CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

    The original problem presented for study was that of three
different countries (Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico) that
for reasons of conquest and invasion were brought into contact
with a dominant power whose vernacular was English.  The
possibilities that could occur when two languages are brought
into contact are that the native language is retained in all
societal domains, the native language is retained in some
societal domains while the new language occupies others, or the
the shift to the new language in all societal domains.  The three
countries studied, although initially going through the same
processes of language contact in the early 1900's, demonstrated
the complete spectrum of language shift possibilities.  In Puerto
Rico, the native language was maintained in all societal domains.
In the Philippines, English was relegated to specific domains,
while the vernacular and the national language occupied others.
And in Guam, English has become the language of almost all
societal domains on the island, while the native language,  
although retained, is in a very precarious state. An attempt was
made to explain the factors that may have contributed to the
different language situations in these areas based on the
existence of factors known to be related to language shift, the
existence of an educated class to defend the native language and
organized language planning efforts that have taken place.
     When speaking of the shift factors, one finds that only the
school's and government's use are factors that are directly
related to language planning.  Factors such as migration,
prestige level, urbanization, industrialization and societal
bilingualism can be seen as reasons for language planning, or as
being indirectly related to it.  A society does not create
language policies that contemplate a migration of non-native
speakers and the subsequent societal bilingualism that may result
because of it. Rather, societal bilingualism may be a consequence
of a specific language plan, although not necessarily so, and
plans may be a response to a mass migration of non-native
speakers of a language.  Language plans may also be, however,
attempts to somehow reverse or eliminate the language factor of
migration, or a reversal of societal bilingualism.  The point is
that these factors are taken into consideration when planning for
language use. However, when speaking of the school's and
government's use of a language, one is almost inevitably
referring to language planning, the formation of language
policies in these agencies. So it is through government and
school language policies that the social impact of other language
factors is determined.
     In the case of Guam, the migration of non-native speakers of
Chamorro, first by American soldiers, then in more recent years
from Micronesia and the Orient, could have had two results. 
Either the immigrants would eventually speak Chamorro, or the
Chamorros would speak another language.  Had the school and
government's language policy been one of language maintenance
instead of shift, Chamorro would probably be more widely spoken
on the island today, but English was chosen and policies were
designed to promote a shift to English. The schools also plan to
prepare people to enter into the job market, which in the case of
Guam was also an English-speaking environment. In fact, in the
early years of occupation, the government of Guam, composed
principally of American military personnel, was the number one
employer (Sanchez, 1987, p. 273). So again, the alternatives were
for the military personnel to learn Chamorro (unlikely in light
of U.S. policy toward other language groups), or to plan for the
Chamorros to learn English through the school system. 
     Similar circumstances can be found in the Philippines.  With the
existence of many different linguistic groups in the country, the
need to communicate among the different linguistic groups and the
newly established English speaking government could also have
taken one of two routes.  A lingua franca could have been chosen
from among the native languages, or English.  Initially, English
was chosen and planned for through the public school policy.  It
was not until the late 1950's that a native language was chosen
as a lingua franca and incorporated into the school language
policy. This meant that for many years, the products of the
school system went into the industry presumably as English
speakers. Today, societal bilingualism (multilingualism in
reality) exists in the Philippines with a large portion of the
population speaking the two official languages: Pilipino and
English.
     In Puerto Rico, circumstances similar to those of Guam and the
Philippines were found.  An English-speaking military took over
the government of Puerto Rico.  Again, two alternatives were seen
as possible: that the military personnel would learn Spanish or
the Puerto Ricans would learn English. However, the open lack of
regard expressed by the military rulers toward Puerto Rican
Spanish and the feeling that it would be easier to teach Puerto
Ricans English than to teach them "real" Spanish made that
likelihood very slim. School policies were established by the
military government in order to promote the spread of English. In
the case of Puerto Rico, however, neither of the two alternatives
envisioned occurred.  The governors of the island did not learn
Spanish, and the Puerto Ricans did not, and have not learned
English.  Instead, the government was turned over to natives of
Puerto Rico, and in spite of efforts to plan for bilingualism in
Puerto Rico through the schools, Spanish has remained the
dominant language in all domains.
     Why were there such obviously different results with regard to
the native language and English in the three places, in spite of
almost identical plans to spread English through the school
system? One could argue that Spanish is a language of wider
communication and thus could compete with English, while Chamorro
is a language spoken by only a minuscule percentage of the world
population. But, this does not explain how a language such as
Pilipino, which is not the language with the greatest number of
speakers even in the Philippines, has spread to the point that
close to 90 percent of the population in the Philippines reports
speaking it as a second language (Tejero, C. C. (1990, September
2). Writers are the real legislators of language. Sunday Inquirer
Magazine. pp. 20-22)»Tejero, 1990b, p. 21).
     The differences among the three areas seem to be  not inherent to
the languages themselves, but rather more related to whom is
using the language and creating the language policies.  One can
safely assume that those formulating the school policies are
educated to some degree, and that members of the this educated
group prepares the language planning policies for the country. 
This, then seems a more plausible explanation for what happened
Guam, where a native intelligentsia did not exist  until much
later on.  The educated sector on the Island was composed of the
Americans, who in turn created policies promoting their language. 
Similar findings are seen in the Philippines, whose
intelligentsia consisted mostly of Americans and a native elite
who mostly resided in the Manila area which speaks Tagalog (the
basis for both Pilipino and Filipino). This would also, to some
extent, explain the failure of English language policies in the
schools of Puerto Rico, whose educated were Spanish speakers. 
     The intelligentsia, in addition to playing a policy making role,
also in many cases creates the awareness among the people of a
need to preserve the native language.  The reasons for preserving
a native language may on many occasions be equated by this group
with maintaining the national identity of a people.  This was the
case with the educated classes of Puerto Rico who continually
equated the Spanish language with Puerto Rican nationality and
identity. This was also found to a limited degree in Guam and the
Philippines. In the Philippines, there was a degree of
nationalism in the defense of Pilipino, but more so a sense of
patriotism was involved. It was more of a case responsibility as
a citizen of a country than any true ethnocultural
identification. In Guam, of course, defense of Chamorro only
occurred after the first native educated class appeared, and the
defense was more one of preserving the past than a relation to
present national identity.
     As the three cases were compared, it appeared that more important
than equating the native language with native identity was
equating English with United States culture in the three areas.
In addition, the perception of English as a threat to the native
language also seemed to have a great deal of impact on the
success or failure of language policies.  Only in Puerto Rico was
there a negative connotation associated with English together
with a fervant defense of the native language.  There was a clear
sense of menace attached with the presence of English on the
island.  In fact, the language situation in Puerto Rico seemed
always to be one of sacrificing Spanish to assure the learning of
English, or the ostracizing of English almost to the point of
non-existence as the only way to maintain Spanish.  In other
words, the two languages were traditionally seen as rivals, and
the elevation of one had to mean the suppression of the other. In
Guam and the Philippines, this was not seen to any significant
degree. In fact, there was, in general, a pro-American and
consequently pro-English, sentiment present in both places. Even
in the Philippines, where discontent with U.S. interference in
government affairs existed, English was seen as the language of
education and power.  The native languages, or national language
in the case of the Philippines, were promoted without presenting
English as a threat to their existence.  This, more than any
other factor, seemed to have influenced the role of English in
the three places.
     In order to answer the question, "What role have nationalist
groups played in native language maintenance in Guam, the
Philippines and Puerto Rico?", one also has to look at the
possible question, "What role have nationalist groups had in
impeding the spread of English?".  
     In Guam, without the existence of a Chamorro-speaking educated
sector to create and promote the existing institutional support
for the language, Chamorro would now be dead. However, partially
because the Chamorro intellectuals did not come into existence
until very late in its history, nothing was done to impede the
spread of English into virtually all societal domains. 
     In the Philippines, the educated class promoted one of the
vernaculars and defended its use in the school and the
government.  It also seemed to be in the process of reversing the
spread of English into certain domains. English was used only to
teach course related to mathematics, science and technology, and
one can expect to see English reduced to the domains of industry
and science, and perhaps a limited role in government in the
future.  
     Puerto Rico's nationalist defense of the Spanish language was
coupled with the presentation of English as a threat to the
existence of the vernacular.  The spread of English was impeded
from the beginning. English had only a symbolic role in official
policy, yet when it was included again after its removal from
official policy, cries of the imminent destruction of Spanish
were heard. 

Implications

     The implications of the research presented for language planners
is two-fold. On the one hand, planners must take into
consideration the ideology associated with the languages.
Nationalist sentiments can only impede the spread of an
additional language when it is presented as a threat to the
native language.  This threat usually appears when the language
is associated with one specific group of speakers, the United
States in this case, who threaten the positions of power of the
intelligentsia. On the other hand, policy makers must plan for
the existence of both (or all) languages in a society. It is
entirely too utopic to believe that both languages can exist in
all domains of a society.  Thus, plans must include the
designation of certain domains to the languages. An example of
this can be seen in the Philippines which has assigned the
teaching of science, math and technology to English, all other
subjects in Pilipino, and the vernacular to the home. Therefore,
Pilipino and English are the languages of formal domains, while
the vernacular continues to be the language of intimate domains. 
     Finally, the importance of planning for the inclusion of an
additional language cannot be overlooked.  An absence of planning
can lead to the death of a language, as has almost happened in
Guam, or the failure to acquire a language a society deems
important, as in Puerto Rico. Language planning must also include
adequate institutional support with a means for disseminating its
goals and objectives to the masses.  Pilipino, in part, seemed to
have successfully spread in the Philippines because of the public
support given it in the press and by government leaders.
     Filipinos learned the national language to become good citizens
and patriots. Lack of adequate planning in Puerto Rico and the
people's imperfect understanding of the reasons for learning
English may have led to the failure to incorporate the language. 
Finally, lack of true institutional support for the Chamorro
language, teaching it only 20 minutes a day, and using it only
symbolically on signs but not as a medium of communication in
government offices may eventually lead to its demise. English is
for the moment the lingua franca of the world and the gateway to
world citizenship, but the presence of this language in a country
can be disruptive to the linguistic ecology  without effective
and purposeful language planning combined with institutional
support.               

Recommendations

     Several recommendations can be made based on the conclusions
and their implications for future efforts in language planning
and policy formation. The researcher's recommendations are as
follows:

Provide for institutional support of language planning efforts. 
Agencies, offices or Commissions dedicated to the elaboration,
implementation and evaluation of language policies are essential
for successful language planning.

Plan for both (or all) the languages.  When planning for
bilingualism or multilingualism, the domains which the languages
will occupy must be clearly defined. By guaranteeing certain
native language domains, language loss and the sense of threat
from an additional language are minimized. The development and
enrichment of the native language must be planned for alongside
the plans for propagation of an additional language.

Incorporate public relations/publicity tactics in the language
plan.  People need to have a clear idea of what is being planned
for and why.  Therefore, dissemination of information should be
part of the plan for incorporating an additional language.
Misconceptions about the reasons for the existence of an
additional language and its implications can be avoided if
information is properly distributed to the masses. 

     Through adequate language planning, a society can grow and
become richer through the incorporation of additional languages
that may be used to communicate with other parts of the world or
to provide a more effective means for cmmunication among the
different language groups of a populace.  Language planning
should, however, be based on linguistic knowledge, respect for
even the smallest language groups and a large degree of
ethnocultural sensitivity. The lessons to be learned from the
cases of Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico will hopefully
contribute to future planning efforts in these countries and
elsewhere