A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel System論

文

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English
Vowel System

Leah GILNER

要旨

本論文は，フィリピン英語の母音体系を機能的負荷の点から分析し，その結果を考察する。機能的負荷（FL）の枠組みを用いて，コーパスにおける生起頻度の点から言語的特徴を量的に明らかにすることができる。つ
まり FL により，言語の構造面の記述に対して，言語の運用面に関する記述を加えることができる。本論文で示す結果により，フィリピン英語の話
しことばについて，International Corpus of English (ICE)-Philippines (Bautista,2004) から得た生起頻度に基づき，母音の相対的な関与を量的に示すことができる。FL に基づく格付けにより，母音間で創り出される対照的な存
在あるいは語彙ビルディング・ブロックとして生じる体系的関係を明らかにできる。本分析により，FL に基づく格付けに依拠した調音的ジェス
チャーと特徴を包括的に記述できる。
キーワード：usage-based description／言語運用，functional load／機能的負荷，vowel system／母音体系，Philippine English／フィリピン
英語，global Englishes／グローバル英語1Introduction
The English language is currently a global linguistic resource with an estimated

2 billion users around the world (Crystal, 2003). The broad and rapid spread of the

11

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40language is often qualified as unprecedented by linguistics scholars (Albl-Mikasa, 2013;
Crystal, 2003, 2004b; Hung, 2009; Matsuda, 2017; Seidlhofer, 2005). Galloway andHeath (2014, p. 386) observe that this state of affairs has “drastically changed thesociolinguistic landscape of English” in both its local and global manifestations. It is now
widely recognized that most English language users are multilingual individuals wholive in plurilingual societies. It has been observed that the contexts and constellations ofglobal English language use these days embody ‘linguistics of contact’ more often than‘linguistics of community’ (Hülmbauer, 2011). As Mauranen (2018) points out, much ofglobal English use involves second-order contact between linguistic systems that co-exist
with others in individuals’ linguistic repertoires.
English is widely used as an inter-communal link language by people with diverse
linguacultural backgrounds. It is used in globalized business scenarios (Cogo, 2012; Cogo
& Dewey, 2012; Ehrenreich, 2016; Firth, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta,2011); it is increasingly chosen as the operating language of multinational companies(e.g., Neeley, 2012); it functions as a vehicle by which knowledge and know-how isimparted to younger generations (Dearden, 2014; Mauranen, 2006, 2012); it supports
the dissemination of research findings as well as discussion and debate among academic
and scientific communities, inherently and historically international (e.g., Ammon, 2012;
Kuteeva, 2013; Mauranen, 2006; van Weijen, 2012); last but of critical importance, theomnipresence of the internet serves to promote, facilitate, and catalyze the relevance of
the English language (Androutsopoulos, 2011; Baron, Rayson, & Archer, 2009; Crowston,
2010; Crystal, 2004a, 2004b; Flammia & Saunders, 2007; Mauranen & Ranta, 2009;
Smokotin, Alekseyenko, & Petrova, 2014; Squires, 2010).
For many people, the English language also serves as an intra-communal colingual
linguistic asset, oftentimes cohabiting with other languages in plurilingual communitiesof speakers whose socialization processes and communicative experiences largely
overlap (Kachru, 1997; Widdowson, 2015). The world Englishes paradigm has increased
the granularity of analysis of localized communicative practices and the distributed
functions bestowed upon co-existing languages within a particular society.
Borlongan (2016) observes that in the Philippines, for example, English is currently
embraced as a Filipino language, one of the linguistic assets that individuals use toexpress their identity and suggests this shift in attitudes may be an outcome of national
language planning bilingual education policies. Lectal variation in Philippine English is

12

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel Systemacknowledged and has been documented (Llamzon, 1969; Pefianco Martin, 2014; Tayao,
2004b). Gonzales (2017) takes the discussion of variation further by identifying various
registers that are associated with certain social networks. These include occupationbased, socio-economic, regional, and hybrid Englishes.
One consequence of the mobility and interconnectivity of this global age is thatmany of the individuals may shift between local and global communicative scenarios so,depending on the situation, locally-established linguistic resources may be used to achieve“globally valid” (Mauranen, 2012, p. 32) communicative practices. The descriptive data
provided here may thus yield insights into the multilingual repertoires at play in global
communicative scenarios.

2

BackgroundThe blurring of classificatory boundaries of speakers and communities has

stimulated a reconfiguration of approaches to the study and description of language
and communication. As the ways in which we interact and engage are transformed by
new technologies so is our understanding of language, interaction, and cognition. New
types of data obtained by means of innovative technologies are encouraging scholars to
expand established frameworks in light of findings outside of any one specific domain.
Linguistic description is becoming more sophisticated, drawing on results obtained
from the analysis of massive amounts of discourse (corpora), from psycholinguistic
experimentation, and from neurolinguistic research. Cumulative evidence is encouraging
scholars across various subdisciplines of linguistics such as psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, evolutionary linguistics, and cognitive linguistics to consider the role ofcommunicative experience in the creation of mental representations and how linguistic
conventions emerge from contact among individuals (Mauranen, 2018; Mufwene &Vigouroux, 2012; The Five Graces Group et al., 2009; Wedel, 2012).
The description of the English language has become more complex and nuancedwith the acknowledgment of the variation, variability, and variety that accompanies
the expansion of the users and uses of the language. Accounting for the full range ofpresent-day users, uses, and usage is evidently an ambitious goal given the dispersed
and nebulous nature of communicative scenarios. It is through the accumulation ofobservations and insights that we strive toward a comprehensive depiction of the forms

13

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40and functions of the multiple manifestations of worldwide English language use. Results
reported here contribute usage-based descriptions to the pool of resources available toresearchers interested in contemporary English studies.
Functional load (FL) measures bring us a step closer toward the quantification of
linguistic experience by drawing on corpus-based metrics in order to assess the relative
occurrence of elements of a linguistic class (Hockett, 1966; Surendran & Niyogi, 2003,
2006). Corpora have become indispensable to the task of description because they
allow analysts to observe patterns and trends that language users converge upon whenconstructing meaningful and purposeful discourse. Within the domain of phonology, FL
analyses have added resolution to the typological description of diverse languages byindicating the relative contributions that various linguistic classes make to each linguistic
system.
The next section will first acquaint the reader with the structural characteristicsof the vowel system of Philippine English. Subsequently, FL rankings for phonemes ascontrasts and phonemes as building blocks will be presented. These rankings are describedin terms of the articulatory gestures and features associated with each phoneme. This
interpretation evidences the perceptuo-motoric nature of speech production (Schwartz,
Moulin-Frier, & Oudeyer, 2015; Schwartz, Sato, & Fadiga, 2008) and may provide
insights into phonological categorization (Eulitz & Lahiri, 2004; Kuhl et al., 2008;
Wedel, 2012).

3

The Philippine English vowel system

3.1 Structural description
The model of Philippine English adopted for this investigation is comprised of nine
simple monophthongs and four complex diphthongs (Tayao, 2004a, 2004b). Figure 1
reflects the distribution within the vowel quadrangle. The sounds are rather symmetrically
distributed in the front and back of the mouth and a preference for articulations producedin the peripheral regions of the oral cavity is observable.
Among the simple monophthongs, five are articulated with the tongue in the anteriorarea of the mouth and four in the posterior. Articulatory gestures show a tendency toward
the upper region of the oral cavity. Four monophthongs and all of the diphthongs involve
gestures in this region. Four monophthongs are articulated with an intermediate tongue

14

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel System

i:
i

u:
ɪ
e

o
ɛ

eɪ

oɪ

ʌ

ɑ

ɑɪ ɑʊ

Figure 1. Philippine English vowel system

position. Two diphthongs initiate in this region. The lower region of the oral cavity isused for articulation of one simple vowel phoneme and the initiation of two complex
diphthongs.
This gestural configuration can be further characterized in terms of the following
distribution of features. The feature [high] is associated with eight phonemes, four simple
and four complex. In the case of the diphthongs, this feature is confined to terminatingtargets. The feature [mid] is associated with six phonemes. The simple monophthongs
associated with this feature are evenly distributed in the periphery of the vowel space.
The associated complex diphthongs are also found in the periphery of the vowel space.
The feature [low] is associated with three phonemes and is confined to sounds producedin the posterior region of the oral cavity. The feature [front] is associated with eightphonemes, five simple and three complex. Phonemes associated with this feature tend
to be concentrated in the upper region of the mouth. The feature [back] is associatedwith seven phonemes. The associated phonemes span the height of the vowel space. Fivephonemes in this system are characterized by the feature [tense] and two by the feature[long].

3.2 Usage-based description
In the discussion that follows, the FL computations are based on frequency measuresobtained from the spoken component of ICE-Philippines corpus. This corpus contains
a total of approximately 600,000 running words and samples a broad spectrum ofcommunicative scenarios (Greenbaum, 1996; Greenbaum & Nelson, 1996; see Schmied,
1990 for an informative perspective on particular variables).

15

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40The FL rankings are presented as relative normalized occurrence in the corresponding
corpus: a value of 1.00 indicates the phoneme that occurs most often in the words in the
corpus while the other values are calculated in relation to the top ranked item. Thismethod of presentation is favored in the literature and provides an accessible depiction of
the systemic relationships among members.

3.2.1 Phonemes as building blocks
Table 1 displays the functional load ranking of the 13 phonemes in the Philippine
English vowel system in their roles a building blocks. The ranking indicates the relative
contribution that each phoneme makes to the formation of the words that comprise thePhilippine English spoken corpus. The first two phonemes are used more than half as
much the other 11 phonemes combined. The top five phonemes are used almost threetimes more than the remaining eight. The top six phonemes are used almost four times asmuch as the seven phonemes at the bottom of the ranking. These usage patterns will be
described in terms of gestural configurations and articulatory features in the discussionthat follows.
Table 1. Functional load ranking of the vowel phonemes
as building blocks in Philippine English
Rank

SegmentFL1i:

1.00002

ɑ0.95963

ɛ

0.70674o0.68105

u:0.39956

ɪ

0.30627ɑɪ

0.27728eɪ0.27339ʌ

0.231710i

0.098511

ɑʊ

0.087012e0.063113oɪ

0.0120This usage-based ranking of occurrence suggests that phonemes self-organize into16

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel Systemseveral tiers of relative occurrence in the phonemic mass of usage events. Results
indicate that this system makes relatively greater use of four members in the productionof the words that dominate spoken discourse. The members that contribute most to word
formation are the high, front, tense, long phoneme /i:/ followed by the low, back phoneme/ɑ/. Together they serve to demarcate the upper anterior and lower posterior regionsof the vowel space. The mid, front, lax /ɛ/ and the mid, back, tense, round /o/ are also
relatively active in word formation. The primacy of these sounds serves to demarcate
the intermediate zone of articulation and the anterior from the posterior regions. The
posterior region is more thoroughly delineated by the next phoneme in this ranking.
The high, back, tense, round, long /u:/ demarcates the upper posterior perimeter of thevowel space. The upper anterior region is further specified by the phoneme /ɪ/, which
co-occupies this region with the highest ranked member. Two diphthongs are activatedin their role as phonemic constituents with similar frequency. These are both anteriorclosing diphthongs, involving shifting the tongue up and forward toward the upper
anterior region of the oral cavity. The members at the bottom of the ranking make arather small contribution to the phonemic constituents that comprise the words in the
corpus. The most frequently used member in the lower tiers of the ranking, the mid, backphoneme /ʌ/, occurs less than five times in every 100 vowel segments in the data set.
This distribution of phoneme activation in word formation suggests a preference forcertain articulatory gestures and corresponding features. As an aggregate, the systemprefers energetic anterior articulations that involve a degree of tongue elevation. In termsof features, [high] and [mid] are primed over [low]. Phonemes associated with the feature[front] are used more often than those associated with the features [central] and [back].
The features [tense], [lax], [round], and [long] are associated with a few of the phonemesin the upper tiers of the ranking.

3.2.2 Phonemes as contrasts
Table 2 presents results of analyses which examined the contrastive role of vowel
phonemes in Philippine English. The words in the dominating vocabulary form a dense
network of contrasting environments. The 13 vowel phonemes, on average, form minimal
pairs with 8 or 9 other members. The most active member /ɑɪ/ engages in contrastive
relationships with 12 other members. It is interesting to note that in spite of this relative
greater activity, this phoneme occupies a middle tier in the ranking. The members in

17

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40

the upper tiers of the ranking engage between 9 and 11 other members in contrastive
relationships. The least active member engages four other members.
Table 2. Functional load ranking of the vowel phonemes
as contrasts in Philippine English
Rank

SegmentFL1i:

1.00002

ɑ

0.87413o0.74264eɪ

0.63685ɑɪ

0.55526

ɑʊ

0.34587

u:0.32268ɛ

0.29489ʌ

0.268810e0.056311

ɪ

0.050412i

0.048413oɪ

0.0205

The results indicate a rather dispersed distribution of relative work among themembers in this system. The tiers that emerge tend to be occupied by one or two
members. The uppermost tiers are each occupied by single phonemes. Five phonemes
emerge as relatively great contributors to the network of contrasts in this phonologicalsystem. The high, front, tense, long phoneme /i:/ carries the largest functional burdenin terms of phonological oppositions. The low, back, unrounded phoneme /ɑ/ takes onslightly less of the contrastive functional load. As described in the previous section, thesetwo phonemes also make the greatest contributions in terms of phonemic components
used in word formation. The simple phoneme /o/ occupies the third tier of contrastive
functional load. These three phonemes collaborate to establish the relevance of degreeof tongue elevation, on the one hand, and tongue retraction, on the other. The complex
phonemes /eɪ/ and /ɑɪ/ occupy the two tiers that follow. These are both anterior-closing
diphthongs which reinforce the role of upward and forward tongue movements. The
diphthong /eɪ/ establishes the function of the intermediate anterior zone of articulation
as relevant to distinguishing between members in this system while the diphthong18

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel System/ɑɪ/ reinforces the role of the low posterior articulations. The next tier is occupied by
two members, the complex phoneme /ɑʊ/ and the simple monophthong /u:/. These two
members establish the relevance of raised, retracted tongue positions in distinguishingmembers of this system. Intermediate and centralized articulations are brought into playby the two members that occupy the following tier in this ranking. Anterior articulations
are reinforced by the phoneme /ɛ/ and posterior articulations are reinforced by thephoneme /ʌ/. The remaining members are noticeably less active in terms of the number ofmembers they engage in contrastive relationships, six in the case of the phonemes /e/, /i/,/oɪ/ and four in the case of the phoneme /ɪ/.

3.2.3

Interfacing contrastors

Additional analyses of the network of contrastive associations create by eachphoneme revealed that certain phonemes distinguish themselves due to the intensity withwhich they interact with other members in this system. These phonemes are referred tohere as interfacing contrastors. Three interfacing contrastors emerge from an analysis offirst- and second-order contrasts. First-order contrasts are those contrasting pairs withthe highest functional load values across each of the networks of associations establishedby individual members in the system. Second-order contrasts are those contrasting pairs
ranked second in the functional load rankings obtained across all of the networks ofassociation present in the data set. The phonemes /i:/ - /ɑ/ - /o/ distinguish themselvesfrom other members by their level of engagement in the most active contrasting pairs
across all the members in this system. As an aggregate, these three members participate
in two-thirds of the first- and second-order contrasts across the networks formed by thephonemes in the Philippine English vowel system. In the sections that follow, the networkof associations created by each of these phonemes in their function as contrastive anchors
will be described in detail.

3.2.3.1 The high, front, tense, long /i:/Table 3 displays the network of contrastive associations created by the high, front,
tense, long phoneme /i:/, the most actively engaged member in the Philippine English
phonological system. As a contrastive anchor, relationships are established with eight
other members. Non-participating members coincide precisely with those at the lower
tiers in Table 2 displaying the FL ranking of phonemes as contrasts. Each one of the

19

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40eight pairings makes a relevant contribution to the contrastive burden carried by thisanchor. Preference for posterior-based monophthongs and anterior-closing diphthongs isobserved. The three articulatory dimensions (viz. front-back, close-open, rounding) areat play in the organizational tendencies of this network (Schwartz, Boë, Vallée, & Abry,
1997).
Table 3. The network of contrastive associations createdby the high, front, tense, long /i:/
Rank

Pair

Normalized

1

i: - ɑ

1.00002

i: - o0.96703

i: - ɑɪ

0.4336

4

i: - eɪ0.36995i: - ʌ

0.3591

6

i: - ɑʊ

0.2977

7

i: - ɛ

0.2186

8

i: - u:0.2180This ranking of functional load of contrastive associations indicates that contrastive
signaling is accomplished by means of an uneven distribution of activation. Several tiersof relative contribution emerge. The two top-ranked pairings distinguish themselves fromthe others in the contributions they make to the network of contrastive associations. These
two pairings establish reciprocal relationships between these members; the phoneme /i:/is the most activated member in the contrastive networks created by the contrastive
anchors /ɑ/ and /o/. These two recruited members are both posterior-based articulations.
The pairing with the phoneme /ɑ/ activates configurations associated with diametrically
opposed regions in the vowel space and primes degree of tongue elevation and tongue
retraction in creating distinctive phonemic constituents. The pairing with the phoneme/o/ reinforces these gestures and primes lip rounding in signaling meaningful phonemic
constituents. Pairings with anterior-closing diphthongs follow in this ranking. Gesturalconfigurations associated with the top-ranked pairing are reinforced by the initiatingtarget of the recruited member /ɑɪ/. The pairing with the phoneme /eɪ/ augments the roleof degree of tongue elevation in the initiation of the diphthong. The terminal articulatory
position of these two members makes relevant the degree of energy and relative durationin creating phonemic distinctions. The pairings with the phoneme /ʌ/ strengthens the role20

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel Systemof tongue retraction in the configuration of distinctive articulatory gestures. The pairingthat follows with the closing diphthong /ɑʊ/ also contributes to the contrastive functionthat tongue retraction plays in this network. Lip rounding is reinforced by the terminal
target of the recruited member. The pairings at the lower tiers of this ranking demonstrate
diversity in the configuration of the distinctive gestures activated by this anchor. The
pairing with the phoneme /ɛ/ concentrates contrastive power in the anterior region of thevowel space and also makes relevant degree of tongue elevation as well as lengthening
and tensing of articulations. The pairing with the phoneme /u:/ activates articulatory
targets in two extreme points in the anterior and posterior of the vowel quadrant. The
contrastive function of lip rounding is further reinforced by this pairing.

3.2.3.2 The low, back /ɑ/Table 4 displays the network of contrastive associations created by the low, backphoneme /ɑ/. As a contrastive anchor, relationships are established with all but one othermember, the phoneme /oɪ/. Eight of the 11 pairings make relevant contributions to thecontrastive burden carried by this anchor. Anterior-based members are activated withrelatively greater intensity. This network exploits the three articulatory dimensions in its
organizational tendencies.
Table 4. The network of contrastive associations createdby the low, back /ɑ/
Rank

Pair

Normalized1

ɑ - i:

1.00002

ɑ - eɪ

0.64773

ɑ-o0.46374

ɑ - u:

0.42695ɑ - ɑʊ

0.33696

ɑ-ɛ

0.24557

ɑ-ʌ

0.10888ɑ - ɑɪ

0.10579

ɑ-e0.035210

ɑ-i0.005211

ɑ-ɪ

0.0018This functional load ranking indicates an uneven distribution of work across

21

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40various pairings. Several tiers emerge. Clustering at the middle and lower tiers indicatethat some pairings are activated with similar intensity. The first- and second-ordercontrasts establish reciprocal relationships with their partner members. As mentioned
in the previous section, the phoneme /ɑ/ is the most activated member in the networkof contrastive associations formed by the phoneme /i:/. It is the second most active
member in the network formed by the phoneme /eɪ/. The strength of association ofthese pairings can be described as doubly reinforced by this reciprocity. These pairings
concentrate contrastive power in the anterior region of the vowel space. The relatively
great activity of the first-order contrast primes degree of tongue elevation and tongue
retraction along with lengthened and tensed articulations among the distinctive gesturalconfigurations at play in this network. The second-order contrast further strengthens
these associations. Pairings with the posterior-based phonemes /o/, /u:/, and /ɑʊ/ prime
degree of tongue retraction and further reinforce the functional relevance of degree of
tongue elevation. The pairing with the phoneme /u:/ augments the contrastive role oflengthened articulations in distinctive gestural configurations. The pairings that populate
the lower tiers of this ranking collaborate to further reinforce the contrastive function ofdegree of tongue protrusion, primarily, and degree of tongue elevation, secondarily.

3.2.3.3 The mid, back, tense, round /o/Table 5 displays the network of contrastive associations created by the mid, back,tense, round phoneme /o/. As a contrastive anchor, relationships are established withall but one other member, the phoneme /ɪ/. Eight of the 11 pairings make relevant
contributions to the contrastive burden carried by this anchor. While anterior-based
monophthongs are activated with noticeably greater intensity, a preference for posteriorbased closing diphthongs emerges from this ranking. This network exploits the threearticulatory dimensions in its organizational tendencies.
This functional load ranking indicates an uneven distribution of work across thepairings in the network. One particular pairing establishes the first-order contrast anddominates the contrastive relationships established by this anchor. As the values in the
ranking decrease, a tendency toward clustering of pairings is observed. Contrastive
pairings with complex phonemes are dispersed throughout the ranking. As discussed
previously, the most active pairing formed with the phoneme /i:/ establishes a reciprocal
relationship between these members. This association primes tongue retraction and lip

22

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel System
Table 5. The network of contrastive associations createdby the mid, back, tense, round /o/
Rank

Pair

Normalized1

o - i:

1.00002o-ɑ0.47953o - ɑʊ

0.40634o-ʌ0.25775o - eɪ

0.23016o-ɛ

0.16877o - u:

0.14438o - ɑɪ

0.11669o-i0.089210o-e0.053111o - oɪ

0.0218rounding as well degree of tongue elevation, tensing, and lengthening. It is noted that thepairing with non-long counterpart /i/ occupies a much lower tier in this ranking. The clusterof pairings /ɑ/ - /ɑʊ/ that occupy the next tier activate similar gestural configurations dueto the shared component that occupies the low, posterior region of the vowel space. The
functional relevance of degree of tongue elevation, specifically lowering, is augmented
by these pairings. The terminating target of the complex diphthong further reinforces
the role of degree of tongue elevation, specifically raising. The contrastive function of
lip rounding is also reinforced by the first of these pairings. The clustering pairs that
follow in the ranking collaborate to reinforce relative tongue protrusion as relevant inthis network of associations. The pairing with the phoneme /ʌ/ augments the role that lip
rounding and tensing play in distinguishing configurations of articulatory gestures. The
pairing with the complex phoneme /eɪ/ concentrates contrastive power in the intermediatezone of the vowel quadrant and makes relevant the degree of tongue retraction. Similar
configurations are reinforced by the pairing with the phoneme /ɛ/. The pairing with thephoneme /u:/ strengthens the role that lengthening and degree of tongue elevation playin this network. The pairing with the phoneme /ɑɪ/ activates gestural configurations thatlargely overlap with those associated with the top two pairings in this ranking.

23

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40

4 Closing remarks
This paper has presented results obtained from FL analyses of the vowel systems ofPhilippine English. Findings demonstrate how this methodology can be applied to thisdomain of English studies in order to provide a usage-based perspective. FL rankings
have revealed patterns of usage that are otherwise not evident from a purely structuralist
viewpoint. These usage patterns indicate synergistic systemic relationships among nodesof relative operationality (Pellegrino, Marsico, & Coupé, 2011). These findings thus
provide additional and precise quantitative data with which to systematically document
the large diversity that is evident among and within phonological systems (Oh, Pellegrino,
Coupé, & Marsico, 2013).
When it comes to contemporary English studies, documentation and description areof particular relevance. The large body of referential work available on the language has
traditionally been based on a limited and limiting perception of its users, uses, and usage.
The adoption of a truncated view has had ramifications for subsequent theorization andspeculation regarding relationships between language and the mind. Acknowledgment of
the variation, variability, and variety that is inherent to language and communication isreorienting the linguistic sciences. As Sridhar and Sridhar (2018) observe, scholarship hastaken several significant turns toward functional, dynamic, multilingual, instrumental
orientations in order to better account for contemporary linguistic realities.
The discussion provided in this paper has described how FL rankings can be used
to quantify the perceptuo-motor behaviors associated with the synergistic relationships
among vowel phonemes that emerge dynamically through communicative experience.
These elaborations serve to remind us that phonological representations correspondto physical and cognitive mechanisms underlying speech production and perception.
Thus, it can be tentatively proposed that FL analyses have something to contribute to
discussions regarding language typology (Kortmann & Schneider, 2004; Schwartz etal., 1997, 2015), language dynamics and evolution (Hruschka et al., 2009; Wedel, 2012)
as well as inclusive and pluricentric approaches to the study and teaching of the English
language (Canagarajah, 2013, 2018; Cook, 2017; Kirkpatrick, 2010).

24

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel System

References
Albl-Mikasa, M. (2013). Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0005
Ammon, U. (2012). English(es) and Academic Publishing. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopediaof Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781405198431.wbeal0386
Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). Language change and digital media. In N. Coupland & T. Kristiansen(Eds.), Language Standardisation in Europe (pp. 145–160).
Baron, A., Rayson, P., & Archer, D. (2009). Word frequency and key word statistics in corpus
linguistics. Anglistik, 20(1), 41–67.
Bautista, M. L. S. (2004). An Overview of the Philippine Component of the International Corpus ofEnglish (ICE-PHI). Asian Englishes, 7(2), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2004.10801139
Borlongan, A. M. (2016). Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. AsianEnglishes, 18(3), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Agency and power in intercultural communication: negotiating English intranslocal spaces. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/14708477.2013.770867
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual Practice as Spatial Repertoires: Expanding the Paradigm beyond
Structuralist Orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/
amx041
Cogo, A. (2012). ELF and super-diversity: a case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business
context. Jelf, 1(2), 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0020
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a Lingua Franca a Corpus-driven Investigation.
London: Continuum International Pub. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=894551
Cook, V. (2017). Second Language Acquisition: One Person with Two Languages. In rk Aronoff & J.
Rees-Miller (Eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 557–582). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch27
Crowston, K. (2010). Internet genres. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 2583–2596.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/
S9780511326066
Crystal, D. (2004a). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2004b). The language revolution. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction-a growing global phenomenon. British Council.
Retrieved from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4f72cdf8-b2eb-4d41-a785-4a283bf6caaa
Ehrenreich, S. (2016). ELF in international business contexts: Key issues and future perspectives. In
K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts (pp. 135–155).
Routledge / Taylor & Francis.

25

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40

Eulitz, C., & Lahiri, A. (2004). Neurobiological Evidence for Abstract Phonological Representationsin the Mental Lexicon during Speech Recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4),577–583. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904323057308
Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in theworkplace and (some) implications for SLA. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 47(1), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.006
Flammia, M., & Saunders, C. (2007). Language as power on the Internet. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1899–1903. https://doi.org/10.1002/
asi.20659
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2014). Using listening journals to raise awareness of Global Englishes in
ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021
Gonzales, W. D. W. (2017). Philippine Englishes. Asian Englishes, 19(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.10
80/13488678.2016.1274574
Greenbaum, S. (1996). Comparing English worldwide: the International Corpus of English. Oxford;
New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (1996). The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World
Englishes, 15(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00088.x
Hockett, C. F. (1966). The quantification of functional load: a linguistic problem. Santa Monica,
Calif.: Rand Corp.
Hruschka, D. J., Christiansen, M. H., Blythe, R. A., Croft, W., Heggarty, P., Mufwene, S., … Poplack,
S. (2009). Building social cognitive models of language change. TICS Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 13(11), 464–469.
Hülmbauer, C. (2011). English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): A mode and its implications. In N. J. Jørgensen(Ed.), A Toolkit for Transnational Communication in Europe (pp. 43–68). Copenhagen, Denmark:
University of Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://benjamins.com/catalog/lplp.37.2.05kim
Hung, T. T. (2009). How the Global Spread of English can Enrich Rather than Engulf Our Culture and
Identity. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 13, 41–53.
Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes and English-Using Communities. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17(2), 66–87.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN a multilingual model. Aberdeen,
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=863869
Kortmann, B., & Schneider, E. W. (2004). A handbook of varieties of English: a multimedia reference
tool. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008).
Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory
expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 979–1000.
Kuteeva, M. (2013). English in academic and professional contexts: Editorial. Nordic Journal of
English Studies, 12(1), 1–6.

26

A Functional Assessment of the Philippine English Vowel System
Llamzon, T. A. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Manila: Ateneo University Press.
Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional Communication in a Global Business
Context: The Notion of Global Communicative Competence. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 54(3), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2011.2161844
Matsuda, A. (2017). Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language. Multilingual
Matters.
Mauranen, A. (2006). Speaking the discipline. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse
across disciplines (pp. 271–294). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=485345
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mauranen, A. (2018). Second Language Acquisition, world Englishes, and English as a Lingua Franca(ELF). World Englishes, 37(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12306
Mauranen, A., & Ranta, E. (2009). English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars.
Mufwene, S., & Vigouroux, C. (2012). Individuals, populations, and timespace: Perspectives on theecology of language. Linguistique Cahiers de Linguistique, 38(2), 111–137.
Neeley, T. (2012, May 1). Global Business Speaks English. Retrieved May 25, 2018, from https://hbr.
org/2012/05/global-business-speaks-english
Oh, Y. M., Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C., & Marsico, E. (2013). Cross-language comparison of functionalload for vowels, consonants, and tones. In Interspeech (pp. 3032–3036). Retrieved fromhttp://193.48.145.249/fulltext/yoonmi/Oh_2013_H_2013_interspeech.pdf
Pefianco Martin, I. (2014). Philippine English revisited. World Englishes, 33(1), 50–59. https://doi.
org/10.1111/weng.12054
Pellegrino, F., Marsico, E., & Coupé, C. (2011, November). Functional load and the structure ofvowel systems. Haskins Labs, ‘Dynamique Du Langage’ Laboratory CNRS & University of
Lyon (Université Lyon 2), ASLAN Advanced Studies on Language Complexity ‘Excellence
Laboratory.’
Schmied, J. (1990). Corpus linguistics and non-native varieties of English. World Englishes, 9(3),255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1990.tb00264.x
Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L.-J., Vallée, N., & Abry, C. (1997). The dispersion-focalization theory of vowel
systems. Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 255–286.
Schwartz, J.-L., Moulin-Frier, C., & Oudeyer, P.-Y. (2015). On the cognitive nature of speech soundsystems. Journal of Phonetics, 53, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.09.008
Schwartz, J.-L., Sato, M., & Fadiga, L. (2008). The common language of speech perception andaction: a neurocognitive perspective, Abstract. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée,
XIII(2), 9–22.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Language Variation and Change: The Case of English as a Lingua Franca. In K.
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), English pronunciation models: a changing scene(pp. 59–76). Bern; New York: Peter Lang.

27

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 40

Smokotin, V. M., Alekseyenko, A. S., & Petrova, G. I. (2014). The Phenomenon of Linguistic
Globalization: English as the Global Lingua Franca (EGLF). Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 154, 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.177
Squires, L. (2010). Enregistering internet language. Language in Society, 39(04), 457–492. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0047404510000412
Sridhar, S. N., & Sridhar, K. K. (2018). Coda 2 A bridge half-built: Toward a holistic theory ofSecond Language Acquisition and world Englishes. World Englishes, 37(1), 127–139. https://doi.
org/10.1111/weng.12308
Surendran, D., & Niyogi, P. (2003). Measuring the Functional Load of Phonological Contrasts (No.
TR-2003-2012). Department of Computer Science: University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://
arxiv.org/abs/cs/0311036
Surendran, D., & Niyogi, P. (2006). Quantifying the functional load of phonemic oppositions,distinctive features, and suprasegmentals. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing modelsof linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (pp. 43–58). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins
Pub.
Tayao, M. L. G. (2004a). Philippine English: phonology. In E. W. Schneider & B. Kortmann (Eds.),
A handbook of varieties of English: a multimedia reference tool (pp. 1047–1062). Berlin; New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tayao, M. L. G. (2004b). The evolving study of Philippine English phonology. World Englishes, 23(1),77–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2004.00336.x
The Five Graces Group, Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., …
Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper. Language
Learning, 59, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x
van Weijen, D. (2012). The Language of (Future) Scientific Communication. Research Trends,(31). Retrieved from https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/the-language-offuture-scientific-communication/
Wedel, A. (2012). Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems.
Language and Cognition, 4(04), 319–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2012-0018
Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 4(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0027

28