'Toy napigket nga daga
Pitpitenmi nga umuna
Danggayanmi't kankanta
Takkiagmi a napigsa
Kettang ken bannogmi
dikam igingina 

     Mannamili
     Ilokano Folk Song
 

HOME  |  NEWS UPDATE  |  CONFERENCE SCHEDULE  |  ONLINE REGISTRATION  |  Q & A  | CONTACT US

  So, what is Nakem?

 MESSAGES

 VENUES

  ABSTRACTS

 KEYNOTES

 FULL PAPERS

Today is

The Bastardization of Ilocos Languages and Place Names:
Tracing Roots and Identities

By: Fay L. Dumagat, Ph.D.

All Filipinos who went to elementary and high schools in our country were taught about the so-called “waves of migration” of different peoples from Mainland Asia and Southeast Asia coming to and settling in the different islands of the Philippine Archipelago during different past time periods, explaining why there were and still are different linguistic groups in the country. The theory propagated by Professor H. Otley Beyer was that in 250,000-25,000 B.C. the small black men with kinky hair called Agta, Aeta, or Negrito came and settled here through the “land bridges” connecting the Philippine Archipelago to Mainland Asia and Southeast Asia. During this period, glaciation and deglaciation occurred because of the changes in the climate such that during the glaciation phase, the sea level went down, exposing the Sunda Shelf and the Sahul Shelf, connecting the Philippines to Formosa, Borneo, Malaysia, Sumatra, and Indonesia, on the one hand, and on the other, connecting the Philippines to New Guinea, Celebes, and the Timor Islands. After the Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, melting the snow in the Temperate Zones, and submerging the former “land bridges.”

The first “wave of migration” by sea came in 5,000-500 B.C. from South China and settled in Northern Luzon; the second one in l,500-500 B.C. from Indo-China, settling in South-Central Luzon; the third wave in 800-500 B.C. from Indo-China and settling in Southern Luzon; the fourth in 300-200 B.C. from Java and Sumatra; and fifth in 300-700 A.D. from South China and settled in the Batanes Islands (Jocano, l967: l30-3l, l35-38; Jocano, l975: 30-70).

The earliest settlers, the Agta, were pushed into the interiors of the islands by the migrants from South China; these in turn, were also driven inland by the migrants from Indo-China, each new comers driving the earlier migrants into the interior uplands successively.  The successive groups of migrants brought with them the language, technology, and social institutions of their homelands.  These account for the varied physical characteristics, language, technology, and institutions as observed by the early Spanish ethnologists like San Antonio, Colin, and Martinez de Zuniga (Blair & Robertson, l903-9: Vol. 40, pp. 297-325; 37-69; Vol. 43, pp. ll3-l27).  Even today, there are still different language groups such as the Iloko², Pangasinan, Pampangan, Tagalog, Bicol, Cebuano, Hilonggo, Tausog, Maranao, and Maguindanao.  There are other language/dialect groups, specifically in the mountains of Northern Luzon, namely: the Tinggian (Itneg) ³, Igorot, Adang (Adasen), Apayao, Ibaloy, Kankanaey, Bontok, Kalinga, Ifugao, Ilonggot, Isinay, Gaddang, Itavi, and Agta (Keesing, l962: 50, 94, 120, l46, l84, 208, 222, 240, 268, passim).

The Problem

In this paper, I wish to present a model that can, in a way, explain how different language groups developed or came about resulting from trade, migration, and intermarriages among them.  I call this “bastardization” of languages and place-names.

I use the term “bastardization” to refer to the process of a dominant language “submerging” or “ assimilating” a minority language, eventually extinguishing in the end such minority language. In the case of Northern Luzon, it refers to the spread of Iloko language or in-Iloko⁴ as lingua franca throughout the Ilocos Region including parts of Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, and Zambales where there were massive migration of the Iloko mostly from Batac and Bacarra, Ilocos Norte in the l9^th and 20^th centuries (Fonacier, l953).

The dictionary meaning of “bastardization” is the process of producing a bastard or mongrel or the “inbreeding of diverse breeds or strains” (Webster’s, l969: 72, 547). For example, the combination of Itneg and Iloko in Bangued, Pidigan, and Tayum in Abra Province produced the distinctive in-Iloko of Abra quite different from the in-Iloko of Ilocos Norte. The in-Iloko of Abra had replaced in-Itneg⁵ formerly spoken in Bangued, Pidigan, and Tayum. How this happened is therefore the subject matter of this paper in the hope of shedding some light into the problem of explaining the diverse ethnolinguistic groups in our country which is still observable today.

The early Spanish historian-writers from Colin, San Antonio, to Martinez de Zuniga wrote and speculated on the ethnolinguistic diversity of the native people of the Philippine Archipelago, of the small black people they called “Negrillo” who were reputed to be the earliest inhabitants in the island they settled in as in Negros Island which still bears their name.  The other ethnolinguistic groups they identified were the Malays or brown and mongoloid, and stocky people whom they identified as the Tagalog, Pampangan, and Ilocan (Iloko).  They were informed that the Pampangan came from Sumatra, and the others from Borneo and Java (Blair and Robertson⁶, l903-9: Vol. 40, pp. 37-69, 297-325; Vol. 43, pp. ll3-l27).

Later writers like Cole, Keesing, and Jocano proposed revised views about the “wave migration” theory as formulated by Beyer.  Cole believed that the Tinguian (Itneg) and Iloko came in the same “wave of migration,” and that the Tinguian were the more conservative coastal people who sought sanctuary into the interior valleys and mountains of Abra, escaping from the Spanish conquest of Ilocos by Juan de Salcedo in l572 and the subsequent reduction⁷, Christianization, and the harsh imposition of forced labor, tribute-payment, and the bandala or forced requisition of produce by the colonial authorities. Cole believed that in-Itneg and in-Iloko have dialectical differences only and that in-Itneg is “primitive” in-Iloko (Cole, l908: 2ll; l922: 235-246).  Keesing, on the other hand, concluded based on ethnohistorical and linguistic studies that the mountain groups of Northern Luzon had close affinity, ethnolinguistically and physically with their lowland neighbors such as the Tinguian (Itneg) with the Iloko of Ilocos Sur and Ilocos Norte; and the Ibaloy with the Pangasinan (Keesing, l962: 30l-343, esp. 340-343). Later, in l967 and l975, Jocano came out with more comprehensive picture of Philippine prehistory, disputing Beyer’s “wave migration” theory and proposing an alternative view of the peopling of the Philippine Archipelago as rather “trickle migration” than “wave migration” and from island-to-nearby-island, and the culture they brought with them being modified by adjustments to the local condition (Jocano, l967: l29-l35). Later, in his l975 publication, he advocated the idea of a widespread distribution of early Homo Sapiens as far back as l.9 million years ago in Island Southeast Asia and the occurrence of separate evolution of early man and his culture as he adjusted to his local environment, at the same time allowing cultural exchanges among the peoples of Island Southeast Asia.  He pointed out that:

     Thus, to say that Filipinos are Malays or that Filipino culture is derived from the Malays is to create a myth of origin, which has no basis in fact.  It is doubtful whether one can safely recognize Malay characteristics in the Java, Solo, Wadjak, Niah, and Tabon fossil men – a population so widespread in the area prior to any prehistoric or proto-historic movement of people. In addition, influences of external cultures and local responses to them show recognizable differences during historic times, even if there was a common prehistoric culture, which linked these ethnic groups (Jocano, l975: 70).

Jocano is evidently stretching his imagination too far back in time and exaggerating the distribution of Homo Sapiens as too widespread and too early. The earliest fossil of man found in the Philippines so far was that from the Tabon Cave at Lipuun Pt., Quezon, Palawan dated by Carbon-l4 from 22,000 to 30,000 years ago (Fox, l967: 99-l00). The earliest estimate of the presence of man in the Philippines was 250,000-300,000 years ago by Beyer based on the recovery of fossil of stegodon teeth and tektites  (Fox, l967: 97). This is only one-eight of the l.9 million years that Jocano thought Homo Sapiens to be already present in the Philippines.  In fact, the l.9 million years back in time had the ancestors of man being half- ape and half- man or Homo Erectus. It was only between l, 200-40,000 BP that Homo Sapiens Sapiens or man as he appears today appeared (Larousse, l995: l98-l99).

Anyhow, one can see that archeology does not give much help in resolving the problem of explaining why different linguistic groups existed in the Philippine Archipelago since l521 when linguistic diversity of the native peoples called by the Spanish explorers “Indians” (B & R, l903-9: Vol. 33, pp. l03-2ll) was observed by Pigafetta, and later by Colin, San Antonio, and Zuniga  (mentioned above). Nevertheless, despite such diversity, common vocabularies and grammar existed among such language groups.  For example, of the l60 vocabularies in Cebuano language recorded and translated into Spanish by Pigafetta in l521, 30 per cent or 48 words were understandable to a Tagalog, and 27 per cent or 46 words were understandable to an Iloko (B & R, l903-9: Vol. 33, pp. l87-l99). Then, it may be noted that the slave of Magellan from Sumatra could communicate with the people of Samar, Agusan, and Cebu (Ibid., pp. ll3-l75).  These facts indicate the close affinity of languages in Island Southeast Asia whether or not they are generically called “Malay” of which Jocano seemed to have reservation or aversion. In other words, Southeast Asian peoples had a common ancestry or origin, physically and linguistically.

The controversy of whether or not Southeast Asian peoples have had a common origin and ancestry in the remote past through migration, trade, and intermarriages, indeed need more evidence and proofs; and this could not be resolved in just one paper like mine.  However, I wish to present here a model that empirically shows how two language groups, particularly the Iloko and Tinggian (Itneg) under colonial conditions, interacted and demonstrated what happened to their respective languages. One interesting historical fact is that as late as the l850s, Bangued, Tayum, and Pidigan  (towns of Abra Province) were recorded as inhabited by the “Tinguianes” or “Itanegs” and described as:

… Peaceful … have long been converted to Christianity and the missionaries are working toward the conversion of the rest of the villages.  These people also dedicate themselves to commerce, taking rice, wax, gold, and lumber to the [Ilocos] provinces and trading for merchandise, which they need.  They possess vast and rich rice fields, which they plow and cultivate with intelligence; they also have numerous herds of carabao, horses, and oxen  (Keesing, l962: l39).

This quotation was taken from Buzeta and Bravo (l850-l: Vol. I, pp. 54-55) and translated into English by Keesing.  This is the first document published where the name “Itaneg” or Itneg is mentioned.  They were not called  “Ilocan” as the coastal people of the Ilocos were usually called by the Spaniards.  This implies that the said people did not speak in-Iloko but in-Itneg.  But after about four or five generations since then, Bangued, Tayum, and Pidigan became predominantly Iloko (Batoon, l970) and spoke in-Iloko with some in-Itneg words adopted into the language like “agpatang” or “to speak” instead of “agsarita” or “agsa-o” as used in Ilocos Norte; “dinengdeng” in Abra and “inabraw” in Ilocos Norte for viand, and  “agsangit” in Abra but “agibit” in Ilocos Norte for  “to cry.”

                                      The Model of Language-Groups Interaction

Just like in the interaction among living organisms, especially in genetic transmission, one partner may be dominant over the recessive one. The dominant language “absorbs” or submerges the recessive language, eventually extinguishing it.  Larousse (l995: 205) commented that:

Over 5,000 languages are known to have existed in the world.  Many of these are dead languages, in other words no longer spoken such as Etruscan, Cretan, Iberian and Gaulish.  During the last 200 years, language death has accelerated, with hundreds becoming extinct.  This is especially true of indigenous languages, above all in the Americas and Australia, where the languages of the colonists have obliterated native tongues.…

… The most serious problem for a language is the influence of an external more powerful group.  Australian Aboriginal and Native American languages have died due to political and cultural pressures, as have many minority languages in China, Africa, the former USSR, New Guinea (especially Papuan languages) and even in Europe. When a language is replaced by another, the people’s linguistic identity survives only in local dialect words and accent.

This case of a dominant language “obliterating” a recessive or minority language was echoed by Fonacier (l953: 93) when he wrote:

The Ilokano Movement is the best example we have of a mass settlement and colonization in the Philippines.  This fact is made doubly significant if we stop to consider that quite a considerable portion of Northern and North Central Luzon fell under the colonizing influence of the Ilokanos.  They brought with them their own culture into the regions, which they settled and have in many places succeeded in submerging, if not completely obliterating, any vestige of the ethnographic groups, which was originally living in the region.

He did not, however, explain how the original language was “obliterated,” including the native or original ethnographic group as noted in the Larousse commentary above.  Unlike Fonacier, Larousse identified “political and cultural pressures” of an “external more powerful group of a “colonist” or a colonial power that cause the “obliteration” of a colonized native or aboriginal people.

By definition, a colonial power means a foreign government conquering by force of arms and religion a weaker and unorganized native people like the “Indians” of the Philippine Archipelago who were conquered and Christianized by Legazpi in l564 (Cor-

Puz, l989; Zafra, l967; de la Costa, l965).  Conquest means death as alternative to submission and slavery.  The phrase “political and cultural pressures” used by Larousse means the ”pacification ” or the military conquest by the Spaniards against the “Indians” or “Indios” or Philippine natives; the reduction or resettlement of the conquered people in villages within reach of the church bell sound and the control of the conquered people by the occupying forces of the colonial power; the Christianization or proselytization of the conquered people by the accompanying missionary priest, which replaced the native religion by the conqueror’s religion; the imposition of exploitative measures designed to promote the prestige, power, and wealth of the colonizing power such as the collection of tribute, the forced labor called polo y servicio, the bandala or requisitioning of products by the colonial authorities; and the structuring of society into a “monastic” system through the doctrina as described by Corpuz (1989: I, 161-210).

The case of “Ilokano Movement” as described by Fonacier above maybe called “indirect colonization” in the sense that the Iloko were able to exercise “political and cultural pressures” over the regions they settled in by encouragement or tolerance of the colonial government. Thus Cole wrote, describing the relations between the Iloko and Itneg of Abra:

Following the appointment of Gov. Esteban de Peñarrubia in 1868, the tribesmen [i. e., Itneg] suffered still greater hardship…but when it was learned that many of the new converts [to Christianity] still practiced their old customs, the governor had the apostates seized and imprisoned. The hostile attitude of

Peñarrubia encouraged adventurers from the coast [i.e., Bantay and Vigan areas] in the seizure of land, and the exploitation of the pagans, and thus a deep resentment was added to the dislike the Tinguian already held for “the Christians.” (Cole, 1922:246)

In other words, “political pressure” refers to the rigid colonial government that imposed a strict and exploitative regime; and “cultural pressure” refers to the control of the mind and spirit of the colonized people by imposing a socio-cultural regime where the religion, values, supremacy, and prestige of the colonial power is upheld over the native religion and social structure and institutions.

The elements or components of the model therefore are: (1) a colonial regime where a foreign government imposed a rigid and exploitative government over a conquered people; (2) the use of the language of the conqueror or the language of its allies as language used in government administration, and other institutions like the church, schools, and commercial establishments; (3) intermarriages between the colonizing people and the colonized, including that between the allies of the colonizing people and the colonized (i. e., the Iloko who served the Spaniards as interpreters, cooks, and servants and the Itneg who were the subject of colonial impositions).

The operation of the model or the process by which the dominant language group eventually “obliterated” or “extinguished” “absorbed” or “submerged” the language of the recessive (i. e., colonized) language group refers to the continued and habitual use of the language of the dominant group in government, schools, church, information agencies (i. e., newspapers and radio and television broadcasts), and the market; and the intermarriage between the dominant language group and recessive group. The second process or intermarriage between the two language groups is the most effective way of killing minority language because the children of the marriage alliance invariably adopt the dominant language. This was somehow clear to the ancestors of the Itneg; and they had strictly prohibited their women marrying a Spaniard or Iloko just as they stayed away from the proselytization of the Spanish missionary priests. This prohibition eventually relaxed as more and more Itneg went to school, became Christianized, and lived and raised families in other parts of the Philippines and abroad.

This was the story of the Itneg of Bangued, Pidigan, and Tayum: the extinction of Itneg as a lingua franca; and the virtual assimilation of the Itneg families into the Iloko community or the Itneg children of mixed Iloko-Itneg intermarriages speaking in-Iloko and identitying themselves as Iloko.

Proof of the Model

The empirical verification and validation of the model is the story of the “Ilokanization” of Bangued, Tayum, and Pidigan. It maybe noted that the Iloko in the Christianized towns of Abra always referred to themselves as “Kristiano” not “Ilokano” or “Iloko.” But the Itneg always called them “Iloko,” not “Kristiano.” In other words, throughout the Spanish colonial period from 1572 to1898 and the American colonial period from 1898 to 1946, the people of Abra were classified into Christians and non-Christians. The non-Christians were sub-categorized as “Infieles “ (or non-believers or Infidels) and “salvajes” (or savages) (Schmitz, 1921:112-113). The “Infieles” were those who lived in villages peacefully cultivating their rice fields, and engaging in commerce as described by Buzeta and Bravo above concerning the “Itanegs” of Bangued and Tayum. The “salvajes” referred to the mountain people sometimes called “alzados” (literally “rebels”) who were known to continue the headhunting and raiding practice against the Christians or lowland people.

Citing Buzeta and Perez statistics, Schmitz (Ibid) provides the following comparative data:

Table 1. Christian and non-Christian Population, Bangued, Tayum and Pidigan, 1847,             1818 and 1898.

Source: Schmitz, 1971:112            *- Buzeta statistics    �- Estado statistics

+-  Perez statistics    · - Difference between total population and Christian

The data provided from the Spanish source documents of Schmitz cannot provide accurate and comparative data. For example, it is not clear whether or not the Buzeta population figure for Bangued (3,962) and Tayum (2,709) for 1818 referred to the “Christian” population only and did not include the “non-Christians.” For, in the population statistics for Pidigan, the total population from Perez was 2,883 such that it can be deduced that the non-Christian population would be 5,725. One cannot accept the Bangued population (3,962) and that of Tayum (2,709) to be the total population since for the same year (1818), Pidigan had a total population of 8,608 but it was a smaller town than Bangued and Tayum. Perhaps the Bangued (3,962) and Tayum (2,709) population figure for 1818 referred to the “Christian” population, which approximates that of Pidigan’s “Christian” population (2,883). Assuming then that the total population for Bangued (11,237) in 1898 was the same as in 1818, and subtracting the “Christian” population of 3,962, the non-Christian population would be around 7,275 or 65 percent of the total population, this would justify Buzeta and Bravo to characterize Bangued as “Itaneg” or “Tinguian” town. Of course, the assumption would be somewhat exaggerated because it does not consider population increase from 1818 to 1898. In the case of Pidigan, the non-Christians constituted 66 percent of total population. The higher percentage of non-Christians in Pidigan (66%) compared to Bangued (65%) could be due to the effect of Bernardo Lago’s missionary zeal and activities in Pidigan including his successors (Schmitz, 1971: 58-63) and Father Juan de Pareja’s earlier and successful Christianization of 3,000 Itneg in Bangued (Schmitz, 1971: 45-62). In the 1948 census, the total population of Abra was 84,866, and the Tinguian were 22,348 or 26.3 percent of total population (Keesing, 1962:142). By this time, Bangued, Tayum, and Pidigan “had become fully Ilokanized,” using Keesing’s, generalization for the Southern Central Communities of Ilocos Sur in 1939.

This is confirmed by table 2 showing the percentage shares of Iloko and Itneg for Abra, Bangued, Tayum, Pidigan, and Peñarrubia. For the whole province the Iloko constituted 71.93 percent of the total population compared to 26.68 percent share of the Itneg. Pidigan (99.53%) had the highest percentage share of Iloko followed by Tayum (98.54%), and Bangued (95.77%). Peñarrubia, which had been traditionally an Itneg town already, had 64.91 percent Iloko and only 33.91 percent Itneg. Around 1896, based on tribute payers of Iloko and Itneg, the Iloko constituted 38.65 percent, and the Itneg 61.35 percent. (Dumagat, 1974:62). There was an increase in Iloko percentage point of 26.26 from 1896 to 1995 or during an interval of 99 years.

Table 2. 1995 Abra Population and Percent distribution by Mother Tongue

Source: 1995 Census of the Philippines. Report No. 2-1 N: Socio-Economic &

Demographic characteristics, Abra, Manila. National Statistics Office, 1997 pp. 126-133.   

In the case of Ilocos Sur, 94.32 percent were Iloko and the Itneg constituted only 2.26 percent. The traditional Itneg towns like Nagbukel, including those municipalities who had previous Itneg populations in the mountains like Sto.Domingo, Magsingal, Bantay, and Sinait (Keesing, 1962:138,142) no longer reported Tingguian or Itneg population. The Ilocos Sur municipalities reporting bigger percentages of Itneg population were: Lidlidda (68.58%), Banayoyo (41.29%), and Burgos (11.9%). Those with smaller percentage share of Itneg were: San Juan (1.48%) and Narvacan (1.75%).

Table 3. 1975 Ilocos Sur Population and Percent Distribution by Mother Tongue

Source: 1975 Integrated Census of the Population and its Economic Activities;

Population: Ilocos Sur. Manila: National Census & Statistics Office, 1975.

In the case of Ilocos Norte the Iloko constituted 96.69 percent of total population (Table 4), with only 0.08 percent Tinggian (Itneg), and 0.45 Itneg or Apayao. By municipality, Adams had the highest percentage of Itneg (9.14%) and Isneg (Apayao) (33.15%), with the smallest percentage of Iloko (34.95%). Vintar (0.92%), Paoay (0.04%) and Dingras (0.03%) reported very small Itneg population percentages; and Vintar (0.83%) also reported a small Isneg (Apayao) population percentage. The former municipalities with known Itneg population like Nueve Era, Bacarra, Carasi, Bangui, and Dumalneg (Keesing, 1962. pp.162-167) no longer reported an Itneg population.

Table 4. 1990 Ilocos Norte Population and Percent Distribution by Mother Tongue

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing; Report No. 3-41 A: Socio-Economic &                   Demographic characteristics- Ilocos Norte. Manila: National Statistics office               1992, pp.66-71.

The process of “bastardization” or “Ilokanization” that led to the “assimilation” of the Itneg into the Iloko language group as shown in Bangued, Tayum, and Pidigan must have occurred faster in Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur than in Abra because they lived in the mountain fringes of the municipalities mentioned above and intermarried with the Iloko population more readily who were displaced by the urbanization of the coastal areas or who needed more lands to cultivate.

Having shown the general pattern of the reduction or decrease of the population reporting their Itneg ethnic identity in Abra, Ilocos Sur, and Ilocos Norte, the process of “bastardization,” or “assimilation” of the Itneg to the Iloko-language group in Bangued, Tayum, and Pidigan, will now be explained. 

The decrease of population of course maybe due to death or to out-migration normally considered in demography. But here, the decrease of the Itneg population over time was primarily the result of Itneg-Iloko intermarriages, in which the children and grandchildren eventually count themselves as Iloko and speak in-Iloko. Moreover, the decrease in the Iloko percentage share was further increased by massive Iloko