The triumph of tagalog and the dominance of the discourse on english language politics in the philippines during the american colonial period 8

The center of Burma’s anti-colonial movement, as so many historians and linguists have told us was language and culture; as a matter of fact, the concern for culture and language came fi

CHAPTER EIGHT LANGUAGE AND POLITICS

In traditional political histories, it is quite difficult to find references to the anti-colonial campaign fought on the cultural front Given the surfeit of powerful evidence regarding the language campaign and the many examples of other anti-colonial cultural productions (novels, plays, music, folk literature), it not difficult to conceive that the absence is precipitated by the very way we frame our histories—predispositions toward certain arch narratives or an emphasis, for example on elections and elected officials—compel us to exclude other campaigns such as the language campaign Is it possible, though, that the popular groundswell for the cultural issue was just not as powerful in instigating anti-colonial movements?

When one compares the central role of language and culture in the 20th Century, colonial struggle in Burma to that of the Philippines, one finds an astounding difference The center of Burma’s anti-colonial movement, as so many historians and linguists have told us was language and culture; as a matter of fact, the concern for culture and language came first as anti-colonial politics had its roots in organizations like the YMBA (Young Man’s Buddhist

anti-Organization) and the Dobama Asiayone that was concerned about the drowning out by British education of traditional Burmese culture, language and religion The history of these anti-colonial movements that were centered around culture was also quite sensational—large mass-movements, strikes, boycotts, the rejection of the colonial education system and the setting up of their own national schools In the Philippines, after the Philippine-American War, and especially after the establishment of the Philippine Assembly and the promise of independence, resistance movements became enervated and/or isolated

Such a difference is emphasized by historians like Vince Boudreau who characterizes Philippine anti-colonial movements as essentially fragmented with the nationalist elite separated from the popular masses This, according to Boudreau was because of certain American colonial policies (principally the promise of independence) that diluted anti-colonial movements or because of the elite’s own class interests Boudreau argues that the great difference in the colonial social structure between the Philippines and Burma was that in Burma, because of various reasons like the abolition of the ruling class at the end of the Anglo-Burmese wars and because the British policy for the peopling of the bureaucracy favored other ethnicities (Indians and Chinese)588, there was no nationalist elite to serve as a buffer between the British and the broad masses The Americans, on the other hand, were so successful in deploying the nationalist elite that soon enough, social and political tension was not so much directed toward the

Americans as it was more pronounced between the two classes.589

Boudreau’s discussion includes detailed explanations of the particulars of the Philippine conditions in 1898 when America embarked on its project and it also includes an account of the specific American policies that shaped the character of the anti-colonial resistance However, of particular importance to this discussion is his depiction of those modes of resistance Essentially,

he argues that Philippine colonial resistance was different from the Southeast Asian colonial experience in that it had a nationalist elite class that was alienated from the broad masses and, because they were very early on given control over a lot of the Philippine bureaucracy and was cooperating and working with the American colonial officials “If Philippine collective action under U.S rule is in many ways distinct from that in other Southeast Asian colonies,” Boudreau argues, “the utter absence of a truly integrative and national elite leadership for Philippine

anti-collective action is central to this difference.”590 In a logic that suggests the tradition of

exceptionalist thinking, he argues that what was really at odds were the American liberal

587

Vince Boudreau, “Methods of Domination and Modes of Resistance: The U.S Colonial State

and Philippine Mobilization in Comparative Perspective,” in The American Colonial State in the

Philippines: Global Perspectives, ed Julian Go and Anne L Foster, (Manila: Anvil Publication, 2005),

orientation that “produced support for universal education, broad suffrage, and upward mobility” (since “its own Civil War helped dispatch the aristocratic ideology on which the U.S South’s plantation economy had rested”) with the nationalist elite which “relied on more unequal social and political conventions” and therefore would gain by “insur[ing] a docile labor force.”591 Of course it is inconceivable that American liberal traditions that would wage a violent, uneven war, occupy a land, alienate its people from its culture by attempting to, among other things, eradicate the local languages, would itself be interested in creating unequal social and political conventions and a docile labor force

The dilution of the anti-colonial movement was brought about by particular colonial policies Several policies that America launched (such as the institution of a Department of Labor) coopted segments of society that were traditionally radical (such as laborers) and diffused these radical sentiments Boudreau also claims that there was an anti-colonial struggle in the Philippines but its character was completely different from that of its neighbors as it essentially played out through elections, rather than through large protest movements

If the nationalist elite were unable to forge collective anti-colonial action, then the corollary to that must be argued: that mass movements, were weak, marginal, small, and

essentially localized This is how Boudreau depicts the popular struggles, particularly the

agrarian struggles up to the 1930s The largest of these agrarian movements was the Sakdal movement headed by Benigno Ramos, that in May of 1935 waged a 65,000 strong uprising in the provinces of Cavite, Laguna and Bulacan The Sakdal movement was only one of a series of other peasant uprisings that had germinated throughout the country Boudreau depicts such uprisings as “local affairs with weak national alliances and relatively parochial orientations,”592 as

“limited affairs of small sections of society,”593 and as “rebellions [that] never spread beyond their local points of origin—even in the broadest movement of all, the Sakdal Rebellion of 1935.”594

By contrast, Boudreau presents the Burmese anti-colonial movement as containing all the elements (missing in the Philippine case) for a powerful and unified mass, protest movement The nationalist elite in Burma, unlike in the Philippines, had been deprived by the British of their role in running the government bureaucracy By the time the British had decided to institute an electoral process, elections had become associated with capitulation and thus participation in it had always been poor.595 Finally, he suggests that a broad alliance was created between peasants, students, Buddhist monks, the rising middle class, when he talks about the dissatisfaction created

by the British restructuring of Burmese agrarian life.596

Such a model does paint the Burmese anti-colonial movement in a very brave light, and, especially for the purposes of appreciating the Philippine understanding of the relation of

language and culture to the nation, features the vital position of language and culture in the Burmese struggle

Language and Culture in Burmese Anti-Colonial Movements

The large, anti-colonial protests have their origins in disputes over educational issues, and

in particular in the dispute over the destructive power of English education over Burmese culture

British efforts as systematizing the Burmese education system began in the 1860s after the annexation of Lower Burma Despite the fact that this education was principally based on the vernacular, there were however, some Anglo-Burmese or even English schools which provided training for advancement in the British colony: either a training in law, commerce or a preparation for further study in India or in England itself By the turn of the century, Burma had developed its own hierarchy of language with English at the top (it was the language of government and

595

Ibid, 276

596

Ibid, 274 Burmese anti-colonial movements have been depicted as both fragmented or unified

by various historians Kratoska and Batson, for example, provide full details of what they call an

“increasingly divided nationalist movement.” See Paul Kratoska and Ben Batson, “Nationalism and

Modernist Reform,” in Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, volume 2, part 1, 253-320, (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1992), particularly on page 283 Robert H Taylor, on the other hand,

provides a detailed account of the rise of the unified Burmese middle class that “became the main force

behind the development of modern Burmese political nationalism.” See Robert H Taylor, The State in

Burma, (London: C Hurst and Company, 1987), page 124-126 Taylor’s explanation for the rise of this

anti-colonial force, unlike that of Boudreau has little to do with a buffer, nationalist elite, but more with a combination of factors, the most evident of which is the threat posed by Indian workers and traders

higher education) and with Burmese being the language of the rural areas or of domestic life The satisfaction with such a system (and the desire for more of Western culture) was held by Burmese such as Mg Mya, a paragon of the good colonial subject Mg Mya argued:

In my humble opinion the Burman wants no Burmese school education His ability to read and write is enough to all intents and purposes What he wants is a thorough and good knowledge of the English language When he gains a good knowledge of English, he will have a taste for English literature which cannot but inspire into him a sense of love and admiration of British justice, of just pride as

a member of the worldwide empire in which the sun never sets Enjoying the full privileges of a British subject and of loyalty and devotion to His Most Gracious Majesty.597

It is this kind of excited acceptance of English and Western culture and an almost equal excitement to reject Burmese culture that must have alarmed many budding nationalists In reaction to both British policies and the easy Burmese acceptance of Western domination, a number of associations mostly focused on Buddhism, arose at the turn of the century, the largest and most popular of which was the Young Man’s Buddhist Association (YMBA), which was founded in 1906 The YMBA was principally a non-political group (at least until 1917) whose members were vexed by Western values, language, dress, ideas that were encroaching into Burmese culture and was thereby focused on the protection of Burmese values, culture, and traditions and the protection of the Buddhist faith This organization would eventually become a political organization but the first impetus for organizing (which remained a concern through to independence) was a concern for culture and tradition Initially, however, the resolutions of YMBA were “framed as polite request[s] and not as demand[s].598

Student organizations would be moved to action also by the long and contentious process

of creating Burma’s own university The establishment of Rangoon University was first proposed

in 1910 In this proposal, the existing colleges, Judson College and Rangoon College would merge to form Rangoon University Numerous delays—disagreements over curriculum, status, location, British colonial government’s foot-dragging, World War One—caused a ten year delay When it was finally going to be launched in 1920, many Burmese objected to it The objections

were focused on the high cost of the University education, its excessively long preparatory requirement coursework, the lack of adequate Burmese representation in the University council, and the fact that the University was not going to be affiliated with any of the colleges outside of Rangoon Several newspapers carried articles that expressed objections to the blueprint of the University Various groups and associations formulated resolutions and memorials and delivered them to the colonial authorities The reaction to these protests, apparently, was simply to ignore them and the University was inaugurated in December of 1920

The colonial government’s intransigence would be the cause of a series of popular, large, and sometimes violent strikes and boycotts.599 The boycotts would be lead by the senior students

of Judson and Rangoon Colleges, many of whom were members of the YMBA The boycotts began in early December, 1920 when a number of students met underneath a tree at the

Shwedagon Pagoda (a beautiful marker that lists the names of the students currently marks the spot) to plan the boycott The boycott (in the form of a kind of sit-down strike at one of the monasteries) was initially attended by about 300 students for the two colleges but within a few days many more secondary school students had joined in the effort and it had gained massive public support This initial strike has been described as: “the first organized attempt by the intelligentsia in expressing disobedience to the foreign rule.”600 Although the boycott initially started as an objection to the University Charter, it quickly turned into a protest against the general character of education in general under the British Soon enough the boycott had turned into a campaign to establish national educational institutions, where instruction would be carried out entirely in Burmese and much financial support was shown by the general public in the campaign to raise money to establish such institutions

Indeed, one may rightly claim that the protest had a national character in that it was participated in by students from different districts Aye Kyaw recounts an interesting incident

599

There are numerous accounts of these student strikes Almost any general history of Burma

will provide a narrative account of them The most engaging and the most detailed is Aye Kyaw’s The

Voice of Young Burma (see previous footnote) See also Joseph Silverstein, “Burmese and Malaysian

Student Politics: A Preliminary Comparative Inquiry,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 1.1 (1970): 3-2

600

Nyi Nyi, “The Development of University Education in Burma”, Journal of the Burma

Research Society 47 (1964): 11-45

about a famous pwe (traditional show) performer based in Mandalay named U Po Sein who had

incensed the Mandalay student boycotters by openly professing his non-support of them The

Mandalay students called for a boycott as well of U Po Sein’s traveling pwe They were

boycotted at Mandalay, and then again at Pegu and then finally at Rangoon Facing the prospect

of financial ruin because of the boycott issued upon him and supported by the general populace,

U Po Sein had to make a public apology (both written and at a mass meeting back in Mandalay)

before the boycott of his pwe troupe would be lifted.601

Eventually, the boycott would dissipate without concession on the part of the British colonial government but would morph into an amazing resolve among the boycotters to establish

a nationwide system of national schools Of course, the boycott is widely credited with being one

of the corner-stones of the Burmese nationalist movement In response the student strikes, W Booth-Gravely, a British colonial official would ironically declare:

No one has ever affirmed that those who are still in the state of college or school instruction should be accepted as the guides of a race or nation seeking to attain a larger political independence The students are without a doubt the raw material out of which the citizens of the future will be fashioned Their time is to come, but for them to attempt prematurely to appropriate to themselves the authority of mature citizens in any movement which should have its origin and support only from those of riper age and with experience of the sterner lessons of life, is a course of action which cannot but meet with the disapproval of all reasonable persons.602

Booth-Gravely could not have known that beginning ten years after his avuncular pronouncement students would actually become the vanguards who would lead Burma into independence Aye Kyaw tells us that the mood fifteen or twenty years later would be quite the opposite of the sentiment expressed by Booth-Gravely: It was the popular belief then [late 1930s] that young college students had to instruct the people in the ways of democracy and had to lead the Burmese

in their march toward national independence.”603 The student strikes of 1920 would sow the seeds for an eventual massive, broad-spectrumed anti-colonial movement

603

Aye Kyaw The Voice of Young Burma, 80

Although the boycott was the first organized anti-colonial attempt carried out by the Burmese intelligentsia, it was in no way the first Burmese expression of anti-colonial sentiment Drake identifies the three crucial groups that made up the nationalist movement: the peasants,

represented by the village pongyis (religious leaders) and the Buddhist sangha, the

student-oriented associations, and the Western educated elite that banded together to form European-style political parties.604 After the boycotts of 1920, the focus of political attention became the

Dyarchy issue, the British plan to grant the Burmese some control of their government (similar to the Philippines’ Jones Law of 1916 where America retained top leadership of the bureaucracy but some government departments were to be run by Filipinos) The Dyarchy issue saw the rise of formal politics, the growth of an elite class that was essentially separated from the masses, and defections and then splintering of these elite groups into smaller factions, concerned mostly with party politics They were, however almost unanimously united in their slow (but sure)

disassociation from the broad masses such that by 1930, virtually none of these politicians lent their support to the Saya San peasant rebellion.605

By the 1930s, the students were again to organize themselves into a powerful political party that was to distinguish itself from the more traditional politics engaged in by the western-influenced politicians The students founded the Dobama Asiayone (Our Burma Association),

known for the members’ appropriation of the title Thakin (master) as a prefix to their names The

principal concern of this party was once again cultural but now also very much political: their principal objectives were the revival of a national culture and independence Their campaigns centered around a wider use of the Burmese language in all aspects of Burmese life and with literary production in the Burmese language The excitement of this time and the popularity of

the Dobama Asiayone is described by Ma Ma Lay in her novel Not Out of Hate In this novel, the

brother of the main character slowly transforms from an indifferent young man to a Thakin who

pongyi through hunger strike (page 23)

advocates independence from Britain and is concerned about the suffering of the Burmese broad masses

The Dobama Asiayone slowly organized among the students and soon became a strong force that could mobilize student discontent By 1936, the Thakins had control of the Rangoon University Student Union and was able to launch a successful three-month strike, which like the boycott of 1920, spread among other colleges and the various secondary schools throughout Burma

Though the students of the Dobama Asiayone had sympathy for the broad Burmese masses and the peasant movements606 and there was also much popular support for the student strikes, it was not until 1938 when the students in the Dobama started to organize peasants and laborers that the anti-colonial protest movement gained its character of having a strong united front

It was around 1938, when that Thakins started to involve themselves with the task of labor organizing that the protest movements really started to grow by massive proportions There were various attempts to organize dock workers, bus drivers, and oil company workers and lead them to strike The arrest of two students during an oil company rally pushed the students to organize a large protest action attended by more than a thousand students The rally turned violent, a student was killed and many were injured This was followed by a series of other massive protest actions some of which also ended in violence; the February, 1939 protest action

in Mandalay saw fourteen students and pongyis killed) It was really only at this point, when public opposition against the British colonial administration and the Burmese “sell-out”

government was extremely heightened that the students, the Thakins, the radical pongyis and the broad Burmese masses were united It would take about ten more years and the Second World War before independence would be granted and through those ten years the Dobama Asiayone, supported by the broad Burmese masses, would be at the forefront of the struggle

What began with a concern for the preservation of language and culture among the members of the YMBA and then later with the Dobama Asiayone quickly swelled into an

606

Aye Kyaw, The Voice of Young Burma, 66

awareness of the political dimension of the threat to Burmese language and culture Members of these organizations soon made the connection between colonial control, marginalization of the labor and peasants, the imposition of western-style politics and the erasure of Burmese traditions, culture, and language

Language, Anti-Colonial Struggles, and National Histories

It goes without saying that the conclusions that you arrive at depend on the way you approach the problem, on the kind of questions you ask, on the data that you select to include (or leave out) In presenting the story of the anti-colonial struggle in Burma during the first half of the 20th Century, a united front can be suggested (and would not necessarily be untrue) by

excluding information about Burmese elite politics To suggest, however, the way Boudreau does, that Burmese elite politics did not exist (“the vacuum left by the dissolution of the local Myonthungyis meant that no legitimizing force stood between colonial power and society”607) is

to single out the Philippine colonial experience as particularly harsh and particularly exploitative Starting the 1920s, Burma did in fact have the Golden Valley Group (similar to the Philippine Federalista Party) that gave support to the colonial administration and were largely unpopular and the 21 Party, later the People’s Party (similar to the Philippine Nationalista Party) that advocated home rule It seems probable that any society, even those with strong liberal traditions, would inevitably generate an elite class (complex enough to have both liberals and conservatives within it) that would put its class interest above all else and would attempt legislation and policy to protect those interests

In the Philippines, great interest has been placed on the role of the elite during the American colonial period There has been a surplus of writings focused on this privileged class

Benedict Anderson’s “Cacique Democracy in the Philippines,” Michael Cullinane’s Ilustrado Politics, and Julian Go’s American Empire and the Politics of Meaning all track the character and

role and political education of the Philippine elite in the shaping of the nation during the

American colonial period Though informative, such projects are, at worst, restatements of the

607

Boudreau, “Methods of Domination,” 274

colonial discourse of the manifest destiny At best they are examinations of the range of reactions

to colonialism: from outright assimilation to tepid forms to localization

For the objective of understanding anti-colonial resistance, such projects are necessarily incomplete as they exclude an equal, if not stronger force that asserted its own formations in the creation of meaning The tendency to focus on elite formations leads to a tendency, as in

Boudreau, to construct a non-elite resistance as isolated and marginal These two situations (an alienated elite and an isolated non-elite) are not conditional upon each other as the case of Burma, with its powerful unity of students, workers, monks despite the alienated elite, shows

The story of language during the American colonial period also suggests that the elite Tagalog campaign which was an anti-colonial campaign had broad-spectrum support that cut

non-across class; its support came from the popular masses (Liwayway magazine, Muling Pagsilang,

Balagtasan), the intelligentsia (the English proficient intelligentsia at that), and even the

nationalist elite It was a massive anti-colonial effort that, up until now, was largely neglected by history given the general tendency to exclude culture in accounting for a nation’s history and given the general tendency (proof of the dominance of English) to assign great significance and respect articulations in the vernacular This is not to suggest that the story of language during the American colonial period is one of bifurcation and one that is simply a matter of English (pushed

by the Americans and the nationalist elite) and Tagalog (campaigned for by the true nationalists and the masses) Although the story of the English policy in the Philippines is, in this thesis, told depicting it as a relatively inflexible, the same cannot be said of the Tagalog campaign The most visible figures of the Tagalog campaign, Manuel L Quezon and Lope K Santos are extremely complex Quezon was by no means a true defender of Tagalog and at certain points even equaled David Barrows in his almost aggressive faith in English; Santos, though unwavering in his dedication to Tagalog, was unlike the stereotype of the anti-colonial hero and in many ways a proponent of modern and American political formations The popular understanding of the history of language in the Philippines, however, centers around these two figures

In the hero-fixated Philippines where the streets of every little town throughout the archipelago are always Rizal Avenue or Bonifacio Drive or Del Pilar Lane, Philippine presidents,

no matter how ignoble are lionized into the “Father of Filipino this” or the “Champion of Filipino that.” Enter any bookstore or even supermarket in any part of the country and you can purchase a postcard with a stately looking painting of a hero or a president printed on one side and a short biography printed on the other It is through such media (along with history books, monuments, national holidays, state rituals) that Manuel L Quezon, first president of the Philippine

Commonwealth, has become known as “The Father of the National Language.”

Though he is much less well known, Lope K Santos is also considered one of the important figures of Philippine history In some of the larger bookstores, you may sometimes also chance upon a postcard of him as well The short biography on the other side of the postcard will name him “Ama ng Balarila” or “Father of (Tagalog) Grammar.”

The manner in which both these figures have become, in the popular imagination, the towering figures in the creation and championing of the national language provides for us a venue for exploring their lives in a bit more detail in order to understand the role language played in forming the nation during this period under the Americans These two figures were alike and were opposite in so many ways One could say that they began in the same position, went on to

be representatives of different, even opposing sectors of society and assumed rival positions on language but later found points of agreement such that before the start of the Commonwealth government they would be allies and work together This direction of convergence, divergence, and then convergence again, parallels, in a manner of speaking, the story of language during this period This story is a story of power and annihilation, tenacious insistence on the parts of both the dominant and the marginalized, affection and faith in one’s language and culture, change and

a recognition of this change, failure and a recognition of this failure, and a yielding to what is inevitable It is a story of both triumph and domination and also of failure Tagalog triumphs against an English policy that (up until the 1920s) had the objective of eliminating it, as David Barrows and other colonial officials so boldly proclaimed (see Chapter 3 and particularly Chapter 4) Despite this vigorous campaign, Tagalog writers studied, Tagalog, wrote about and wrote in

it, campaigned and advocated for the return of Tagalog to the position it had occupied during the revolution as the common language of an already realized nation Writers in English like Bocobo

and Lopez joined in as well And, toward the end of American colonial rule, they triumphed The United States dominated (but not triumphed) in that school instruction in English was mandated in the 1935 Constitution (this was a condition of independence) but then so was the national language mandated by the 1935 Constitution Thus, while English dominated, Tagalog triumphed

Manuel L Quezon and Lope K Santos

The lives of Manuel L Quezon and Lope K Santos converge in the Philippine-American war and in their participation in armed struggle; diverge during the first ten years of the American Civil Government (such that they came to represent opposite positions); and then converge again

in their (Santos a little later than Quezon) acceptance of modern American ideas of the state, of thought, and of progress and in their acceptance of the transfer of the struggle for independence to

a purely legal arena and through deep negotiation and lobbying with the Americans, mostly in Washington, D.C These convergences and divergences parallel the fate of Tagalog as dominant, contested, and then dominant again

Quezon was a mestizo and his family could be considered a rural illustrado family (they owned some land and was the only Filipino family in town who could speak Spanish) in the town

of Baler, which is quite a distance from Manila but is still considered a Tagalog area The family was wealthy enough that they could send Quezon to Manila for his education but not wealthy enough to send him to Europe He studied law at the University of Santo Tomas but his law education was interrupted by the Philippine-American war and upon its declaration in February,

1899, Quezon enlisted himself in the Philippine army He formed part of the staff of Aguinaldo and rose to the rank of Captain without any field experience Eventually, he became one of the lieutenants of General Mascardo at the time that he had command of Pampanga and then later

Bataan and Zambales and for about a year and a half participated in both open combat and guerilla warfare He surrendered soon after Aguinaldo’s own surrender in March of 1901.608

Lope K Santos had a more humble background and a more humble involvement in the Philippine-American war He was born and lived most of his life in or near Manila His father was a laborer who set type in a printing establishment in Manila He got his education through scholarship at the Normal School in Manila in the late 1890s During the Philippine-American war, he was part of the staff of Gereral Pio del Pilar and General Cailles but never participated in combat He could never be considered, by his own admission, a guerilla nor of any great

importance to the revolutionary army, though he did serve it in very small capacities.609 His reputation as a radical and staunch nationalist would be gained later principally through his work organizing laborers, his leadership of the Union Obrera Democratica (later the Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas), his pioneering work in attempting to organize the first Nationalista

party (with rebel leader Macario Sakay), his articles in Muling Pagsilang and his novel, Banaag

at Sikat, which was a piercing critique of capitalism in the Philippines

Quezon and Santos, thus, had similar nationalist beginnings, initial distrust of the

American colonizers, and a strong desire for Philippine independence Their stands on language, however would diverge during much of the American period and then converge again toward the end

Santos was unwavering in his support for and defense of Tagalog Santos’ class

affiliations were much closer to ordinary folk than Quezon’s was and this may have been part of the reason why Santos’ loyalty to Tagalog was strong His first language had always been Tagalog In his autobiography he recounts how as a young boy he would stick close to his father who would teach him about the language and how he would hang out in the printing

establishment where his father worked and ask his father questions about the letters and then the words that the type would form and about the logic of the spelling of Tagalog and Spanish

608

See Manuel Luis Quezon, A Good Fight, New York: Appleton-Century, 1946), especially

Chapter Three and Carlos Quirino Quezon: Paladin of Philippine Freedom (Manila: Filipinana Book

Guild, 1971)

609

Lope K Santos, Talambuhay ni Lope K Santos: “Paham ng Wika,” ed Paraluman S

Aspillera, (Manila: Capitol Publishing, 1972), 22