Talk:Visayas

Language section; POV, focus, and sourcing

This edit made me wonder about POV, focus, and sourcing in this section. The edit removed some unsupported assertions about the decline of the Spanish language and replaced those with a sentence, "Like the rest of the country, English is the language used in the academe, in government, local and multinational business, and tourism." The assertion "Tagalog is widely known but seldom used." was retained from the pre-edit version, but is still unsupported. The edit added two supporting sources following the newly introduced sentence:

• Doray Espinosa. English in the Philippines. Language Institute of Japan.
• "Issues on the Philippines' Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Competitiveness". DLSU.

It seems to me that both of those have problems in this context.

The first is a 1997 paper which makes the point that English persists as an important language in the Philippines despite government efforts to popularize a Tagalog-based national language. It speaks in the context of the Philippines as a whole, and mentions neither the Visayas nor the Cebuano/Visayan languages. It argues that English can do what Filipino does as a national language if the Filipino people stop thinking of it as a spirit-breaking colonial instrument, but rather look at it as as the code that helped Filipinos break through other worlds.

The second added cite (undated, but apparently from 2005 or later) quotes a snippet which says, "The DTI and the Board of Investiments [sic.—should be Investments] (BOI) claim that the country is the third largest English-speaking country in the world, with an estimated 72% of its population fluent in American English. According to [a 2002 source], Filipinos' verbal skills, with respect to clarity and understandability, are superior to those in India and Ireland, among other offshore destinations." The paragraph following the one where that snippet appears, however, begins by saying, "However, World Development Indicators data (World Bank, 2001) show that the Philippines lags behind other Asian countries in IT use.", and it says elsewhere, "... recent reports indicate that only 5% of applicants for call center operations have acceptable levels of proficiency in English", and, "... only 14% of Filipino nurses applying for jobs in the US and the UK pass their English tests". Indeed, the paper seems to focus more on highlighting English deficiencies than capabilities, and the snippet quoted seems to have been cherrypicked to support a POV. This source, like the first, speaks in the context of the Philippines as a whole—with no focus on the Visayas.

Another source (uncited here), Roger M. Thompson (2003). "Nationalism and the Rise of Tagalog". Filipino English and Taglish: language switching from multiple perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 29. ISBN 9789027248916. , does mention resistance to the spread of Tagalog in the Visayas and Mindinao. Additional sources no doubt exist which cover this and which focus on this resistance.

However, Richard B. Noss; Regional Language Centre (1982). Language teaching issues in multilingual environments in Southeast Asia. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. pp. 79. ISBN 9789971740092.  said in 1982 (five years before Filipino was designated the national language), "Tagalog-based Pilipino is fast spreading as a lingua franca in the entire country." A 2002 book, 河原俊昭 (2002). Languages and Language Policies in Insular Southeast Asia: Focusing on the Fhilippines and Malaysia. 春風社. pp. 10. ISBN 9784921146641. , said the same thing, and other sources probably exist saying similar things.

There are no doubt other sources with info (probably with differing info) on the relative levels Tagalog and Cebuano/Visayan languages in the regions where Cebuano/Visayan are prevalent. IMHO, info contrasting acceptance of Filipino vs. Cebuano/Visayan is better placed in a section of the language-focused Filipino language article. Wherever it is placed, the info should be well sourced, and differing views should be presented with attention paid to giving them due weight.

Whew!! That's a lot of criticism for a short section! I guess my bottom line here is that I think the Tagalog vs. Cebuano/Visayan content would be better placed in the Filipino language article, and this article would more usefully contain information saying generally that various Visayan languages are first languages in the region, that Filipino, the Tagalog-based National language of the Philippines is nearly universally understood, and that English, also an official language in the Philippines, is widely understood in the Visayas as it is elsewhere in the country. Perhaps mention of resistance in the Visayas to the encroachment of Tagalog is useful here, but I think that should be done with a pointer to further details in the language-focused Filipino language article.

Having said all of that, I'll add a disclaimer that it is my own editorial opinion. I haven't made any changes to the content of the section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I too have problems with the section. I am not sure why it is there. I think that it is unnecessary and inappropiate for an encyclopedia article on the Western Visayas. Since in 9 months there hasn't been any comment on Boracay Bill's comment above, I will remove the paragraph on the English language. If anyone objects, please comment below. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)