.A. Linds hederspris Gogir Feng (Pakistan) Ka Rang (Southeast Asian people) USE Moderna museets vänners skulpturpris Mount Godwin Austen (Pakistan) USE Sedang (Southeast Asian people) K-ABC (Intelligence test) BT Mountains—Pakistan Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere (N.Z.) USE Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Karakoram Range USE Franz Josef Glacier/Kā Roimata o Hine K-B Bridge (Palau) K2 (Drug) Hukatere (N.Z.) USE Koro-Babeldaod Bridge (Palau) USE Synthetic marijuana Ka-taw K-BIT (Intelligence test) K3 (Pakistan and China : Mountain) USE Takraw USE Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test USE Broad Peak (Pakistan and China) Ka Tawng Luang (Southeast Asian people) K.
  • A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages

    A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages Lawrence A. Reid & Hsiu-chuan Liao University of Hawai‘i This paper is a brief statement of the typological characteristics of the syntactic structures of Philippine languages. It utilizes a lexicalist theoretical framework to provide comparability among the examples cited. The word order of both verbal and non-verbal predicational sentences is examined, with pronominal and non- pronominal complements, topicalization, and auxiliary verbs. Philippine languages are analyzed as morphologically ergative. The morphological criteria for determining the syntactic transitivity of verbal sentences is examined, concluding that verbal affixation alone is an insufficient criterion. Attention is paid to the notion of “focus”, with rejection of the concept of “voice” as an explanation for the phenomenon. The various forms of syntactically transitive verbs that have been described by others, for example, as signaling agreement with the Nominative NP, are here described as carrying semantic features, marking the manner of their instantiation with reference to the Nominative NP. The structure of noun phrases is examined. Morphological case marking of NPs by Determiners is claimed for Genitive, Locative, and for some languages, Oblique NPs, but it is claimed that for most languages, Nominative full NPs are case marked only by word order. Semantic agreement features distinguishing forms of Determiners for common vs. personal, definiteness, specificity, spatial reference, and plurality of their head nouns are described. Relative clause formation strategies are described. Most are head-initial, with gapping of the Nominative NP.
  • E-Learning in Endangered Language Documentation and Revitalization

    E-Learning in Endangered Language Documentation and Revitalization

    7 E-Learning in Endangered Language Documentation and Revitalization D. Victoria Rau and Meng-Chien Yang Providence University, Taiwan This paper analyzes the application of e-learning in the revitalization of endangered lan- guages. It outlines the areas in which e-learning is efficacious, the attitudes of the indig- enous language teachers to e-learning, the feelings of the Yami community toward this kind of pedagogy, and the reactions of the users, mostly young and adolescent learners of Yami. The findings are based on the results of surveys and in-depth studies in the Yami community and also on surveys made in a nation-wide seminar that enrolled teachers of the majority of the still-spoken aboriginal languages in Taiwan. Both qualitative and quan- titative methods were used to gather empirical data to address questions in the following three areas: (1) the contexts of developing e-Learning materials for endangered indigenous languages in Taiwan, (2) the indigenous language teachers’ perceptions of e-Learning in Taiwan, and (3) the attitudes of the Yami community on Orchid Island toward e-Learning. This paper provides a model for the many language revitalization projects underway in Taiwan and worldwide to take advantage of e-Learning. It also provides guidelines that en- able each project to better understand the kinds of e-Learning that work best and the type of community outreach necessary to make e-Learning acceptable and efficacious. 1. INTRODUCTION. Language documentation has long been recognized as an effective means of language preservation. However, very little effort has been made to explore how information and communication technology (ICT) can be used in the promotion of minor- ity language teaching and research in connection with language documentation.
  • Nominalization in Yami*

    Nominalization in Yami*

    LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 3.2:165-195, 2002 2002-0-003-002-000007-1 Nominalization in Yami* D. Victoria Rau Providence University In the Philippine and Formosan languages, the morphemes that occur in indicative verb forms are also used in nominalization, as has already been pointed out by others. Some have even hypothesized that these indicative verb forms were derived by nominalization. However, the relationship between nominalization and the evolution of the focus system cannot be fully understood without complete descriptions of nominalization throughout Austronesia. This paper contributes to that end by providing data from Yami, a Philippine language spoken on Orchid Island, sixty-five kilometers southeast of Taiwan. Three topics in Yami were analyzed to facilitate typological comparisons and enhance explanations of the evolution of the focus system from nominalization: 1) the processes of noun formation from different lexical categories, 2) the structure and function of clausal nominalization, and 3) the distinction of nominalization from indicative verb forms. The results show that lexical nominalization in Yami can be divided into participant and action nominalizations. The process of participant nominalization resembles focus-marking morphological processes. Clausal nominalizations have no lexically derived noun. There is no clear division between indicative verbs and nominalization when the enclitic pronoun is in the genitive case. However, movement of the pronominal A to the beginning of the sentence further differentiates indicative verbs from nominalization. Key words: Yami, lexical nominalization, clausal nominalization, lexical categories, focus, word order 1. Introduction Nominalization is a process that derives a noun from some other lexical category, typically a verb or adjective, by modifying the root.
  • Language Distinctiveness*

    Language Distinctiveness*

    RAI – data on language distinctiveness RAI data Language distinctiveness* Country profiles *This document provides data production information for the RAI-Rokkan dataset. Last edited on October 7, 2020 Compiled by Gary Marks with research assistance by Noah Dasanaike Citation: Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks (2016). Community, Scale and Regional Governance: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance, Vol. II. Oxford: OUP. Sarah Shair-Rosenfield, Arjan H. Schakel, Sara Niedzwiecki, Gary Marks, Liesbet Hooghe, Sandra Chapman-Osterkatz (2021). “Language difference and Regional Authority.” Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 31. DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2020.1831476 Introduction ....................................................................................................................6 Albania ............................................................................................................................7 Argentina ...................................................................................................................... 10 Australia ....................................................................................................................... 12 Austria .......................................................................................................................... 14 Bahamas ....................................................................................................................... 16 Bangladesh ..................................................................................................................
  • 563290Pub0box31guage0of0in

    563290Pub0box31guage0of0in

    Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Public Disclosure Authorized k policies and experiences in :: ~\ Southeast Asia "w-.,.-, '. .... Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Southeast Asian THE Ministers of Education WORLD 1!:X Organization E BANK ~ FastTrack Initiative Edited by Kimmo Kosonen and Catherine Young Foreword Dato’ Dr Ahamad bin Sipon, Director, SEAMEO Secretariat Chapter 1 Introduction 8 Kimmo Kosonen and Catherine Young Chapter 2 Language-in-education policies in 22 Southeast Asia: an overview Kimmo Kosonen Chapter 3 Various policies in Southeast Asian 44 countries Introduction 44 The evolution of language-in-education policies 49 in Brunei Darussalam Gary Jones Education policies for ethnic minorities in 62 Cambodia Neou Sun Regional and local languages as oral languages 69 of instruction in Indonesia Maryanto Policies, developments, and challenges in mother 76 tongue education in Malaysian public schools Ramanathan Nagarathinam Language-in-education policies and their 84 implementation in Philippine public schools Yolanda S Quijano and Ofelia H Eustaquio Language and language-in-education policies 93 and their implementation in Singapore Elizabeth S Pang Language policy and practice in public 102 schools in Thailand Busaba Prapasapong Language-in-education policies in Vietnam 109 Bui Thi Ngoc Diep and Bui Van Thanh Chapter 4 Good practices in mother tongue-first 120 multilingual education Catherine Young Chapter 5 Case studies from different countries 136 Introduction
  • PART I: NAME SEQUENCE Name Sequence

    PART I: NAME SEQUENCE Name Sequence

    Name Sequence PART I: NAME SEQUENCE A-ch‘ang Abor USE Achang Assigned collective code [sit] Aba (Sino-Tibetan (Other)) USE Chiriguano UF Adi Abaknon Miri Assigned collective code [phi] Miśing (Philippine (Other)) Aborlan Tagbanwa UF Capul USE Tagbanua Inabaknon Abua Kapul Assigned collective code [nic] Sama Abaknon (Niger-Kordofanian (Other)) Abau Abujhmaria Assigned collective code [paa] Assigned collective code [dra] (Papuan (Other)) (Dravidian (Other)) UF Green River Abulas Abaw Assigned collective code [paa] USE Abo (Cameroon) (Papuan (Other)) Abazin UF Ambulas Assigned collective code [cau] Maprik (Caucasian (Other)) Acadian (Louisiana) Abenaki USE Cajun French Assigned collective code [alg] Acateco (Algonquian (Other)) USE Akatek UF Abnaki Achangua Abia Assigned collective code [sai] USE Aneme Wake (South American (Other)) Abidji Achang Assigned collective code [nic] Assigned collective code [sit] (Niger-Kordofanian (Other)) (Sino-Tibetan (Other)) UF Adidji UF A-ch‘ang Ari (Côte d'Ivoire) Atsang Abigar Ache USE Nuer USE Guayaki Abkhaz [abk] Achi Abnaki Assigned collective code [myn] USE Abenaki (Mayan languages) Abo (Cameroon) UF Cubulco Achi Assigned collective code [bnt] Rabinal Achi (Bantu (Other)) Achinese [ace] UF Abaw UF Atjeh Bo Cameroon Acholi Bon (Cameroon) USE Acoli Abo (Sudan) Achuale USE Toposa USE Achuar MARC Code List for Languages October 2007 page 11 Name Sequence Achuar Afar [aar] Assigned collective code [sai] UF Adaiel (South American Indian Danakil (Other)) Afenmai UF Achuale USE Etsako Achuara Jivaro Afghan