Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Eeva Sippola

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1: Types of lexical variation across Chabacano varieties Hokkien influence is relatively minor and can mostly be found in the semantic domain of food and cooking terms (Ing 1968, Molony 1974).° It is difficult to distinguish whether Hokkien items have come into Chabacano directly or if they have come indirectly through Tagalog. English influence is noticeable in all of the existing Chabacano varieties, as well as other Philippine languages.

Table 1 Types of lexical variation across Chabacano varieties Hokkien influence is relatively minor and can mostly be found in the semantic domain of food and cooking terms (Ing 1968, Molony 1974).° It is difficult to distinguish whether Hokkien items have come into Chabacano directly or if they have come indirectly through Tagalog. English influence is noticeable in all of the existing Chabacano varieties, as well as other Philippine languages.

Related Figures (7)

Figure 1. Historically Chabacano-speaking locations in the Philippines Today, there are significant differences in the sociolinguistic situations of each Chabacano community. The Philippines is an ethnically diverse and highly multilingual country with over a hundred local languages and two official languages, English and Filipino. There is a concern that many of the local languages are becoming endangered, and this problem affects the Chabacano varieties to different degrees (Lesho & Sippola 2013). The relationships between Chabacano and the adstrate languages differ in each community. OOP ee oe ee OT Ne os es ge ee eee Oe rs de OT Se tee Dee
Figure 1. Historically Chabacano-speaking locations in the Philippines Today, there are significant differences in the sociolinguistic situations of each Chabacano community. The Philippines is an ethnically diverse and highly multilingual country with over a hundred local languages and two official languages, English and Filipino. There is a concern that many of the local languages are becoming endangered, and this problem affects the Chabacano varieties to different degrees (Lesho & Sippola 2013). The relationships between Chabacano and the adstrate languages differ in each community. OOP ee oe ee OT Ne os es ge ee eee Oe rs de OT Se tee Dee
Table 2. Consonant phonemes in Zamboanga Chabacano (Ing 1968), Cotabato Chabacano (Riego de Dios 1989), Ternate Chabacano (Sippola 2011), and Cavite Chabacano (Ramos 1963, Lesho 2013) ee ee eee eee a en nnn ne eee enn es eceeeee e eee n ee EE —————_EEeeeee However, previous studies do indicate that apart from these possible differences in the analyses, there is some consonant variation in Chabacano. Ternate Chabacano differs from the other varieties in not having /A/ as a phoneme distinct from /j/, although Sippola (2011: 53) observed that []j] for /j/ can occasionally be heard. Ternate Chabacano also differs from the other varieties in how certain consonants are palatalized before /j/. In all Chabacano varieties, the coronals /d/, /t/, and /s/ palatalize before /j/ (e.g. dyos ‘god’ [ dgos], tvene ‘have’ [‘tfene], and syete ‘seven’ [‘fete]). However, in Ternate Chabacano, this palatalization before /j/ also extends to /k/, as in kyere ‘want’ ['tfere] (Sippola 2011: 48). Ing (1976: 20) also described some variation within Zamboanga Chabacano; for example, she mentions that [@] can sometimes be heard as a variant of /s/ among older speakers, although this feature is rare. Presumably, this use of [@] is a reflex of north-central
Table 2. Consonant phonemes in Zamboanga Chabacano (Ing 1968), Cotabato Chabacano (Riego de Dios 1989), Ternate Chabacano (Sippola 2011), and Cavite Chabacano (Ramos 1963, Lesho 2013) ee ee eee eee a en nnn ne eee enn es eceeeee e eee n ee EE —————_EEeeeee However, previous studies do indicate that apart from these possible differences in the analyses, there is some consonant variation in Chabacano. Ternate Chabacano differs from the other varieties in not having /A/ as a phoneme distinct from /j/, although Sippola (2011: 53) observed that []j] for /j/ can occasionally be heard. Ternate Chabacano also differs from the other varieties in how certain consonants are palatalized before /j/. In all Chabacano varieties, the coronals /d/, /t/, and /s/ palatalize before /j/ (e.g. dyos ‘god’ [ dgos], tvene ‘have’ [‘tfene], and syete ‘seven’ [‘fete]). However, in Ternate Chabacano, this palatalization before /j/ also extends to /k/, as in kyere ‘want’ ['tfere] (Sippola 2011: 48). Ing (1976: 20) also described some variation within Zamboanga Chabacano; for example, she mentions that [@] can sometimes be heard as a variant of /s/ among older speakers, although this feature is rare. Presumably, this use of [@] is a reflex of north-central
Table 3. Subject pronouns in Zamboanga (Lipski 2013), Ternate (Sippola 2011), anc Cavite Chabacano (Llamado 1972, Lesho 2013) For the plural forms, Zamboanga Chabacano has clear influence from the Visayan adstrates. It is the only Chabacano variety that has the Philippine distinction between the inclusive and exclusive first person plural. Lipski (2013) has argued that this Visayan influence on the Zamboanga Chabacano pronominal system is a shift away from older Spanish-based plural forms. Ternate and Cavite Chabacano, in contrast, both have Spanish-based plural forms, but there are differences between them as well (e.g. 1PL m(ih)otro in Ternate Chabacano and niso(s) in Cavite Chabacano). There are also differences between the Chabacano varieties in how respect is expressed with second person singular pronouns. Ternate Chabacano has the 2SG pronoun bo, and the 2PL form tedi can also be used in the singular to convey respect. Cavite and Zamboanga Chabacano, on the other hand, use the 2SG forms tu, bo(s), and uste(d) for different levels of familiarity or formality. Rubino (2012) and Lipski (2013) also reported that the Tagalog 2SG pronoun ikaw/ka is now also being used by many Zamboanga Chabacano speakers, but this is not the case in Cavite or Ternate Chabacano. Tw... fii... ee es es Oe lm ee eh CURL Ahk tee TION AOA ee eels ee
Table 3. Subject pronouns in Zamboanga (Lipski 2013), Ternate (Sippola 2011), anc Cavite Chabacano (Llamado 1972, Lesho 2013) For the plural forms, Zamboanga Chabacano has clear influence from the Visayan adstrates. It is the only Chabacano variety that has the Philippine distinction between the inclusive and exclusive first person plural. Lipski (2013) has argued that this Visayan influence on the Zamboanga Chabacano pronominal system is a shift away from older Spanish-based plural forms. Ternate and Cavite Chabacano, in contrast, both have Spanish-based plural forms, but there are differences between them as well (e.g. 1PL m(ih)otro in Ternate Chabacano and niso(s) in Cavite Chabacano). There are also differences between the Chabacano varieties in how respect is expressed with second person singular pronouns. Ternate Chabacano has the 2SG pronoun bo, and the 2PL form tedi can also be used in the singular to convey respect. Cavite and Zamboanga Chabacano, on the other hand, use the 2SG forms tu, bo(s), and uste(d) for different levels of familiarity or formality. Rubino (2012) and Lipski (2013) also reported that the Tagalog 2SG pronoun ikaw/ka is now also being used by many Zamboanga Chabacano speakers, but this is not the case in Cavite or Ternate Chabacano. Tw... fii... ee es es Oe lm ee eh CURL Ahk tee TION AOA ee eels ee
Table 4. Aspect markers in Zamboanga, Ternate, and Cavite Chabacanc
Table 4. Aspect markers in Zamboanga, Ternate, and Cavite Chabacanc
Table 5. Lexical variation in Chabacano modals Visayan grammatical influence in Zamboanga Chabacano is evident in other ways that distinguish it from the Manila Bay varieties. For example, Zamboanga Chabacano has the numerical classifier particle bilug (< Hiligaynon), e.g. dos bilug webos ‘two eggs’ (Rubino 2012); this type of particle is not found in Tagalog or the Manila Bay Chabacano varieties. Zamboanga Chabacano also has the emphatic discourse markers gayod, gale, and gane, which come from Hiligaynon and Cebuano and are not found in the Manila Bay varieties (Vazquez Veiga & Fernandez 2006).
Table 5. Lexical variation in Chabacano modals Visayan grammatical influence in Zamboanga Chabacano is evident in other ways that distinguish it from the Manila Bay varieties. For example, Zamboanga Chabacano has the numerical classifier particle bilug (< Hiligaynon), e.g. dos bilug webos ‘two eggs’ (Rubino 2012); this type of particle is not found in Tagalog or the Manila Bay Chabacano varieties. Zamboanga Chabacano also has the emphatic discourse markers gayod, gale, and gane, which come from Hiligaynon and Cebuano and are not found in the Manila Bay varieties (Vazquez Veiga & Fernandez 2006).
Table 6. Number of Chabacano varieties reported by participants in the online survey * Example codes are constructed as follows: [Variety (C=Cavite, T=Ternate, Z=Zamboanga) - gender F/M — age — given language fluency (NS=native speaker, FS=fluent speaker) - material type (int=interview, map=map task, sur=online survey).
Table 6. Number of Chabacano varieties reported by participants in the online survey * Example codes are constructed as follows: [Variety (C=Cavite, T=Ternate, Z=Zamboanga) - gender F/M — age — given language fluency (NS=native speaker, FS=fluent speaker) - material type (int=interview, map=map task, sur=online survey).
Table 7. Perceived lexical differences between Cavite and Ternate Chabacano
Table 7. Perceived lexical differences between Cavite and Ternate Chabacano
Related topics:
Language AttitudesFolk Linguistic Perceptions
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved