I. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMThis survey is conducted to happen out the current position of the “conyo” talk in the Philippines. The survey specifically replies and defines the undermentioned inquiries:1. Beginning and history of “conyo” talk in the Philippines2. How does “conyo” speak affects the Filipino society?3. Is “conyo” talk a portion of our civilization or non?4. Why is “conyo” being discriminated?5. Why do Filipinos love to blend linguistic communications?
II. HYPOTHESISNo declared hypothesis in the survey.III. RESEARCH METHODThe research worker used historical research method to analyze the past events in order to place the beginning and definition of unfamiliar footings. This method besides helped the research worker to broaden their experiences. It aims to find the past eents in doing the research possible.
Acoording to Good and Scates ( 1972 ) . the divisions of beginnings of historical research are the paperss which study of events which are composed of feelings made on some human encephalon by past events and the remains of relics which are physical objects or written stuffs of historical value and produced without intentionally taking to impact information. With these divisions of beginnings. the research worker were able to cognize more about the topics past conditions that can be used for the survey.
IV. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
‘Conyo’ talk is a cultural designation where its talkers can be described as holding a profound cultural ambivalency. ‘Conyo’ talkers use it non spontaneously. like in state of affairss of codification shift. but deliberately to demarcate their ain infinite. This type of discourse is clearly used as a scheme to give the feeling of being privileged socially and economically. The exchanging between linguistic communications clearly conveys the multiple and complementary individualities its talkers create for themselves. They have created a ‘social community’ taking on the function of stereotype images of Spaniards or Americans that exist in the Philippine popular imaginativeness adding “local color” to their mundane discourse. They communicate with other ‘conyo’ talkers straight. without the demand of accounts. Discussions on why ‘conyo’ talk exists have gone beyond face-to-face mundane conversation. ‘Conyo’ talkers have created an effectual infinite through the aid of Internet where anyone from anyplace can fall in in. And “space is cardinal in any signifier of power of communal life” ( Foucault 2000. p. 361 ) .
The Philippine lingual and cultural phenomenon “cono talk” ( a mix of preponderantly Spanish and English with Tagalog ) is a type of discourse that supposedly identifies and differentiates people of ‘power’ from the common multitudes. and arose from the impact of Spanish and American colonisation. Due to steady lingual influences. ensuing from contacts with different peoples and civilizations. a word or a phrase may take on another significance among a given group of people. wholly different from its original significance. where “a meeting of civilizations in the intercultural sphere consequences in irreversible intra-cultural changes” ( Mey 2007. p. 171 ) . In the last decennary. it has become the solution to jobs of intercommunication where some Filipinos draw on the linguistic communications they know and tailor them for their specific switching communicative demands.
‘Conyo’ talk became an emulation of how English and/or Spanish talkers talked to native Filipinos: a sentence in English and/or Spanish with some Filipino words. In clip. it has become a stance among the in-between category and the preferable agencies of pass oning with others and set uping possible relationships. In decision. this survey reflects the contradictory and switching places and boundaries of some Filipinos due to miss of assurance in their linguistic communication eloquence. societal and economic position. The participants of the web treatments analyzed are seeking for a comfy place to demo social designation. On one manus. they want to confirm their right to be different and highlight their individualism. and on the other manus. they criticize everything that separates them from other persons or endanger their individualism. Philippines is a hybridized society. and many Filipinos want to continue the dual cultural criterion. keeping the laterality of English and Spanish as linguistic communications of power. but encompassing every bit good their complex individualities attesting openly the hybridity of their individuality as Filipino. Hispanic and Anglophone. “Conyo talk” : the avowal of intercrossed individuality and power in modern-day Philippine discourse.
The common land that unites all ‘conyo’ talkers is their cultural distinctive feature and historical memory. In the Philippines. despite being a settlement of Spain for more than 300 old ages ( 1521-1898 ) . Spanish has remained an sole linguistic communication. It continues to be reserved merely for the upper/middle category and university-educated people. Subsequently. when the islands as a state was transferred to the Americans through the Treaty of Paris in 1898. English – spoken by the educated. upper/middle category – was accorded the same privileged position. Social constructions are the finding factors on how talkers behave. their peculiar ways of speech production. picks of words and regulations for discoursing. Filipinos who speak fluently Spanish and/or English are perceived to be from upper/middle category and are treated with more regard. On the other manus. Filipino linguistic communications are considered inferior and the linguistic communications of the hapless and nonreaders. And because of the uninterrupted neglect for Philippine linguistic communications and the high esteem held for Spanish and English. some Filipinos who have non come to footings with their perceptual experience of themselves as the ‘other’ created a intercrossed linguistic communication where they persistently identify with their former colonisers.
Consequently. ‘conyo’ talk has become the response for many Filipinos who. constrained by their background and holding been deprived. at one point. of ‘power’ -economic every bit good as societal – . are invariably subjected to the thought of being ‘the other’ . ‘Conyo’ talk has become a metaphor of what they have been denied – the Spanish linguistic communication. and an avowal of their being and the power that should be theirs and should continually flux to them. Its representation. as Blumenberg ( 2010 ) competently wrote. “indicates the cardinal certainties. speculations. and judgements in relation to which the attitudes and outlooks. actions and inactivities. yearnings and letdowns. involvements and indifferences. of an epoch” ( p. 14 ) . ‘Conyo’ talk has become a social-cultural default for many who want to be perceived as coming from upper-middle category. or merely an person with ‘power’ . The coming of Internet and Web treatments has opened new locales for people to discourse affairs that affect society without being prejudiced. The gap togss of “What is conyo Ba? ” . “Why do Filipinos love to blend linguistic communications? ” and “Why are conyos discriminated? ” shed visible radiation on the demand to grok how this discourse came into being. why talkers have chosen to talk it. what it represents to them.
Participants facilitate. and even steer the flow of conversations – from discoursing its possible beginnings. their place towards its talkers or the discourse itself to showing themselves in ‘conyo’ . It is apparent. from the illustrations cited. that its talkers endeavor to asseverate their individuality as Filipino. Hispanic and Anglophone. They have created among themselves a type of slang that is textually mediated where norms and regulations are flexible. capable to interlocutors’ readings. and as in many societal patterns. they facilitate “perceived anomalousnesss to go through. in order to do sense of the regulations and do the cryptography classs ‘fit’ the data” ( Firth 2009. p. 69 ) .
Therefore. when two participants wrote in Spanish: “ ? porque hay conyo? parity EL pene puede lo entre. ” and “exactamente. Una mujer tiene un conyo asi que puedo utilizar myocardial infarction pene sera malo que una mujer tenga” . no 1 seemed to mind the faulty grammar ; on the contrary. the purpose was accurately understood by some and were amused by these comments. ‘Conyo’ talk’s unwritten regulations of behavior aremultifunctional and reflexively associate to its context of usage. It is like a linguistic communication game where the interactants place themselves intersubjectively. Therefore. when one reads “Yu-uck. that’s sooo s-q-H2o! ” or “OMGeesshh fellow pare bro labuyo! ” . merely a individual familiar with this type of discourse can understand and deduce the utterances’ significances and let themselves to be subjected to it. In this instance. comprehension is achieved “procedurally and contextually in what is said is constantly assessed in a peculiar. local context. by peculiar individuals. at peculiar moment” ( Ibid. . p. 71 )
IV. AnalysisMerely like English and Tagalog. “conyo” talk is merely another manner of Filipinos. particularly the teens. to show and to pass on. Despite being referred to as the manner of the “rich kids” to speak. “conyo” talk can be heard about all around the Philippines. particularly. in conversations in about all of the universities in the Metro Manila. Students from private schools and universities are more likely to be heard speaking in a “conyo” manner. English and Tagalog words are combined to do a sentence or phrase. Ican state that to speak in a “conyo” manner is portion of the Filipino students’ civilization. particularly those who are in the “higher ups” in our society. But looking on the brighter side of it. I noticed that this “conyo” talk shows how intelligent the Filipinos are. It may sound raging. but merely the Filipinos can make that to speak with each other utilizing a combination of two linguistic communications. They can place themselves more easy without fright of revenge or ridicule every bit good as express solidarity. difference and/or power similar to mundane interactions or the hybridity-of-the-everyday.
Participants use a more informal linguistic communication. conversational signifiers and other characteristics that are normally associated with spoken linguistic communication. In this instance. hybridity occurs in the responses to the togss posted in reaction to positioning within the ambiguity of what is a Filipino. Are Filipinos merely Asians. Hispanics. or Anglophones. or all of these? At the same clip. in their continual adjustments of places and power differences the thought of distinctness may stalk the possibility of designation. for in many multi-ethnic societies such as the Philippines. “discourse is bounded by the essentialism of societal status” ( Tate 2007 ) . Factors independent of specific talkers and fortunes. such as economic forces. power relation every bit good as factors straight related to speakers’ societal webs and relationships. their attitudes and their self-perception and perceptual experience of others. act upon their usage of one or another linguistic communication. or both. In practical interactions. due to namelessness. member participants have more freedom to make individualities to reflect their ideas and belief.
V. REFERENCEShypertext transfer protocol: //siba-ese. unisalento. it/index. php/linguelinguaggi/article/viewFile/12641/11252 Blumenberg. H. 2010. Paradigms for a Metaphorology. Cornell University Press. U. S. Bhabha. H. 1990. Dissemination. in Bhabha. H. ( ed. ) . State and Narration. Routledge. New York. pp. 291-323.
Firth. A. 2009. Ethnomethodology. in D’hondt. S. . Ostman. J. O. and Verscheren. J. ( explosive detection systems. ) . The Pragmatics of Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing. Amsterdam. pp. 66-78 Mey. J. 2007. Developing pragmatics interculturally. in Kecskes. I and Horn. L ( explosive detection systems. ) . Exploration in Pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. pp. 165-189.