tausug valorize their language but dislike anti-social
TRANSCRIPT
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Tausug Valorize Their Language but Dislike Anti-Social Behavior
Fhadzralyn L. Aidil-Karanain
College of Liberal Arts
Western Mindanao State University, Philippines
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This study conducted two experiments to determine Tausug Children’s and Young
Adults’ language valorization based on accent. This probed whether age affects once judgment on
people based on accent; that as one ages, the more preference is given to native- accented speakers
compared to foreign-accented ones. In experiment one, both groups chose the Native- accented
speakers. Age affected their choices. Young adults better identified and had higher preference for
native-accented speakers than children. In experiment 2, age did not affect the participants’
judgment. They neglected the idea of group membership and accent when their co-Tausug
committed anti-social behaviors. They chose the nice foreign-accented speakers to be nicer, smarter,
in-charge, living in Zamboanga. Ironically, both groups even chose the nice foreign-accented
individuals as Tausug even if they know that the accent was not that of the natives’. This means
Children and Young adults’ language valorization and identity consider behavioral information.
They valorize their language but when their kin commit something anti-social, they evade and even
disown them.
Keywords: Valorization, Age, native-accented and foreign accented, Tausug, Zamboanga City
34
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
INTRODUCTION
People’s judgment of others is based on a number of factors—the way other people
organize their thoughts; the way they behave and react in public; and perhaps the way they treat
other people as well. According to Cain, Hayman, and Walker (1997) in Kinzler and De Jesus
(2013), this holds true to children. Some children evaluate others based on individuals history of
behaviors and can use this to predict individuals future acts, while some evaluate others based on
their social group belongingness (Kinzler, Shutts, De Jesus, & Spelke, 2009). Infants show
remarkable preferences for familiar speech. This is evident in newborns who prefer and react to
their mother’s language which they have heard while still in the womb (Mehler, Lambertz, Halsted,
Bertoncini, Amiel-Tison, 1988). Studies show that younger infants looked particularly longer at a
person who formerly spoke to them in their native tongue and older infants chose to reach for toys
presented by native speaker (Kinzler et al., 2007; Shutts, Kinzler, McKee, & Spelke, 2009).
Children as well show preference and trust for persons whose accents were known to them (Kinzler
Corriveau, & Harris, 2011). These experiments proposed that infants and young children tend to
have these inclinations towards native speakers and native-accented speakers even in the earliest
stage of their lives.
Just like in children, whose sociolinguistic evaluation of others national identity are
influenced by accent (Kinzler & De Jesus, 2013, p.661). In adult for instance, a slight divergence
in accent signifies group membership and identity (Giles & Billings, 2004; Labov, 2006). Thus,
Adult judge people’s membership based on familiarity of accent. It is observed that studies
conducted in this field focus solely on children and infant. A number of early sociolinguistics
studies touched on Adults (e.g. Fischer, 1958; Labov, 1966; Wolfram, 1969; Trudgill, 197l) which
relate language attitude to social class based on averaging and counting. A major disadvantage of
this kind is the difficulty in counting groups of people for statistical reasons and the extent to which
these samples represent the entire group. These studies were also mostly surveys on small scale
and that no statistical treatment was employed in the analysis of data. The findings therefore, cannot
be generalized. Another drawback is that the participants’ language backgrounds. Most of these
studies were conducted in Monolingual environment; they may not be representative of individuals
with Multilingual atmosphere (Karanain, 2016).
Asreemoro (2008) explains the Tausug or Suluks as the dominant group in Sulu
Archipelago who speak the Sug language, the lingua franca in the said area. The Sulu archipelago
is the southernmost string of land masses in the Philippines which covers up to 200 miles of
Zamboanga Peninsula all the way to Borneo and was formerly the main route of early migration,
maritime passage, and Islamization from North Borneo to the mainland of Mindanao, the Visayas
and Luzon (Jundam, 2006).
Saleeby (1906) in Asreemoro says that the Tausug and their language come from the
mixture of different ethnic groups: the Buranums, Tagahimas, Baklayas, the Dampuans, and the
Banjari people who migrated to Sulu to settle down and associate to form the now known
“Tausugs.”
The Buranums are the earliest occupants of Sulu who occupy the hilly regions; the
Tagimahas (protectors) are the Basilan people who occupy the now known Jolo; the Baklayas
(people of the shores) who are believed to be from the Celebes, Indonesia; the Banjaris from
Kalimantan, Indonesia, Borneo; the Dampuans from Champa (Vietnam). These groups combined
together to form the present Tausugs and their language. Apparently, different slang and varieties
of Tausug dialect emerged, “Bahasa Sug”, or Sug depending on the place emerged—Tausug Tapul,
Tausug Basilan, Lugus, Gimbahanun, and others. Sug also preserves its Javanese elements whose
authority expanded to cover the Sulu archipelago prior the Malacca, Malay Kingdom. The rise of
35
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Islam and the founding of the Sultanate of Sulu even boosted the development and growth of the
language to include Arabic words and Islamic terminology. Stone (1971) in Gowng and Mcamis
(1974) relate that different ethnic groups like Samal and Badjaw also speak Tausug when they have
contact with the Tausug (p.78).
The Tausug dominate the other ethnic groups found in the archipelago namely: The
Samal and Badjaw. Even the Chinese merchants also speak Tausug. Stone (1967) conducted a
discussion of intergroup relations among these ethnic groups and found that the Tausug informants
claim that Tausug is the lingua franca and all men both Samal and Badjaw groups speak Tausug if
they speak to one. They also will not speak Samal. One Samal informant even said that Tausug can
readily detect a non-native through the intonation pattern as he was told that he spoke like a Samal
even if he were speaking tausug, so that was when he concentrated on learning the tausug
intonation pattern to pass as Tausug.
In this study, concept on valorization in relation to accent was incorporated. Hamers
(2004) defines the concept of valorisation as “the ascription of certain constructive values to
language as a useful tool, that is as an instrument that will aid the realization of social and cognitive
functioning at all societal and individual levels” (p. 72). A child’s social environment will embrace
a language behavior dictated by society in which he/she lives in.
Thus, the researcher was interested to conduct this study in the light of karanain (2016) Judgment
of Native-accented and Foreign-accented Filipino Speakers which showed that accent was not the
sole basis of the participants’ judgment in their preferences.
This study wanted to prove that People, as we age, tend to be more particular and judgmental with
one’s accent. That the Tausug children have more positive notions on Foreign- Accented Tausug
speakers compared to the Tausug Young adults. This would validate the claim that the Tausug
dominate the other ethnic minority groups like Samal, Badjaw, and others (Stone, 1971), hence
valorizing their language.
METHOD
The participants were the entire 50 kinder Garten pupils and 50 College Students who
were all Tausug and were purposively chosen. Fifty percent (50%) were ages 4 to 8 categorized as
children and fifty (50%) ages 16 to 20 years categorized as young adults. The instrument was
composed of Phrases that are categorized into: sixteen (16) neutral phrases, eight (8) nice phrases,
and eight (8) mean phrases. These phrases were recorded by sixteen Tausug using a Matched-guise
Technique. This means that the same person recorded the same phrases in Tausug with either native
or foreign accent. This study also used language background interview checklist.
Children and adult in Experiment 1 viewed a series of individuals paired with native-
or foreign-accented speech that was neutral in emotional content. Besides testing participants’
friendship preferences, children’s sociolinguistic judgments and expectations about individuals’
geographic origins and national group membership was also assessed. The Material was a Face
stimuli consisted of 16 edited and enhanced faces of adults (eight female, eight male). Faces were
presented in gender-matched pairs on a laptop. Voice stimuli consisted of 16 clips of native- or
foreign-accented Tausug recorded by a Tausug living in Zamboanga. Recordings were
approximately 3s in length and neutral in emotional content. Participants first saw eight
“friendship” trials to replicate the method of Karanain (2016). In each trial, the experimenter said,
“Here are pictures of two people. Let’s hear what they sound like.” She pointed to each face in turn
and played a voice clip of either native- or foreign –accented Tausug speakers. Children and adult
were asked to choose whom they preferred as friends. Next, children saw the same series of faces
and voices presented a second time. In the sociolinguistic block (four trials), participants were
36
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
asked, “Who do you think is nicer,” “Who do you think is smarter,” and “Who do you think is in
charge?” In the geography block (four trials), participants were asked, “Who do you think lives
around here,” and “Who do you think is Tausug?” In Experiment 2, “Nice Foreigners versus Mean
Tausug.” This followed that of Experiment 1, yet instead of speaking neutral content, each native-
accented speaker described one antisocial (“mean”) action he or she has committed (e.g., “I pushed
someone down on the playground”). Each foreign-accented speaker described one pro social
(“nice”) action he or she has performed (e.g., “I helped someone up on the playground”).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment 1: Neutral Trials (native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers)
1.1 Friendship
The participants’ evaluation on friendship neutral conditions in native-accented and
foreign-accented Tausug speakers are shown in Table 1.1, Table 1.1.1 and Table 1.1.2. Apparently,
children and young adult chose faces paired with native- accented voices as friends, Mnative =
63.25%, SD= 16.83, F (1, 98)= 229.56, MSE= 494.021, p < .000. Similarly, young adults preferred
faces paired with native- accented voices as friends (Mnative = 84.00%, SD= 14.29, F (1, 98)=
229.56, MSE= 494.021, p < .000). It is interesting to note that there is age effect on the participants’
choice to be friends with native- accented and foreign-accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 42.02,
494.02, MSE= 494.021, p < .000).
Table 1.1.1
Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug
Speakers
Age Friendship Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 63.25 16.83
Foreign 36.00 17.61
Young Adult Native 84.00 14.29
Foreign 16.00 14.29
Table 1.1.1
Mixed-Designed ANOVA: Difference between Children and Young Adults’ Preference between
Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers (With-in Subjects Effect)
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Interpretation
Friendship 113407.031 1 113407.031 229.56 .000 Significant
Friendship * Age 20757.031 1 20757.031 42.02 .000 Significant
Error (Friendship) 48414.062 98 494.021
*Significant at alpha .05
37
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Figure 1.1 Age Effect on the Participants’ Preference between Native-accented and Foreign-
accented Tausug Speakers based on Friendship Trials
1.2. Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is nicer?
The nice neutral conditions in native- accented and foreign -accented Tausug speakers
are shown in Table 1.2. Table 1.2.1. Obviously, children chose faces paired with native- accented
voices as friends, Mnative = 61.5%, SD= 27.30, F (1, 98)= 55.70, MSE= 1583.55, p < .000. Similarly,
young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends (Mnative = 57.50%, SD=
14.29, F (1, 98)= 55.70, MSE= 1583.55, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice to
be nicer between native and Foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 4.18, MSE= 1583.55, p
< .044).
Table 1.2.
The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native- accented vs. Foreign- accented
Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is Nicer
Age Nicer Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 61.50 27.30
Foreign 37.00 23.28
Young Adult Native 57.50 26.36
Foreign 42.50 23.28
Table 1.2.1
Mixed Design ANOVA: Difference in Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-
accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is Nicer
*Significant at alpha .05
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Nicer 88200.000 1 88200.00 55.70 .000
Nicer * Age 6612.500 1 6612.50 4.18 .044
Error(Nicer) 155187.500 98 1583.55
38
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
1.2.2 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is smarter?
The smart neutral conditions in native accented and foreign- accented Tausug speakers
are presented in Table 1.1.2.2 and Table 1.1.2.2. Obviously, children chose faces paired with
native- accented voices as friends, Mnative = 61.00%, SD= 28.19, F (1, 98)= 119.18, p < .000.
Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends (Mnative =
71.00%, SD= 26.37, F (1, 98)= 26.37, MSE= 1,234.76, p < .000. There is age effect on the
participants’ choice to be smarter between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1,
98)= 17.44, MSE= 1234, p < .00
Table 1.2.2
Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign –accented Tausug
Speakers based on Trials Who is Smarter
Age Smarter Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 61.00 28.19
Foreign 37.50 22.22
Young Adult Native 71.00 26.37
Foreign 29.00 22.22
Table 1.1.2.2.1
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-
accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is Smarter
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Smarter 147153.125 1 147153.13 119.18 .000
Smarter * Age 21528.125 1 21528.13 17.44 .000
Error(Smarter) 121006.250 98 1234.76
*Significant at alpha .05
1.2.2.3 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is in charge?
The neutral conditions who is in-charge in native- accented and foreign- accented
Tausug speakers are presented in Table 1.1.2.3 and Table 1.1.2.3. Children chose faces paired with
native- accented voices as friends, Mnative = 61.50%, SD= 25.30, F (1, 98)= 88.23, p < .000.
Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends Mnative =
64.50%, SD= 24.87, F (1, 98)= 12.28, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice to
be in-charge between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 12.28, MSE=
1430.93, p < .000.
39
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Table 1.2.3
The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native -accented vs. Foreign-accented
Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is In-charge
Age In-charge Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 60.50 25.30
Foreign 38.00 27.71
Young Adult Native 64.50 24.87
Foreign 33.50 26.54
Table 1.1.2.3.1
The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented
Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is In-Charge
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
In-charge 126253.125 1 126253.13 88.23 .000
In-charge * Age 17578.125 1 17578.13 12.28 .001
Error (In-
charge)
140231.250 98 1430.93
*Significant at alpha .05
1.3.1 Geography: Who lives around here?
The Geography 1 neutral conditions in native- accented and foreign- accented Tausug
speakers are presented in Table 1.3.1 and Table 1.3.2. Children chose faces paired with native-
accented voices as living around here, Mnative = 73.50%, SD= 22.82, F (1, 98)= 11.44, p < .000.
Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native accented voices as friends Mnative =
73.00%, SD= 22.02, F (1, 98)= 11.44, p < .000. There is no age effect on the participants’ choice
to be living around here between native and foreign-accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 2.10,
MSE= 1927.55, p < .150.
Table 1.3.1
The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented
Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who Lives Here
Age Geography Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 73.50 22.82
Foreign 25.00 30.24
Young Adult Native 73.00 22.02
Foreign 27.00 30.24
40
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Table 1.1.2.3
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-
accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who Lives Here
*Significant at alpha .05
1.3.2 Geography: Who is Tausug?
The geography 2 neutral conditions in native- accented and foreign- accented Tausug
speakers are presented in Table 1.3.2 and Table 1.3.2.1. Obviously, children chose faces paired
with native accented voices as friends, Mnative = 73.00%, SD= 22.13, F (1, 98)= 14.36, p < .000.
Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends Mnative =
73.50%, SD= 30.48, F (1, 98)= 14.36, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice to
be Tausug with native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 10.37, MSE= 1881.70, p
< .002.
Table 1.3.2
The Children and Young Adults’ Preferred Native Accented vs. Foreign Accented Tausug
Speakers based on Trials Who is Tausug
Age Geography 2 Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 73.00 24.13
Foreign 23.50 21.07
Young Adult Native 73.50 30.48
Foreign 26.50 30.48
Table 1.1.3.2.1
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between
Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Geography 2 27028.125 1 27028.13 14.36 .000
Geography 2 * Age 19503.125 1 19503.13 10.37 .002
Error (Geography
2)
184406.250 98 1881.70
*Significant at alpha .05
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Geography 1 22050.000 1 22050.00 11.44 .001
Geography 1 * Age 4050.000 1 4050.00 2.10 .150
Error
(Geography1)
188900.000 98 1927.55
41
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
DISCUSSION
The results here are in congruence with that of previous research studies in friendship
trials, suggesting that children preferred individuals whose accents were familiar to them (This
supports the claim of this study that Young Adults, have a more liking towards native-accented
speakers than children, results similar with previous research studies where adults judged native-
accented speakers more favorably across different qualities (Giles and Sassoon, 1983; Seggie,
1983; Giles and Coupland, 1991; Carlson and McHenry, 2002; Dixon et al., 2002).
Generally, both children and adult in this study were positive towards their fellow
Tausug speakers across trials and blocks. They see their kind as nicer, smart, and in charge, just
like in previous researches (Kinzler & De Jesus 2013; Kinzler Corriveau, & Harris, 2011; Shutts,
Kinzler, McKee, & Spelke, 2009; Kinzler et al., 2007; Mehler et al., 1998). They Young-adults
were also able to identify who were Tausug which gains support from Labov (2006) saying that a
slight divergence in accent marks groups membership and identity. Equally, this also proves that a
Tausug can readily detect a Samal, Badjao, even Yakan and other neighboring ethnic group based
on his/her accent. Thus, Tausug speakers valorise their language. The results showed that indeed
Young Adults have higher likings for native-accented speakers. They feel that for your Tausug to
be proper, your accent must be that of the Tausug; otherwise, you will appear funny and unreliable
as seen in their reactions every time they hear the foreign-accented speakers across trials and
blocks.
Furthermore, results showed that the Tausug are people who indeed valorize their
language (Bruno, 1973 and they dominate the other ethnic minority groups like Samal, Badjaw,
and others (Stone, 1971) based on their constant choice for Native-accented speakers.
2 Experiment 2 (Mean native and nice- foreign accented Tausug speakers)
2.1 Friendship
The friendship conditions in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented Tausug
speakers are presented in Table 2.1 and Table 2.1.1. Apparently, children chose faces paired with
nice foreign- accented voices as friends, Mforeign = 75.00%, SD= 25.00, F (1, 98)= 180.73, p < .000.
Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice- foreign- accented voices as friends Mforeign
= 86.75%, SD= 20.73, F (1, 98)= 180.73, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice
to be friends between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 6.54, MSE=
1,054.91, p < .002.
Table 2.1
Children and Young Adults’ Preferred Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers
based on Friendship Trials
Age Friendship Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 25.00 25.00
Foreign 75.00 25.00
Young Adult Native 13.25 20.73
Foreign 86.75 20.73
42
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Table 2.1.1
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference between
Native- accented vs. Foreign- ccented Tausug Speakers based on Friendship Trials
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Friendship 190653.125 1 190653.13 180.73 .000
Friendship * Age 6903.125 1 6903.13 6.54 .012
Error(
Friendship)
103381.250 98 1054.91
*Significant at alpha .05
2.2.1 Sociolinguistic Evaluation: Who is nicer?
The nice conditions in mean native -accented and nice foreign- accented Tausug
speakers are presented in Table 2.1 and Table 2.1.1. Apparently, children chose faces paired with
nice foreign- accented voices as nicer, Mforeign = 76.00%, SD= 31.12, F (1, 98)= 129.77, p < .000.
Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice Foreign- accented voices as nicer, Mforeign
= 87.00%, SD= 24.87, F (1, 98)= 180.73, p < .000. There is no age interaction on the participants’
choice to be nicer between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 6.54, MSE=
1,054.91, p < .063, n.s.. This means that both Children and Young Adult chose the nice foreign-
accented speakers as nicer.
Table 2.2.1
Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug
Speakers based on Nice Trials
Age Nicer Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 23.00 30.24
Foreign 76.00 31.12
Young Adult Native 13.00 24.87
Foreign 87.00 24.87
Table 2.2.1.
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between
Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Nice Trials
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Nicer 201612.500 1 201612.50 129.77 .000
Nicer * Age 5512.500 1 5512.50 3.55 .063
Error(Nicer) 152250.000 98 1553.57
*Significant at alpha .05
43
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
2.1.2 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is smarter?
The smart conditions in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented Tausug
speakers are presented in Table 2.2 and Table 2.2.1. Apparently, children chose faces paired with
nice Foreign- accented voices as smarter, Mforeign = 76.50%, SD= 28.69, F (1, 98)= 108.69, p <
.000. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice Foreign- accented voices as smarter
Mforeign = 82.50%, SD= 24.87, F (1, 98)= 108.69, p < .000. There was no age interaction on the
participants’ choice to be friends between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)=
.93, MSE= 1628.57, p < .338, n.s.. This means that both groups prefer the nice foreign-accented
speakers as smarter.
Table 2.1.2
Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug
Speakers based on Smart Trials
Age Smarter Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 22.50 28.69
Foreign 76.50 30.06
Young Adult Native 17.50 27.78
Foreign 82.50 27.78
Table 2.1.2.1
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native -
accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Smart Trials
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Smarter 177012.500 1 177012.50 108.69 .000
Smarter * Age 1512.500 1 1512.50 .93 .338
Error
(Smarter)
159600.000 98 1628.57
*Significant at alpha .05
2.2.3 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is in-charge?
The conditions who is in-charge in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented
Tausug speakers are presented in Table 2.2.3 and Table 2.2.3 and Figure 1.2. Apparently, children
chose faces paired with nice foreign- accented voices as in charge, Mforeign = 80.00%, SD= 29.14,
F (1, 98)= 46.18, p < .000. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice foreign-
accented voices as in-charge Mforeign = 60.00%, SD= 38.05, F (1, 98)= 46.18, p < .000. There was
age effect on the participants’ choice to be in-charge between native and foreign Tausug speakers
F (1, 98)= 4.38, MSE= 2315.88, p < .039.
44
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Figure 1.2 Children and Young Adults’ between Mean Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-
accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is In-charge
2.3.1 Geography: Who lives around here?
The conditions who is lives around here in mean native- accented and nice foreign
accented Tausug speakers are presented in Table 2.3.1 and Table 2.3.1.1. Apparently, children
chose faces paired with nice foreign- accented voices as living around here, Mforeign = 61.00%, SD=
28.64, F (1, 98) = 11.93, p < .000. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice foreign-
accented voices as living around here Mforeign = 59.00%, SD= 31.73, F (1, 98)= 11.93, p < .000.
There was no age effect on the participants’ choice to be living around here between native and
foreign accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= .06, MSE= 1761.48, p < .801, n.s..
Table 2.3.1
Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Mean Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-
accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials
Age Geography 1 Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 39.00 28.64
Foreign 61.00 28.64
Young Adult Native 40.00 30.72
Foreign 59.00 31.73
Table 1.2.3.1
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference Between Mean
Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Geography1 21012.500 1 21012.50 11.93 .001
Geography1 * Age 112.500 1 112.50 .06 .801
Error
(Geography1)
172625.000 98 1761.48
*Significant at alpha .05
45
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
2.3.2 Geography: Who is Tausug?
The conditions who is Tausug in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented
Tausug speakers are presented in Table 2.3.2 and Table 2.3.2.1. Apparently, children chose faces
paired with nice foreign- accented voices as Tausug, Mforeign = 55.00%, SD= 26.73, F (1, 98)= 4.90,
p < .029. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice foreign- accented voices as
Tausug, Mforeign = 56.50%, SD= 30.64, F (1, 98)= 4.90, p < .029. There was no age effect on the
participants’ choice in who is Tausug between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1,
98)= .13, MSE= 1595.54, p = .724, n.s..
Table 2.2.2
The Children and Young Adults’ Preferred Mean Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-accented
Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials
Table 1.2.3.2.1
Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference Between Mean
Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Geography 2 7812.500 1 7812.50 4.90 .029
Geography 2 *
Age
200.000 1 200.00 .13 .724
Error(Geography2
)
156362.500 98 1595.54
DISCUSSION
In Tausug experiment two, generally age does not affect the participants’ judgment.
Worthy to note however, that children preferred the nice foreign- accented speakers as in- charge
proving that children take behavioral information in their judgment (Baltazar, Shutts, & Kinzler,
2012; Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Kinzler & Shutts, 2008; LoBue, 2009;
Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Vaish, Grossman, &Woodward, 2008) more than adults did. Children
are keener in behavioral cues than adults. Yet, the participants here did not even acknowledge the
fact that the mean Native-accented individuals are their own kind. The findings here suggest that
the Tausug participants are intolerant of negative behavior across blocks. Even if the speaker’s
accent is Tausug, if the behavior is anti-social then the judgment would also be negative.
Age Geography 2 Mean Std. Deviation
Children Native 44.50 26.39
Foreign 55.00 26.73
Young Adult Native 42.00 29.64
Foreign 56.50 30.64
46
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
For experiment 1, it can be concluded that age was a factor in one’s preference for
friendship. Young adults prefer native-accented speakers more than children perhaps due to the
fact that they are more accustomed to the accent of the natives than children since the young adults
would constantly laugh whenever the accent was that of Samal, Visayan and others. This means
that Tausug especially adults can easily identify another local accent. The study though made no
categorization of these foreign-accents. This experiment thus, proves that Tausug valorize their
language since they feel that they are the dominant ethnic and so other local speakers should have
native accent in speaking their language.
In experiment 2 however, the theory of valorization did not hold true. Both children
and young adult alike prefer individuals’ behavior more than accent and group membership when
a naitve-accented tausug commited a mean or anti- social action. The participants here neglected
the idea that these mean individuals are their fellow Tausug. They would prefer those nice foreign-
accented speakers over these mean native-accented Tausug speakers and would even claim that
these foreign-accented speakers are the “Tausug” and “living around here”.
This study therefore recommends that another study be conducted classifying the foreign-accented
speakers as either Samal, Visayan, Chabacano and other local ethnicities to explain deeper the
claim of one minor group’s superiority over the other based on accent. An interview as to the
disparity of responses would also be more useful to determine the depth of the data.
References
Asreemoro (2008). Tausug and the Sulu sultanate. Saba Islamic Media Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
ISBN: 978-967-5068-04-1
Cain, K. M., Heyman, G. D., & Walker, M. E. (1997). Preschoolers’ ability to make
dispositional predictions within and across domains. Social Development, 6, 53–75.
doi:10.1111/j.1467 9507.
Giles, H. and A. Billings 2004. Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. In A.
Davies and C. Elder (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
187-209.
Gowing, P. & Mcamis, R. (1974). The Muslim Filipinos: Their history, society and
contemporary problems.
Hamers, J.F & Blanc, H.A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd
ed.).New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jundam, M. B. (2006). Tunggal hulah-duwa sarah: Adat and sharee’ah laws In the life of the
Tausug (New ed. 2006.). Metro Manila: Vibal Pub. House.
Karanain, F. (2016). Children’s and young aults’ judgment of native-accented and foreign-
accented Filipino Speakers.
47
Paper Number: ICHUSO-021
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)
22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Kinzler, K. D., Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2011). Children’s selective trust in native-
accented speakers. Developmental Science, 14, 106–111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2010.00965.
Kinzler, K.D., De Jesus J.M. (2013). Children’s sociolinguistic evaluations of nice foreigners
and mean americans. Developmental Psychology. Vol. 49, No. 4, 655–664.
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. The
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104,
12577–12580. doi:10.1073/ pnas.070534510
Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding
children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27, 623– 634.
doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623.
Labov, R. (2006). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. (2nd ed). Cambridge
university press.
Mehler J., Juxczyk P.W., Lambertz G., Halsted N., Bertoncini J., Amiel-Tison C. (1988). A
precursor or language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29,144–178.
Stone, R. (1967). Some aspects of Muslim social organization, “in Brown Heritage: Essays on
Philippine Cultural Tradition and Literature”. In Manuud, A. (Ed). Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
48