Article published in:
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
Vol. 35:2 (2020) ► pp. 253–292

Vowel system or vowel systems?

Variation in the monophthongs of Philippine Hybrid Hokkien in Manila

| University of Michigan—Ann Arbor , USA
| National University of Singapore , Singapore
The Manila variety of Philippine Hybrid Hokkien (PHH-M) or Lánnang-uè is a contact language used by the metropolitan Manila Chinese Filipinos; it is primarily comprised of Hokkien, Tagalog/Filipino, and English elements. Approaching PHH-M as a mixed language, we investigate linguistically and socially conditioned variation in the monophthongs of PHH-M, focusing on the extent to which the vowel systems of the three source languages have converged. This analysis draws on data gathered from 34 native speakers; Pillai scores are calculated to assess the degree of merger. Contrary to certain predictions of prior work on mixed languages, PHH-M is found to have a unified, eight-vowel inventory distinct from any of its sources. Older women use more stable vowels across source languages, suggesting that they have led in the development of PHH-M as a mixed code; however, signs of change among younger women suggest either the endangerment of the code or its evolution in response to the community’s shifting identity. We contextualize our conclusions in relation to the sociohistory and language ecology of metropolitan Manila’s Chinese Filipino community.
Keywords: mixed languages, language contact, language variation, sociophonetics, vowel systems, Philippine Hybrid Hokkien, Chinese Filipinos, Lánnang-uè, Lannang
Published online: 01 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00061.won
References

References

Ang See, Teresita
1990 The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives (Volume 1). Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran.Google Scholar
2004 The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives (Volume 3). Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter
1997 ‘A Language of our Own’: The genesis of Michif – the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 282 ]
2003 Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 107–150. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Balukas, Colleen, & Koops, Christian
2015 Spanish-English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(4): 423–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bautista, Lourdes S. & Bolton, Kingley
2008 Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
2017 Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.31, Retrieved 21 August 2017 from http://​www​.praat​.org/
Chu, Richard T.
2010 Chinese and Chinese Mestizos of Manila. Leiden, the Netherlands & Boston, MA: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chua, Amy
2003 World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Chua, Dorothy Ang
2004 From Chinese to Filipino: Changing identities of the Chinese in the Philippines. Unpublished MA thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Deterding, David
1997 The formants of monophthong vowels in standard Southern British English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27: 47–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 The vowels of the different ethnic groups in Singapore. In David Prescott, Andy Kirkpatrick, Isabel Martin & Azirah Hashim (eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Literacies, Literatures and Varieties, 2–29. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Doeppers, Daniel F.
1986 Destination, selection and turnover among Chinese migrants to Philippine cities in the nineteenth century. Journal of Historical Geography 12(4): 381–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope
1989 The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1(3): 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, Anne H., Dominic Watt, & Daniel Ezra Johnson
2009 A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change 21:413–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gijn, Rik van
2009 The phonology of mixed languages. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 24(1): 91–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Golovko, Evgenij V.
1994 Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut: an Aleut-Russian mixed language. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 113–121. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT.Google Scholar
Gonzales, Wilkinson Daniel Wong
2016 Trilingual code-switching using quantitative lenses: An exploratory study on Hokaglish. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 47:109–131.Google Scholar
2017 Language contact in the Philippines: The history and ecology from a Chinese Filipino perspective. Language Ecology 1: 185–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Philippine Hybrid Hokkien as a postcolonial mixed language: Evidence from nominal derivational affixation mixing. Singapore: National University of Singapore thesis.Google Scholar
[ p. 283 ]
Gonzales, Wilkinson Daniel Wong & Mie Hiramoto
2020 Two Englishes diverged in the Philippines? A substratist account of Manila Chinese English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 35(1): 127–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, Andrew
1970 Acoustic correlates of accent, rhythm, and intonation in Tagalog. Phonetica 22: 11–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François
2010 Bilingual. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François, & Joanne L. Miller
1994 Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual flexibility. Psychological Science 5(4): 201–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren
2010 Improved representation of variance in measures of vowel merger. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 9: 1–10.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Paul Warren, & Katie Drager
2006 Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34: 458–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klöter, Henning
2011 The language of the Sangleys: A Chinese vernacular in missionary sources of the seventeenth century. Leiden, the Netherlands & Boston, NY: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Keith Johnson
2011 A course in phonetics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Lesho, Marivic
2017 Philippine English (Metro Manila acrolect). Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA. 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Peter Bakker
2003 The study of mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 1–22. Berlin, Germany & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity
2012 Which mix – code-switching or a mixed language? – Gurindji Kriol. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27(1): 105–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meakins, Felicity & Jesse Stewart
In press. Mixed Languages. In Salikoko Mufwene & Anna Maria Escobar eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Mous, Maarten
2003 The making of a mixed language: The case of Ma’a/Mbugu. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
1994 Callahuaya. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 207–211. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT.Google Scholar
Nycz, Jennifer & Lauren Hall-Lew
2013 Best practices in measuring vowel merger. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 20. 1–19.Google Scholar
O’Shannessy, Carmel
2005 Light Warlpiri: A new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 31–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes
1972 Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA, & London, the United Kingdom: University of California Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 284 ]
Schuchardt, Hugo
1884 Kreolische Studien IV, Ueber das Malaiospaniche der Philippinen. Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-historischen der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 105.Google Scholar
Siu, Phila
2019 Why are Chinese workers so unpopular in Southeast Asia? South China Morning Post, 2 Jun, 2019. [Retrieved from https://​www​.asiaone​.com​/asia​/why​-are​-chinese​-workers​-so​-unpopular​-southeast​-asia, 19 November 2019].
Smith, Ian
1979a Convergence in South Asia: A creole example. Lingua, 48, 193–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979b Substrata versus universals in the formation of Sri Lanka Portuguese. In Peter Mühlhäusler (ed.), Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics 2. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Starr, Rebecca L. & Brinda Balasubramaniam
2019 Variation and change in English /r/ among Tamil Indian Singaporeans. World Englishes 38(4): 630–643. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Jesse
2014 A comparative analysis of Media Lengua and Quichua vowel production. Phonetica 71:159–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Voice onset time production in Ecuadorian Spanish, Quichua, and Media Lengua. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 48(2): 173–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tayao, Ma. Lourdes G.
2004 The evolving study of Philippine English phonology. World Englishes 23(1): 77–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. & Tyler Kendall
2007 NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting suite. [Online Resource: http://​ncslaap​.lib​.ncsu​.edu​/tools​/norm/]
Thomason, Sarah Grey
2003 Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker, (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 21–40. Berlin, Germany & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman
1988 Language contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsai, Huiming
2017 A study of Philippine Hokkien language. Unpublished PhD dissertation: National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
Uytanlet, Juliet Lee
2014 The Hybrid Tsinoys: Challenges of Hybridity and Homogeneity as Sociocultural Constructs among the Chinese in the Philippines. PhD dissertation. Asbury Theological Seminary.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic & Fabricius, Anne
2002 Evaluation of a technique for improving the mapping of multiple speakers’ vowel spaces in the F1-F2 plane. In D. Nelson, ed. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 9:159–173.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic & Anne Fabricius
2011 A measure of variable planar locations anchored on the centroid of the vowel space: A sociophonetic research tool. Proceedings of the 17th ICPhS. Hong Kong, SAR, People’s Republic of China. 2102–2105.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald
2009 The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (review). Language 85(1):223–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Social factors in contact languages. In Peter Bakker and Yaron Matras (eds.), Contact languages: A comprehensive guide, 363–416. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Gonzales, Wilkinson Daniel Wong
2021. Filipino, Chinese, neither, or both? The Lannang identity and its relationship with language. Language & Communication 77 ► pp. 5 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.