General Attitudes, Intelligibility, and Acceptability: How Philippine English Is Perceived by Filipino-Americans

Abstract

Despite the growing acceptance of the varieties of English, standard language ideology continues to cause some to be valorized and denigrated. This paper examines the attitudes of Filipino-Americans within an inner-circle English variety zone towards Philippine English (PhE), focusing on its status, development, lexicon, intelligibility, and acceptability. The study surveyed 113 Filipino-American speakers of American English (AmE) who were familiar with Philippine culture and PhE. Studies show that some first-language English speakers exhibit negative attitudes towards new English varieties. Contrary to this trend, our findings reveal positive attitudes among AmE speakers towards PhE. However, although it is commonly understood, these positive attitudes do not guarantee the full acceptability of PhE. Notably, there is a growing trend towards the acceptability of PhE neologisms, especially in formal and scientific contexts, indicating a shift in previous perceptions. Additionally, the findings of the study highlight that word-formation processes significantly influence the acceptability of new terms across different speech domains, a novel finding that merits further investigation. Acceptability plays a vital role in the dissemination of local expressions and in shaping the status of a language variety. This research may contribute to understanding the evolving dynamics of the acceptability of PhE and its status in local and international contexts. The positive attitudes towards PhE among American English speakers indicate a shift in perceptions. Language teaching can build on this trend by fostering an environment where students are encouraged to appreciate and respect different English varieties. This can be achieved through exposure to diverse linguistic inputs and discussions on language attitudes.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Philippine English (hereafter PhE), a unique postcolonial transplanted variety of English introduced to the Philippines by the Americans, is a “historically late postcolonial variety” but has “emerged quickly and successfully” (Schneider, 2023), with distinctive norms and registers. It is a legitimate, nativized English variety (Dayag, 2012; ABS-CBN News, 2020; Borlongan, 2023a) spoken and understood by 80% of Filipinos (Borlongan, 2023b); it is used in many domains of communication in the Philippines (Bernardo, 2023; Dayag, 2012; David & Dumanig, 2008). The World English editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, Danica Salazar, argued that as a legitimate variety of English, PhE significantly contributes to the evolution of the English language, just as AmE, BrE, and many other varieties do. Due to migration and overseas employment, PhE has been transported across the globe (Dumanig et al., 2020; Schneider, 2023).

Scholarship on PhE began when Filipinos claimed their localized variety of English, as Llamzon (1969) asserted in his pioneering work Standard Filipino English. Later, other Filipino scholars, such as Br. Andrew Gonzalez, Bonifacio Sibayan, Maria Lourdes Bautista, and their students, built on Llamzon’s claim and made PhE a research niche that delved into its emergence as a local variety, the description of linguistic variation/variety-specific features within the World Englishes or New Englishes framework, its stabilization within the Schneiderian framework, the suitability of pedagogical models, and attitude studies (Borlongan, 2023c; Gonzales, 2024; Magpale, 2024). Heps and Go (2023) highlighted the available resources on PhE, listing institutions and organizations responsible for promoting scholarship in PhE, datasets available for research, and a comprehensive bibliography of PhE. Borlongan’s (2023c) edited handbook of Philippine English brought together both local and international PhE enthusiasts who covered a wide range of topics on PhE scholarship, covering the description of its history, evolution, features, codification, resources, language testing, and sociopsychological dimensions, including attitudes, contemporary settings, and more (Schneider, 2023).

In just a short period, PhE has grown rapidly. In less than half a century of PhE being a standard English variety, studies have claimed that PhE is already in Stage 4, Endonormative Stabilization, of Schneider’s (2003) developmental stages for postcolonial Englishes (Borlongan, 2016; Gustilo & Dimaculangan, 2018; Biermeier, 2024). However, a stronger claim argues that PhE is already moving towards Stage 5, Differentiation, because of the birth of Philippine English dialects and Filipinos’ growing identification and ethnic pride in their English dialects (Gonzales, 2017).

Despite significant developments in PhE, the following question remains: Is Philippine English (PhE) intelligible and acceptable to users outside the Philippines, and do these users hold positive attitudes toward PhE? Previous research has extensively examined the intelligibility of the English language by using recorded speech spoken in various global contexts, often highlighting factors such as pronunciation, accent, and listener comprehension (Derwing & Munro, 1997; Nelson, 2011; Doloricon & Langga, 2022). Although some studies, such as Abbott (1979) and Gooskens and van Heuven (2017), addressed aspects of written intelligibility, these investigations are relatively scant, as the primary focus of intelligibility research remains on spoken data. Abbott (1979) explored functional intelligibility through various written and spoken tests, while Gooskens and van Heuven (2017) measured cross-linguistic intelligibility across European language families. However, the broader field of written intelligibility, especially in the context of non-European English varieties, including PhE, remains underexplored. These observations highlight a significant gap, so there is a need for focused research on the written intelligibility of PhE, especially for users outside the Philippines.

Studies have shown that many Filipinos generally have positive attitudes toward English because of the potential benefits that the language brings in education, employment, and other opportunities both locally and internationally (Dangilan & Asuncion, 2023; Dumanig et al., 2020). Thus, it encourages many Filipinos to learn English as a second language.

English was introduced to the Philippines because of the American occupation. Therefore, it is understandable that AmE seems to be a more desirable language to learn for Filipinos (Castro et al., 2023). Consequently, Filipinos gravitate towards learning AmE, resulting in a common belief that Filipinos learn and speak AmE without realizing that they are learning and using the PhE variety. AmE, including its vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation, etc., is viewed positively in most domains of communication, while PhE’s lexicon is sometimes considered an informal variety (Astrero, 2017) and, to some extent, erroneous English (Bautista, 2001a). With the emergence of the Internet, social media, and growing scholarship on PhE, Filipinos are slowly realizing that PhE exists. Consequently, many Filipinos have realized that the English they speak is the PhE variety. Such realization helps to increase the acceptability of PhE in the Philippine context (Dimangadap-Malang & Pantao, 2021).

It is undeniable that many Filipinos migrate to other countries, eventually reside there, and become citizens, particularly in the United States of America. Filipinos in the US are generally labeled as Fil-Am or Filipino-Americans. Most Fil-Ams maintain contact with their relatives and friends in the Philippines, and always stay updated on events through the news and social media. Therefore, Filipinos in the US, especially in the state of Hawaii, continue to engage with their relatives and friends back home.

Due to the large population of Filipinos in Hawaii and frequent visits between the Philippines and Hawaii, Fil-Ams are more familiar with Philippine languages and culture. In fact, these Philippine languages are used within homes in Hawaii, including the PhE variety (Jubilado, 2016). However, it is presumptuous to claim that such awareness translates into positive attitudes towards PhE as a legitimate variety or that its neologisms are intelligible and acceptable to the Fil-Am community in Hawaii, which constitutes 45% of the immigrant population in Hawaii (American Immigration Council, 2020). Documenting attitudes towards PhE, along with its intelligibility and acceptability among Fil-Ams outside the Philippines, which has not been trodden in previous research, will significantly contribute to empirical findings that help establish PhE’s role in global communication, identity formation, and social integration. It has broader implications for linguistic diversity and equality.

Hence, this study seeks to fill this gap in research by exploring Fil-Ams’ general attitudes toward PhE’s status, development, and prestige, along with the written intelligibility of PhE and the acceptability of its neologisms. To meet our research objectives, the present study will address the following research questions:

(1)

What are the general attitudes of Fil-Am students in Hawaii towards the status, development, prestige, and intelligibility of PhE as measured by the General Attitude to PhE Survey (GAPES) Likert-scale questionnaire?

(2)

How intelligible are PhE neologisms to the respondents as measured by the Philippine English Intelligibility Test (PEIT) Likert-scale questionnaire?

(3)

What are the levels of acceptability of PhE expressions across language domains as measured by the Philippine English Acceptability Survey (PEAS), and the reasons for accepting or not accepting the presented PhE expressions?

By concentrating on these areas, this paper seeks to contribute to the broader discourse on intelligibility and acceptability studies on local varieties of the English language by using a methodology that is less utilized and a set of participants that have not been utilized in previous studies. Its findings will have a significant contribution to the documentation of the evolution of the English language, offering empirical evidence on how the PhE variety is perceived in diasporic settings. It is hoped that this study will pave the way for future investigations in similar settings. In addition, it will greatly contribute to research on World Englishes, which advocates for equality by claiming that all varieties of English are legitimate forms of language with unique forms and standards (Kachru et al., 2006). In the Philippines, the findings of the present study can help in the wider acceptance and promotion of PhE as a valid variety of English suitable for use in academic and scientific settings.

1.2. Review of Related Literature

To fully comprehend the context of PhE, it is crucial to examine previous studies on attitudes towards non-native English varieties, as well as the attitudes towards PhE and the acceptability as well as intelligibility of its localized expressions. In the context of language studies, attitude is defined as the evaluation of “attitudinal objects and encompass attitudes towards objects, individuals, institutions, events, and abstract ideas” (Mckenzie, 2010, p. 30). Attitude studies regarding English varieties, in general, have illustrated that most native speakers of the English language have positive evaluations of inner-circle varieties and negative evaluations of outer/expanding circles of English (Chien, 2018; Coupland & Bishop, 2007). Similarly, research on the attitudes of non-native speakers towards varieties of English revealed the positive attitudes of L2 speakers towards American (AmE) and British English (BrE), rating them as the more preferred varieties in language teaching and various domains of communication, while looking down on English varieties (Rezaei et al., 2018; Y.-Y. Tan & Castelli, 2013; Zeng et al., 2022; Zhang, 2013). It is not just the language that is judged as more preferred, but also the speakers of inner-circle varieties or those whose English is closer to these varieties, who are judged as more educated and successful (Bautista, 2001a; Garrett, 2012; Rentillo, 2023). Hence, many education stakeholders aspire for inner-circle varieties to be their canon for learning and achievement due to the prestige and accompanying educational, economic, and practical benefits in the global arena (cf. J. Y. H. Chan, 2013, 2018; McKenzie, 2008; McKenzie & Gilmore, 2017).

The orientation of the current research in English varieties subscribes to “standard language ideology” (Milroy & Milroy, 1991; K. L. R. Chan, 2024). This standard language, which is oftentimes referred to as Standard American English (AmE) or Standard British English (BrE), prescribes the level of quality to be used by educated speakers in formal domains of language use. However, standard language ideology may also be imposed by the non-native speakers of English on their own local English varieties. The comparative results of Y.-Y. Tan and Castelli’s (2013) study, involving 200 respondents from over 20 countries who judged the intelligibility and speakers of AmE and SingE, substantiated this observation. Y.-Y. Tan and Castelli (2013) argued that Southeast and East Asian respondents have more negative attitudes towards SgE than those coming from inner-circle Englishes, causing them to conclude that there is a traditionally embedded mindset among non-native speakers of other English varieties who seem to still be clamoring to speak an idealized “standard”, but also have an inferiority complex over their own varieties of English (p. 177).

Studies also show that the Philippines is not exempted from standard language ideology. Bautista’s (2001a, 2001b) university-centered investigations on the attitudes of students and English teachers towards PhE generated findings that attest to their idealized notion of speaking and using “standard” AmE or BrE as the medium for instruction, while looking down on PhE as an inferior variety. Bautista (2001a) found that both teachers and students aspired to speak either American English or British English, implying the inferiority of the variety they speak. In another study, Bautista (2001b) documented the ambivalent attitudes of 88 English teachers towards PhE. First, the teacher respondents believed that inner-circle varieties, especially AmE, and the local PhE variety should be used side by side in the country, both in teaching and communicating. Second, Filipino English teachers had very positive evaluations of PhE as an English variety but had negative evaluations of the localized non-standard forms that are used by educated speakers of PhE.

Other scholars documented the changing attitudes of teachers, students, and researchers towards the notion of standard language, norm selection, and the acceptability of PhE neologisms (Bernardo, 2014; Gustilo & Dimaculangan, 2018; Gustilo et al., 2019; Hernandez, 2020). They no longer place AmE on a pedestal as the only desirable variety to learn (Bernardo, 2014; Hernandez, 2020). However, the ambivalent feelings towards the legitimacy of the PhE variety and the acceptability of its local expressions are still found in the more recent attitude studies of Gustilo and Dimaculangan (2018) and Hernandez (2020), involving English teachers who advocated for a mix of PhE and AmE. Both studies also investigated the acceptability of PhE coinages or Filipinisms for academic purposes. While the former study generated low acceptability (5% in formal written discourse), the latter reported higher acceptability (80%). Based on the changing attitudes of ESL teachers and students in the Philippines, Bernardo (2014) and Hernandez (2020) called for the official assimilation of a pluricentric model of ESL teaching in the Philippines that accepts the PhE variety in the educational system, both in the mode of instruction and the integration of PhE materials into the curriculum.

In regard to intelligibility studies in PhE, Dita and De Leon (2023) offered a comprehensive discussion on the intelligibility of PhE to other English speakers, the factors predicting PhE intelligibility, the issues confronting PhE intelligibility, and the significance of PhE intelligibility. A notable issue highlighted is the prevailing attitude of PhE education stakeholders who still regard AmE as the only standard. Historically, most research on PhE intelligibility has focused on its spoken form. Dayag (2007) and Dita and De Leon (2017) argued that spoken PhE is highly intelligible to inner- and outer-circle English listeners, and moderately intelligible to expanding-circle English listeners. Additionally, Doloricon and Langga (2022) expanded the scope of intelligibility studies by involving ESL senior high schools to assess the intelligibility of American, Philippine, and Chinese Englishes. This study identified accent familiarity, pronunciation, speech rate, and linguistic environment as key factors affecting intelligibility. Doloricon and Langga’s findings underscore PhE’s intelligibility among students and advocate for an informed selection of English varieties in teaching to enhance intelligibility. These insights are crucial for understanding how different English varieties are perceived and can inform educational practices and policies in multilingual settings like the Philippines. Gustilo et al. (2019) diverged from the usual foci of intelligibility studies and tested the written intelligibility of neologisms from the PhE Internet variety, which they referred to as Internet Philippine English (hereafter IPE). They adopted Smith and Nelson’s (1985) first dimension of intelligibility, that is, understanding the word or recognizing the utterance, for the definition of PhE’s written intelligibility, which is also adopted in the present study. In addition to testing the intelligibility of written IPE, they also subjected the IPE neologisms to an acceptability test. Gustilo et al. (2019) claimed that IPE neologisms are highly intelligible based on three factors: age, familiarity with the words, and the linguistic context. The younger ESL instructors were more accepting of IPE expressions. The most recent study of Rentillo et al. (2024) confirmed this trend when the authors found that their undergraduate student respondents across four regions in the Philippines were more accepting of PhE localized expressions or Filipinisms. The present study was underpinned by previous studies, particularly the study of Gustilo et al. (2019), and investigated intelligibility, acceptability, and general attitudes to the status, development, and intelligibility of PhE.

In the context of the present study, we took the definition of attitude by Mckenzie (2010) and applied it to the evaluative opinion or reaction of a person towards PhE’s status, prestige, development, structures, and speakers. With regard to acceptability, we operationalized it as the degree to which PhE forms and structures were considered appropriate for use in different language tasks by Fil-Am speakers of AmE. Intelligibility refers to the degree to which Fil-Am speakers can recognize PhE forms and structures. Such a general definition of intelligibility coincides with Wang and van Heuven’s (2004) definition, whose study on intelligibility was based on word and sentence recognition.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-method concurrent design, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative components to explore the attitudes, intelligibility, and acceptability of PhE among Fil-Am undergraduate students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. The use of Likert-scale instruments allowed the researchers to collect quantifiable data necessary for identifying trends and patterns. The qualitative component of this study provides a more nuanced interpretation of the numerical findings, offering depth in explaining the patterns identified in the data. The combination of numerical data and qualitative data provides a comprehensive understanding of the variables under investigation.

2.2. Setting and Participants of the Study

This study involved 113 Fil-Am undergraduate students (aged 19–22; 70% females) at the University of Hawaii at Hilo (UHH). Ninety-eight percent of the participants were born to two Filipino parents who had acquired their American citizenship in Hawaii. A great majority of the Fil-Am students were educated in American schools since their childhood. English was their first language, and they could hardly speak Filipino languages (e.g., Ilokano Tagalog, Cebuano, and Hiligaynon). A few could understand Filipino expressions due to interactions with their Filipino parents and teachers in their Filipino classes. A minority (2%) of the participants migrated to Hawaii in their childhood and teenage years and had lived there for 6–12 years. Fifty-one percent of the Fil-Am participants were enrolled in Elementary Filipino II and Filipino Culture—two of the Filipino courses taught at the UHH. The rest were enrolled in Global Englishes and Second Language Acquisition Theory. The courses were taught by two Filipino professors who were permanent residents in the US. All participants were familiar with Philippine culture and languages, including the PhE variety, due to their exposure to Philippine movies, TV programs via TFC, Filipino social media, and interactions with their parents and the Filipino community who used PhE.

2.3. Instruments

The tools used in this research are based on the instruments created by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, a noted expert in language attitudes, especially with Philippine English (PhilE). Bautista’s research thoroughly examined the views and attitudes of different groups towards PhilE, offering significant insights into its acceptance and social impact. The instruments of Dimaculangan (2017), Dimaculangan and Gustilo (2017), and Gustilo and Dimaculangan (2018), which informed the creation of our instruments, and the instrument of Hernandez (2020) were all adapted from Bautista’s (2001a, 2001b) attitude instruments. The items in the instruments were evaluated by an expert who also conducts research on PhE.

General Attitude to PhE Survey (GAPES). This instrument, adapted from Dimaculangan (2017), was created based on previous literature (Bautista, 1997, 2001a, 2001b) and asked the participants to indicate their attitudes towards the status, development, prestige, and intelligibility of PhE. Items 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 15 measure its status and development. Items 1, 2, 13, and 14 measure its intelligibility. Items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 16 measure its prestige. The 16-item Likert-scale instrument has four response options: 1—strongly disagree, 2—disagree, 3—agree, and 4—strongly agree. Previous studies also used Likert-scale questionnaires to collect language attitude data (cf., Bautista, 2001a; Gustilo & Dimaculangan, 2018; Yamagami & Tollefson, 2011).

Philippine English Intelligibility Test (PEIT). Its response format was patterned after the study of Souza et al. (2010). It asked the respondents to indicate the level of their understanding of the 40 PhE localized expressions adapted from Dimaculangan and Gustilo (2017). The Likert-scale instrument had four response options: 1—(non-understandable) I do not understand the word/phrase; 2—(hardly understandable) I have difficulty understanding the entire meaning of the word/phrase; 3—(understandable) I understand the entire meaning of the word/phrase; and 4—(totally understandable) I understand the meaning and uses of the word and its different forms (e.g., nouns and verbs). In addition to indicating the level of understandability, the respondents wrote the meanings of the words they understood for us to know if they indeed understood the PhE expressions.

Philippine English Acceptability Survey (PEAS). This instrument has two parts:

Part 1 of the instrument asked the respondents to indicate the level of acceptability of the 40 PhE localized expressions presented to them in the intelligibility test. The Likert-scale instrument was the modified version of Dimaculangan’s (2017) acceptability questionnaire for PhE lexical items. Dimaculangan’s instrument had 99 lexical items with five Likert-scale responses (1—unaccepted in PhE; 2—acceptable in informal oral context; 3—acceptable in formal oral context; 4—acceptable in informal writing; 5—acceptable in formal writing). The current modified instrument had only four response options, namely 1—unaccepted: not acceptable in all forms of English communication; 2—somehow accepted: acceptable in informal writing and conversational English; 3—accepted: acceptable in formal oral and academic discourse (essays, business letters, and reports); and 4—highly accepted: acceptable in scientific reports and publication. The lexical items were drawn from Dimaculangan’s (2017) wordlist of PhE expressions as well as Gustilo and Dino’s (2023) list of Internet PhE expressions.

Part 2 of the instrument asked the respondents to list down at least 5 words and indicate their reasons for not accepting the words or accepting them at different levels of domain/acceptability.

A Cronbach’s Alpha test was calculated to determine the reliability of the instruments. The values for the Cronbach’s Alpha for the three tests were as follows: 0.825 for the GAPES, 0.941 for the PEIT, and 0.947 for the PEAS. These indicate a high level of internal consistency. Future studies will benefit from conducting a pilot test before the main data collection to further refine the instrument.

2.4. Datasets

Four types of datasets were used in our investigation: (1) responses from the General Attitude to PhE Survey (GAPES); (2) responses from the Philippine English Intelligibility test (PEIT), a Likert-scale instrument that tests the intelligibility of 40 neologisms in PhE; (3) responses from the Philippine English Acceptability Survey (PEAS), a 40-item questionnaire that ascertains the acceptability of 40 PhE neologisms; and (4) responses from the qualitative part of the acceptability survey.

2.5. Data-Gathering Procedures

Before the data collection, in order to orient the Fil-Am respondents regarding PhE, a 45 min lecture highlighting the history of PhE and research performed for codifying its features was delivered to students in one of their classes of Elementary Filipino II, Filipino Culture, Global Englishes, and Second Language Acquisition Theory. To mitigate social desirability bias, students were informed that their responses would remain confidential and be utilized exclusively for research purposes. This assurance aimed to alleviate any pressure they might feel to provide socially desirable answers. Furthermore, the questionnaire incorporated both positive and negative statements regarding Philippine English to ensure a balanced set of responses. After the lecture, the students completed the three survey questionnaires. The task was regarded as one of the formative assessments in Elementary Filipino II and Filipino Culture, while special points were given to students enrolled in the two other subjects.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical procedures were observed in conducting this study to safeguard the rights and well-being of the participants. Before the data collection, the respondents were presented with copies of the informed consent form, which was explained by the first author after her lecture. This step involved explaining the study, the procedures involved, the voluntary nature of the study, and the benefits as well as potential risks. The respondents were given the opportunity to make clarifications to ensure that they understood the implications of their involvement (refer to Appendix C).

2.7. Data Analysis

For the quantitative analysis, we computed the means by using Excel to observe the patterns in general attitudes and the intelligibility as well as acceptability levels of the items in the questionnaires. The following range was used in interpreting the means: 3.25 to 4.0 (totally understandable; highly accepted), 2.5–3.24 (understandable; accepted), 1.75–2.49 (hardly understandable; somehow accepted), and 1.00–1.74 (non-understandable; unaccepted). We also analyzed the percentages of responses to the different levels (1–4) of intelligibility and acceptability of the 40 PhE words.

For the qualitative analysis, we checked the definitions of words written by the respondents for the words they claimed they understood to verify their answers in the Likert scale. In addition, we looked at the patterns of their responses to the open-ended questions in Part 2 of the acceptability survey (PEAS) regarding the factors that influence the Fil-Am students’ acceptability judgments. Based on our qualitative data, we serendipitously found that the word-formation process of PhE neologisms influenced the acceptability of words in question. Hence, we also analyzed the word-formation processes of the 40 PhE neologisms following Biermeier’s (2008) categories of word-formation processes.

To save space, only overall means and overall percentages were reported in the results and discussion (See Appendix A and Appendix B for detailed information on the means and standard deviations). A Cronbach’s Alpha test was performed to determine the reliability of the instruments. The values for the Cronbach’s Alpha for the three tests are the following: 0.825 for the GAPES, 0.941 for the PEIT, and 0.947 for the PEAS. These indicate a high level of internal consistency.

3. Results

The results are summarized below, organized according to each research question, and a general discussion of the results follows.

3.1. General Attitudes of Fil-Am Students Towards the Status, Development, Prestige, and Intelligibility of Philippine English (PhE)

Table 1. General attitudes on the development, intelligibility, and prestige of PhE.

General Attitudes Towards PhE	Mean	SD	Interpretation	% of Agree and Strongly Agree
1. I find it easy to understand the English spoken and written by educated Filipino speakers of the English language.	3.11	0.51	Agree	75
2. I believe that PhE vocabulary and grammar structures are understood by non-Filipino speakers of the English language in different parts of the world.	2.82	0.51	Agree	74
3. I find PhE localized vocabulary, coinages, and creative expressions unique and interesting.	3.32	0.52	Strongly agree	63
4. I recommend that PhE localized vocabulary, coinages, and creative expressions should be accepted as part of Standard English.	2.96	0.64	Agree	60
5. I believe that PhE words and structures, which are not part of the lexicon of the native English variety (e.g., American, British, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand), are a product of Filipinos’ linguistic creativity.	3.07	0.61	Agree	66
6. I believe that the growing PhE localized vocabulary is important in developing PhE.	3.25	0.55	Strongly agree	67
7. I support the idea that the English used by the native speakers of the English language has to be reshaped/modified to fit in the Philippine linguistic context.	2.67	0.69	Agree	50
8. I think that when Filipinos including those born with one parent of Filipino descent use the PhE variety, they overtly take pride in their Filipino culture and heritage.	3.09	0.59	Agree	68
9. I do not take issue with Filipino professors using PhE accent, words, and structures in teaching different parts of the word.	3.23	0.58	Agree	61
10. There exists a Standard PhE spoken by educated speakers of the English language. I recommend its use for teaching and academic discourse in Philippine schools just like the other native varieties of English (American, British, etc.).	3.07	0.54	Agree	70
11. The growth of PhE lexicon and grammar structures is an interesting area of diachronic study.	3.20	0.60	Agree	61
12. I recommend that the new words and structures added to PhE used by Filipino-educated speakers be codified for use inside and outside the Philippines.	3.11	0.50	Agree	74
13. PhE words that substitute L1 English words convey similar ideas.	3.07	0.46	Agree	79
14. PhE words enhance the intelligibility of texts encoded in English.	2.95	0.58	Agree	69
15.Coinages and new expressions in PhE extend our limited stock of L1 English vocabulary.	3.04	0.56	Agree	71
16. I am proud of/admire educated Filipinos who consciously use PhE words and structures inside or outside of their country.	3.39	0.56	Strongly agree	54
Overall	3.08	0.30	Agree	66%

presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and interpretations of participants’ ratings on their general attitudes to PhE obtained from the GAPES. It also presents the percentages of agree and strongly agree responses to the survey items, indicating positive attitudes toward PhE.

The overall mean (3.08) and the overall percentage of the agree and strongly agree responses (66%) are indications of a positive attitude towards the PhE variety. Fil-Am students agree with 13 statements and strongly agree with 3 statements (3, 6, and 16), showing their positive general attitudes toward PhE’s intelligibility, development, and prestige. In item 3, the respondents strongly agree that the localized expressions are unique. In number 6, an item measuring the participants’ attitudes toward the development of PhE, the respondents strongly agree that the growth of the localized vocabulary of PhE is an important stage in the development of PhE. Schneider’s Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Englishes categorized varieties showcasing new local forms and literary creativity under Endonormative Stabilization (Stage 4)—‘a stage of cultural self-reliance.’ The existence of localized forms in PhE demonstrates the stage it is in now, and many international as well as local scholars have claimed that PhE is already in the Endonormative stage (Biermeier, 2008; Borlongan, 2023b). More interestingly, in item 16, the majority of the respondents strongly agree to a statement measuring Filipinos’ pride in using the PhE variety inside or outside the Philippines. This finding corroborates previous findings about professors and students showing positive attitudes towards PhE (Bautista, 2001a; Alieto & Rillo, 2018; Bernardo & Madrunio, 2015), but this current finding is unique and a significant contribution to PhE language attitude research because it documents how Fil-Am speakers of AmE, residing outside the Philippines, evaluate PhE.

3.2. Intelligibility of the PhE Neologisms to the Respondents

Table 2. Percentages of responses in the intelligibility test.

Responses	Percentage
1—Non-understandable	15.61%
2—Hardly understandable	16.36%
3—Understandable	30.35%
4—Totally understandable	37.69%

presents the percentages of responses across levels in the intelligibility test on 40 PhE words administered to the Fil-Am students at the UHH, using the PEIT instrument.

The most frequently occurring response presented in Table 2 is 4, totally understandable, which is the response of more than one-third of the respondents. This response indicates that the Fil-Am respondents can understand the meaning and uses of the word and its different forms (e.g., nouns and verbs). The second most prevalent response is 3, understandable/I can understand the meaning of the word or phrase, by almost one-third of the respondents. Hence, almost 70 percent of the respondents understand the meanings of PhE neologisms. The percentage data can be augmented by the overall mean, which is 2.93 (see Appendix A), interpreted as understandable. Hence, generally, PhE words are understandable to the respondents. In addition, based on our qualitative data analysis of the definitions of PhE words written by the respondents, not all respondents wrote the definitions of the words they claimed they understood, but those who went beyond ticking the columns by writing the definitions were able to write the correct meanings of the words.

The results of the PhE words in terms of their different levels of intelligibility are summarized below. The terms inside the parentheses next to the italicized PhE expressions are the forms or uses in L1 English.

Eleven PhE items that were consistently rated as totally understandable are chill (i.e., very relaxed), going on (form for ongoing, which means still in progress), everyday (PhE use interchanges adjectival use with adverbial use), atm (at the moment), sched (schedule), copy paste (copy and paste), otw (on the way), homies (close friends), fam vacay (family vacation), promo (promotion), and beast mode (angry). Surprisingly, the Fil-Am students can understand the meanings of these PhE expressions even if they diverged from the forms and uses of L1 English (i.e., the ones inside the parentheses next to the italicized words).

Eighteen localized expressions were highly rated as understandable: commute (traveling using public transportation), weeksary (a blend of week and anniversary), e letters (electronic letters), value meals (less expensive meals), OOTD (an acronym for outfit of the day), nosebleed (a difficult task or to encounter difficulty), laugh trip (uncontrollable laughter), eyeglass (eyeglasses), dealicious (a blend of deal and delicious), yearender (an important activity that ends the year), love offering (donation), batchmates (parallel form for classmates), writeshop (workshop for writing), fish kill (death of fishes in large numbers), transpo (clipped word for transportation), photoop (blend word for photo and opportunity), dirty ice cream (homemade ice cream and sold in the streets through a push cart), and beshie (hypocoristic form for a best friend).

The Fil-Am student respondents found the following 10 coinages hardly understandable: bongga (fancy), bio-data (short curriculum vitae), Carabao English (basilectal English characterized by non-standard usage), gimmick time (time to relax), ber-months (blend word for -ber which refers to all months ending in -ber and months), restobar (word for a restaurant with bar), bed spacers (students/individuals renting rooms), charaught (just kidding), autodesk (blend for automatic and desk), and trapos (blend for traditional politicians). RRL, which is the acronym for review of related literature, is the only word rated as non-understandable.

The results of the present study confirm the previous findings of Gustilo et al. (2019) about high intelligibility scores for written PhE words among Filipino users of English in the Philippines. So far, the present study provides initial empirical evidence suggesting that some PhE localized items may be understandable among AmE speakers of English outside the Philippines. This finding corroborates what Bautista (1997) claimed, that PhE coinages “may not cause as much inter-variety misunderstanding and miscommunication as the use of ordinary words that are used differently in different varieties of English” (p. 69). However, further research is needed to confirm this finding across different contexts and populations.

3.3. Level of Acceptability of PhE Neologisms Across Different Language Tasks?

Table 3. Percentages of acceptability ratings in different levels.

Level	Percentage of Ratings
1—Not acceptable in all domains	9.08%
2—Acceptable in informal discourse	54.28%
3—Acceptable in formal discourse	21.48%
4—Acceptable in publication and scientific writing	14.43%

presents the percentages of Fil-Am students’ ratings of 40 PhE neologisms in terms of their different levels of acceptability.

As can be seen in Table 3, the most frequent response by more than half of the respondents is 2, indicating that the level of acceptability of PhE words is at level 2, somewhat accepted, and words at this level are labeled as acceptable for use in informal discourse. The overall mean, 2.40 (see Appendix B for the individual and mean results), corroborates that PhE’s level of acceptability among Fil-Ams is level 2. However, observing the current data, when the results for level 3 (acceptable in formal discourse) and 4 (acceptable in publication and scientific writing) are combined, totaling 36% percent, more than one-third of the respondents consider PhE neologisms as acceptable in formal and scientific domains.

The following results summarize our findings on PhE words in terms of their different levels of acceptability.

Table 4. PhE localized expressions acceptable in formal discourse.

PhE Localized Expression	Gloss (L1 Standard Form or Definition)
everyday	In PhE, every day (adverb) is oftentimes interchanged with everyday (adjective)
commute	In PhE, commute means to travel by public transportation
e letters	Electronic letters
going on	Continuing; its internationally acceptable form is ongoing
promo	Clipped word for promotion
copy paste	Copy and paste
bio-data	Short curriculum vitae
eyeglass	Eyeglasses
value meals	Cheap meals
writeshops	Workshop for writing

presents the ten PhE words rated at level 3 by Fil-Am students based on the means interpreted as acceptable in formal discourse.

The 10 neologisms accepted for use in formal discourse are mostly products of normal expansion and compound word formation processes. Normal expansion involves semantic widening, semantic shift, or extension of meaning (Biermeier, 2008; Dimaculangan, 2017). They have similar forms to L1 English, but they have different meanings and usage in PhE. For example, the meaning of L1 English commute (intransitive) is “to travel back and forth regularly as between a suburb and a city” (Merriam Webster Dictionary), whereas in PhE it means to travel using public transportation. Moreover, out of 10 accepted words for level 3, only two are shortened words: promo and e letters.

Table 5. PhE localized expressions acceptable in informal discourse.

PhE Expression	Gloss (Meaning or PhE Usage)
love offering	Donation
chill	(Verb) to relax
homies	Home
nosebleed	(Verb) to encounter difficulty (Noun) a tough situation
fish kill	(Noun) mass killing of fish
beast mode	(Adjective) angry
sched	(Noun) clipped form for schedule
yearender	(Noun) an important event or thing that ends a year
transpo	(Noun) clipped form of transportation
fam vacay	Family vacation
photoop	Photo opportunity
dealicious	An affordable and delicious food
laugh trip	Bouts of uncontrollable laughter
batchmates	A member of the same school or class
Carabao English	Non-standard English
bed spacers	Renters who only occupy the bed or their personal space inside a rented house or apartment
weeksary	Weekly recurrence of a date marking an important event
atm	At the moment
autodesk	A blend word for automatic and desk
rrl	Review of related literature
otw	On the way
restobar	From restaurant and bar, which means a restaurant with bar
gimmick time	Time to relax
OOTD	Outfit of the day
dirty ice cream	Homemade ice cream and sold in the streets using containers pulled by carts
trapos	Traditional politicians
bongga	Fancy
beshie	Hypocoristic form for best friend
ber-months	A blend of months ending in -ber and months

presents the lexical items rated at level 2, accepted in informal discourse, by Fil-Am students.

There are more words accepted in the informal domain vis-a-vis the formal domain. The level 2 words also followed a pattern. Shortened forms through initialism, clipping, and blending constitute more than 50% of the neologisms rated in informal discourse. One word was deemed unacceptable (level 1) in all domains by Fil-Am UH students: charaught, the stylized spelling of the slang Tagalog word for charaught popularized by gays in the Philippines, which means just kidding or a joke. This finding corroborates the results of Dimaculangan (2017), who also found that Tagalog borrowed words unless they are culture-concept words (e.g., names of Filipino food), are unacceptable for use in all domains of English discourse. In the intelligibility test, charaught appeared to have been understood by Fil-Am students, yet they did not rate it favorably in the acceptability test, which implies that high intelligibility scores do not automatically translate to acceptability—a finding that can be validated using correlation or structural equation modeling (SEM).

Lastly, based on the qualitative data, Fil-Am students accepted the following in publishing and scientific writing (level 4): commute, everyday, and eyeglass.

The findings of the present study both corroborate and challenge previous findings. Y.-Y. Tan and Castelli’s (2013) prediction that higher intelligibility correlates to higher acceptability was not proven in the present study. However, the present study corroborates Dimaculangan and Gustilo’s (2017) finding that despite the positive attitudes of educated PhE users towards PhE with regard to its development, status, and prestige, they still gave lower acceptability rates to PhE neologisms. However, our finding still differs from that of Dimaculangan and Gustilo (2017), because their overall acceptability rating of PhE expressions in formal discourse was only 5%, whereas ours is 21%, showing that Fil-Ams outside the Philippines are more accepting of PhE expressions. This present finding corroborates the most recent study of Rentillo et al. (2024), which suggests that the younger generation is more tolerant of localized PhE expressions. The difference in the acceptability ratings is due to the variations in the methods used and the set of respondents. Dimaculangan and Gustilo’s (2017) respondents were teachers, while the respondents of Rentillo et al. (2024) and our current study are students.

3.4. Fil-Am Students’ Reasons for Not Accepting or Accepting the Presented PhE Neologisms

Based on our qualitative data, the major reasons why Fil-Am students placed words in level 1 is that they did not know the meaning of the words, and these are shortened forms. For level 2, respondents listed the following reasons: (1) they are unfamiliar with these words, (2) they are shortened forms or Tagalog/non-English borrowed words, (3) they are using the terms in chats and conversations, and (4) they see these words on social media. For levels 3 and 4, they accepted the words because of the following reasons: (1) they are familiar with these words as they are common, (2) they consider them appropriate for use in formal settings, and (3) they are English forms and not clipped or shortened. Interestingly, they do not see any problems with the narrowing of commute’s meaning (i.e., to travel using public transportation) and the non-standard usage of eyeglasses and everyday because they are English forms. Hence, in this context, the acceptability of PhE expressions may be influenced by cultural exchange (e.g., communication of the Fil-Am students with their Filipino parnts), media, and perceived pragmatic utility. Below are some examples of the respondents’ actual responses:

Respondent #15

Words I Did Not Accept	Reasons Why I Did Not Accept Them
OOTD	I don’t know what it means
charaught	I don’t know what it means
Transpo	It is just a shortened form
Words I Accepted in Informal Discourse	Reasons Why I Accepted Them
batch mates	I use it regularly in conversations
nosebleed	I use it regularly in conversations
value meals	I use this regularly in conversations
OOTD	Acronym
fam vacay	Shortened
Words I Accepted in Formal and Scientific Writing (Levels 3–4)	Reasons Why I Accepted Them
bio-data	It sounds formal
commute	Can be understood; English form
everyday	I understood it; I would use it

Respondent #43

Words I Did Not Accept	Reasons Why I Did Not Use Them
trapos	I do not understand
Carabao English	I do not know what it means
Words I Accepted in Informal Discourse	Reasons Why I Accepted Them
chill	Used in SMS or chats
OTW	Shortened form
ATM	Abbreviated
fam vacay	Shortened and understood
Words I Accepted in Formal and Scientific Writing (Levels 3–4)	Reasons Why I Accepted Them
bio-data	It sounds formal
commute	Can be understood; English form
everyday	The word is unique, but the word and its meaning are understandable and can be used in formal context
Carabao English	It sounds like an English terminology

Our findings indicate that positive attitudes towards and the intelligibility of words may be two factors, but they are not the only considerations for the acceptability or unacceptability of words. Even if they recognize the words, the respondents still consider the words’ degree of formality (i.e., whether the expression suits the context/situation/domain), the perceived pragmatic function of the words, and the perceived expectations of the audience. The participants attested that they accept shortened words in informal discourse because these are what abound in Internet discourse, a genre of communication that is associated with informality (Crystal, 2022). Hence, shortened PhiE neologisms (clipped, blends, and abbreviations) appeared to be accepted in informal discourse, while un-shortened neologisms, which deviate from L1 English form and usage but are deemed formal, are accepted in the formal domain of language communication—a tentative conclusion that needs to be confirmed using more data and a separate investigation. Clearly, the perceived function of words in different domains that meet the audience’s purpose (Al-Salman, 2017; Ting & Wong, 2019) matters. In addition, the word-formation process of a word also influences the audience’s acceptability judgments—a serendipitous finding we gleaned in this current study. Hence, the current data attest to the fact that there is no single benchmark in determining acceptability. Instead, it relies on the interaction or multiplicity of linguistic and sociopsychological factors.

Since our analysis of the acceptability judgments of PhE neologisms is based on a limited sample of Fil-Ams in Hawaii, this study does not attempt to generalize the acceptability of these PhE neologisms. However, among Fil-Am students in Hawaii, the majority of the PhE words at level 3 were deemed acceptable to them due to their familiarity with the words, their appropriateness in formal contexts, and the fact that they were English words. The same is true for our intelligibility findings. The results may not be generalizable to the entire population of Filipino-Americans in other parts of the US. Hence, future studies may prove beneficial if they could extend our present study to other heritage language speakers.

4. Conclusions

Despite the acceptance of new English varieties, standard language ideology continues to cause some to be valorized and some to be denigrated. In this paper, we investigate how Fil-Ams in an inner-circle English variety zone perceive the status, development, and lexicon of PhE, and how they evaluate PhE in terms of intelligibility and acceptability. In addition, we analyzed some factors that influence the acceptability of PhE neologisms. We surveyed 113 Fil-Am speakers of AmE who have a close affinity with PhE because of their cultural heritage as Filipino-Americans. Historically, most L1 English native speakers possess negative attitudes towards non-native varieties of English. The current study demonstrates AmE speakers’ positive attitudes towards the PhE variety but confirms previous findings that positive attitudes towards the status, development, and prestige of a variety do not translate to the acceptability of its non-standard expressions, even if they find them highly intelligible. However, our current analyses demonstrate a clear trajectory of the increasing acceptability of PhE neologisms because more words were accepted in formal and scientific domains compared to previous research findings. Moreover, the current findings substantiate Al-Salman’s (2017) argument that context/situation, purpose, and audience influence the treble relationship of intelligibility, attitudes, and acceptability. It also leads to a tentative conclusion based on a serendipitous finding that the word-formation process (e.g., borrowing, clipping, blending, and shortening) influences observers’ judgment regarding appropriacy and acceptability across speech domains.

It is interesting to note that the present study has significantly contributed to general attitudes, intelligibility, and acceptability studies on PhE because of the new findings it generated resulting from its unique selection of respondents who are proud of their cultural heritage, being Filipino-Americans situated in an inner-circle zone, but are mostly non-users of the PhE variety.

In addition, the combination of qualitative and quantitative data yielded new findings that advance our understanding of AmE speakers’ perceptions towards PhE, which gives evidence that the standard language ideology orientation of current research on English varieties may not be completely impervious.

Finally, acceptability is crucial in the spread of local expressions and in determining the status of a language variety (Bamgbose, 1998; Ting & Wong, 2019). The findings of the present study can contribute to the debate as to whether PhE is now in level 4 (Endonormative Stabilization) or the beginning of level 5 (Differentiation). The increasing acceptance of PhE and Fil-Ams’ affiliation with PhE as part of their parents’ cultural heritage could serve as additional data with which to support Gonzales’s (2017) claim that PhE has reached level 5, the Differentiation stage of Schneider’s Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Varieties, opening an avenue for future research.

This study, while comprehensive in its approach to understanding the perceptions of Fil-Am students towards Philippine English (PhE), has some limitations relating to the size of the sample, degree of cultural engagement, and actual language use that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study focused on 113 Fil-Am speakers residing in Hawaii. This specific demographic might not fully represent the broader population of Fil-Ams across different states or those with varying degrees of exposure to PhE. Secondly, the degree of cultural engagement with their Filipino heritage among the participants may vary, which could influence their perceptions of PhE. This study does not deeply analyze how these varying levels of cultural engagement specifically affect perceptions.

Lastly, this research primarily captures attitudes and perceptions without extensively observing actual language use in naturalistic settings. Therefore, the conclusions about acceptability and intelligibility might not fully reflect everyday language use dynamics. Given the findings and limitations of the current study, several future research directions are suggested. First, future studies could include broader geographic sampling, which involves Fil-Am participants from various states in the United States to document if geographic location influences perceptions of PhE differently. Second, longitudinal studies could help in understanding how attitudes towards PhE evolve among Fil-Ams, especially as they might gain more exposure to the variety due to contact and interaction with PhE users. Third, it would prove beneficial if comparative studies regarding the perceptions of PhE among Fil-Ams with other diaspora communities could be documented to explore if different diasporic experiences influence language perceptions in diverse ways. Fourth, investigating how educational experiences relating to language and culture affect the acceptance and use of PhE could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms behind language acceptability and intelligibility. Fifth, and last, examining the role of media and technology in spreading PhE among Fil-Ams could shed light on modern factors influencing language variation and change.

These future research directions could significantly enhance our understanding of the dynamics surrounding Philippine English in the context of global English varieties and their perception among diaspora communities. The positive attitudes towards PhE among American English speakers indicate a shift in perceptions. Language teaching can build on this trend by fostering an environment where students are encouraged to appreciate and respect different English varieties. This can be achieved through exposure to diverse linguistic inputs and discussions on language attitudes.