Revision of paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Southeast Asia "Ruptures and Departures: Language and Culture in Southeast Asia," January 19-21, 2000, University of the Philippines - Diliman, Manila.

March 1, 2000

Comments welcome.

gbp@nevada.edu

For an American to critique the film Dreaming Filipinos is an activity fraught with irony. Take, for example, an important theme of the film, that Filipinos credit the observations of foreigners, Americans especially, more than they trust their own judgement. Here is an illustrative passage from a scene in which the central character, Paul Gabriel, and his friend Sammy discuss a book:

Given this caveat and my own limited exposure to Filipino culture, readers of this paper should certainly take the writings of Filipino or other Austronesian scholars more seriously. Filipino readers can regard this as an entertainment provided by watching a foreigner struggle to learn their language and culture. They may find American assumptions and motives revealed by misinterpretations of Filipino ones. A second passage from Mang Sammy reiterates the theme of foreign superiority:

In spite of the suggestive title, this paper will offer no negative judgements of Filipinos, but Filipino self-criticisms such as that voiced by Sammy are treated as sources of insight. But my intention is not to critique the film in the sense of providing some evaluation of whether it advanced worthy artistic or social goals. The topic of this paper is the language of the characters in Dreaming Filipinos and how this language reflects the transnational situation of the main character, Paul.

The larger project is to use the concepts of linguistics to examine the language and culture of Filipinos who are living in transnational circumstances. By "transnational" I mean that they are recent arrivals to the U.S., or that they spend part of their lives in the U.S. and part in the Philippines, or that they are involved in mutual support networks with recent arrivals or international transients. Of course, this last criterion probably qualifies most Filipinos living in America. In fact, much of my work is done with the help of Filipinos living more or less permanently in Las Vegas and Filipino students at the University of Nevada. All such Filipinos that I have met in the U.S. either make frequent visits to the Philippines or they sponsor and host visiting family members from the Philippines. Some of the recurring and salient problems that they encounter in transnational circumstances become crystalized in popular films. I draw on such films as an important source of my information. Two such films are Sana'y Maulit Muli' 'I Wish It Would Repeat Again', which was analyzed in a previous paper (Palmer n.d.a), and Dreaming Filipinos, the subject of this paper.

The concept of "transnational" has been criticized as applying mainly to the middle-class, and therefore tending to erase significant political and economic inequalities (San Juan, personal communication, 1999). However, I regard the concept as applying to a social and economic pose that maintains a support network that involves family members in at least two nations. Such a support network often requires that some family members travel frequently between nations. Those who do must necessarily have substantial economic resources, but others are involved, many of whom travel less frequently and take up working-class occupations. In any case, the middle class are also of interest, if only because they create many of the social conditions in which others must live.

A project involving transnationals with a focus on the Philippines and the United States is also a study in cultural imperialism. The circumstances of transnational lifestyles were created by the 20th Century history of United States policy towards the Philippines, one of military subjugation followed by a post World War II period of support for neocolonial governance. The American system of schooling was introduced early in the century. The end of the Filipino-American war marked the beginning of three waves of migration to the U.S (San Juan 1996:95). The first was the migrant labor movement which lasted up to 1930. The second was the importation of war brides and the naturalization of males through service in the U.S. Army and Navy during and after WWII. The third was the immigration of skilled workers and professionals through family reunification that began after the 1965 liberalization of U.S. immigration law. San Juan finds the immediate cause of the diaspora in the latter decades of the 20th Century in "the immense disarticulation of the local economy by the depredations of the Marcos dictatorship and the avarice of its transnational patrons" (1996:15). By "transnational patrons" one supposes that he is referring to multinational corporations and agencies of the U.S. government as well as to Filipinos who worked with and for those companies and agencies.

The colonial and neo-colonial experience has imbued Filipino culture with a variety of conflicting aspirations and attitudes. Filipino dreams must aspire to status and position at home or in the colonial country, or they must depict oppression and victimization or resentment and rebellion toward the neo-colonial culture and the colonial nation. Paul Gabriel aspires to status and wealth. He wants to join his parents in America and he considers himself an American. San Juan stated that Paul's group harbors nationalist sentiments and hopes of returning home "if and when their life chances improve." Paul seems to have no intention of returning, but ultimately he does.

If one asks what features of Tagalog may be most responsive to American cultural imperialism, a number of research topics come to mind:

usage of code-switching from Tagalog to English;

language that claims or challenges identity and authenticity,

language that fosters or erodes social accord,

language that claims personal agency or bewails its absence; and

language that characterizes America, the Philippines, and their respective citizens.

Perhaps the most obvious sign of cultural imperialism is the occurrence of Taglish, the style of speaking created by the borrowing of expressions from English and adapting them to Tagalog. This occurs for various reasons, chief among them being that employment in the wealthier American economic system may depend upon some degree of knowledge of English. This was probably more important when the military bases at Subic Bay and Clark were still open, but it remains important for those aspiring to employment in America and for those employed in businesses catering to English-speaking tourists and businessmen. Secondly, English has become a prestige language in some sectors of Filipino society, perhaps in all sectors, but most obviously in the higher economic levels where children are often sent to be educated in the U.S. One result of the perceived utility and prestige of English is the extensive borrowing of lexical items and constructions into Tagalog. In this paper, I will examine Tagalog-English code-switching and code-mixing on a scene-by scene basis. I will try to determine how the frequency and content of English-derived expressions depend upon the identities of speakers and the topics under discussion.

Language may claim an identity, as in Paul's bold-faced declaration of national allegiance as an "Americano", or it may challenge authenticy, as in Mang Sammy's question "What kind of school is that?" (that would hire an American to teach Philippine history). The language of social accord is closely related to the issue of identity. Inclusive versus exclusive pronominal forms are obvious sites for this kind of information, as are demonstratives. The use of Tagalog distal demonstratives (iyon~yon~yun, niyon~noon, doon) has been shown to signal social accord (Fincke 1996). The most common demonstratives used in this film are the distal iyon and the medial iyan~yan ('by you'). If the distal signals social accord than the medial must signal less accord. Much of the language in this film is contentious, a constant struggle to promote contesting visions of Filipinos and definitions of self. Therefore we would expect to encounter a high frequency of iyan compared to iyon and to find iyan in contexts of higher social discord compared to iyon. This turns out not to be so.

Working against social accord is contention, which surfaces in sarcasm and in statements that disparage the character or values of listener, or blame or accuse listener. Speaker may imply rejection of listener or even insult, curse or threaten listener. Contention also surfaces in disputation as speaker rejects listener's suggestion or makes counter-assertions. Speaker may show skepticism of listener's assertions and imply that listener has a personal motive or imply that listener has been caught in a lie or inconsistent statement. Speaker may challenge listener's actions or judgements and reaffirm his/her own or make invidious comparisons. Challenges are often accomplished by questioning, as in "Why are you reading that author, eh?". There is a great deal of such language in this film, perhaps designed to illustrate that Filipinos are divided by the circumstances of cultural imperialism.

The expression of personal agency and control is largely situated in the usage of voicing affixes and their corresponding grammatical constructions. The infix -um- expresses agent voicing. The stem-forming prefixes pag- and pang- create gerunds. Stems formed with pag- and pang- may take agent voicing prefixes m- (irrealis or contemplative) and n- (realis or actual). Corresponding forms pa-, ma-, and na- express lack of control, often implying that something has been caused to happen to the focal participant. Either alone or in combination with the stative ka-, they may be interpreted as aptatives expressing the possibility of accomplishing something. The prefix i-, the infix -in- and the suffixes -in, and -an express various types of undergoer voicing. The focus of i- is often a beneficiary, while the foci of -in-, -in, and -an are often patients. The infix -in- is realis, while the suffix -in is irrealis. This is a rich system that will reward examination wherever personal agency is at issue. One can also examine usages of modal lexemes such as nais 'desire, wish', sana 'I wish', puwede 'possible', kaya 'able', and maáarì 'possible'. Voicing and agency in emotion language were examined in the film Sana'y Maulit Muli' 'I Wish It Would Repeat Again', a melodrama of a couple living in transnational circumstances (Palmer n.d.a). Preliminary inspection of the transcript of Dreaming Filipinos suggests that the grammar of voicing will be less crucial to its interpretation.

Language characterizing the two countries and their citizens is easy to discern and presents no interesting linguistic problems. Nevertheless, it is important in this film and instances will be noted.

The remaining problem of method is whether the film dialogs provide accurate or insightful representations of normal conversational practices. There is good reason to think that much can be learned from film that will carry over.

First, the writer of dialog must keep in mind the audience's ability to understand. Therefore, she must write as though the actors were being overheard in real conversations.

Second, I will assume that writers draw on natural dialogs, taking from them expressions of interest. While the dialog of film may not sample real dialog accurately, it does represent a sample of verbal exemplars and prototypes.

Third, in a film that purports to present naturalistic dialog, the actors themselves may have difficulty violating natural rhythms and constructions. One of the readers of this paper argued that any time an actor is in front of a camera, all naturalism is lost. Hence film dialog is seldom normal. I think that Dreaming Filipinos tries to be natural in its dialog, but I am not sure of this point. My consultants did not complain that the dialog was unnatural, but as consumers of film, they are accustomed to its conventions.

Fourth, people learn from film and take elements of dialog of film dialogs into their everyday conversations. Therefore, for all these reasons, it seems worthwhile to use film as a source of language data, even though it can not be taken as a representative sample of everyday language.

Recent summaries of Tagalog grammar appear in Himmelmann (In press) and Schachter (1997). Further discussion of Tagalog semantics can be found in Palmer (n.d. a, b, c), Palmer, Bennett and Stacey (1999), Palmer and Brown (1998).

Dreaming Filipinos was directed by Manny Reyes. The jacket says that it was the winner of the Grand Prix Best Picture, ASEAN Young Cinema Festival, Tokyo. It is the story of Paul Gabriel (played by Adrian Ramirez), a young man just finishing secondary school who wants to go to America, where his parents are already living. Paul is also a talented political cartoonist whose cartoons are pro-Cori and anti-imperialist. While he goes to school in Manila, Paul lives with his Lolo (Grandfather, played by Mike Accion). Paul has frequent consultations with his uncle Manny (Chris Vertido), who is a nationalist and a teacher, and Mang Sammy (Ren Silayan), who is a friend, a nationalist, and unapologetic supporter of Ferdinand Marcos.

Before going to America, Paul must first graduate from high school. The only thing standing between him and graduation is an assignment given to him in his class in Philippine History by a Filipino-American teacher (Pio de Castro III), who regards Filipinos as inferiors. The assignment is to write an essay on the topic "What's wrong with the Filipino?" The question, which is repeated throughout the film, almost as a mantra, provides a comical vehicle for a dramatization of the issue of cultural imperialism and its impact on Filipino identities. The teacher repeatedly rejects Paul's essays. By placing Paul, in "a permanent crisis" (San Juan 1998: 179), the film examines the self-disparaging theme of Filipino cultural inferiority relative to American culture, a theme previously noted by San Juan (1996). Thus, the language of the film must reflect this crisis of self-disparagement.

The numbering and the titles of the scenes are my own, not taken from a movie script. The transcript that I examined was created directly from the film by two Filipinas, one from Manila and the other from Mindanao. The "scenes" in this paper are defined on the basis of continuity of characters, setting, and content, so they may include more than one scene as might be defined by a director or writer.

Scene 1 — If You Want to Make It Big in America. In this prologue Paul is protesting some expensive, itchy clothes that Lolo is making him wear for his trip to America. Lolo tells him, "Kailan mas Amerikano ka ba, kaysa Amerikano." 'If you want to make it big in America, act more American than the Americans', foreshadowing a later discussion of the way that Filipinos in America imitate Americans. The film then shifts to an earlier time when Paul is still going to school.

Scene 2 — Dueling Filipinos. Two short segments illustrate the unreliable services in Manila: We see Paul showering happily. Suddenly, the water cuts off, leaving him with shampoo suds in his hair. Then we see Uncle Manny sitting in an easy chair with a look of absorption as he peruses a book of nude photos. Suddenly the lights go out. Then it cuts to a Manila street scene with thick smog as Sammy complains to Paul about the 30 billion dollar foreign debt. One exchange in this scene illustrates the dominant quality of discourse in Dreaming Filipinos — its contentious language:

The language of this scene exhibits very little code-switching or code-mixing. English expressions are used to describe the size of the debt ("Thirty billion dollars"), but when discussing the debt of individual Filipinos, it is (?) libong piso. This difference in financial-linguistic registers is perhaps merely a reflection of the currency terms normally used in the national and individual contexts, yet it does nicely illuminate the international nature of the foreign debt, while at the same time making real the cost to individual Filipinos. English phrases are also used in counting population ("60 million", "120 million"), but otherwise, the only English appears in the term mag-migrate, when Paul asks Sammy why he doesn't migrate to another country.

The topic shifts to Paul's identity. Sammy asks Paul whether he is a Filipino. Paul says no:

Sammy says

What? how did you become an American, eh? You are colored yam.

Paul answers:

After some laments regarding the debt, the problems, the lack of direction in the Philippine government, the chronic failure to bring about change, Paul repeats the fact of his American birth, using the more formal isinilang in place of the colloquial pinanganak:

This is the clearest possible declaration of identity. Paul recognizes that some will disapprove. This is one of the costs of the transnational life. Paul writes a draft of his paper based on the complaints he discussed with Mang Sammy.

Scene 3 — We Americans taught you our lánguage. We next find Paul in class where his arrogant Filipino-American teacher is berating the students. His exclusive use of English is symptomatic of his attitude:

He calls Paul's paper trash, one of the most inane papers he had ever read. Paul is given two weeks to rewrite it on threat of failing. Then the teacher reveals his imperialist sentiments:

Clearly, the teacher is the script-writer's vehicle for establishing the paternalism in the American attitude toward Filipinos, who are indirectly admonished to remain friendly and subservient. His usage of pronouns we and you establishes his own American identification. As with many other scenes, the language is contentious, but the teacher's language strikes me as beyond contentious; it is inflammatory.

Scene 4 — I might catch your I.Q. After class Paul walks home with some classmates and they discuss the teacher. Paul says,

A female classmate offers to let Paul copy her paper if he will get her a green card, just the first of many requests directed at Paul by those who know he is going to America. Paul says,

She says "I hope you fail." The entire 17 lines of the scene contained only one English term: the acronym I.Q. The scene contrasts with the preceding scene, which was dominated by English. The conversation here, again, is contentious.

Scene 5 — Buy Me This in America. Paul sulks with Lolo and considers pushing the obnoxious teacher down the stairs. He tries to explain his problem, but Lolo is absorbed in the clothing advertisements in an American magazine. Pointing to a picture of a jacket, Lolo says, "Buy me this in America. I'm size 32, this, buy me this, too, size 32,...." and continues tearing out pages and placing orders with Paul for additional items. Then Lolo's driving student arrives and he tells Paul they will talk about his problem later. The scene ends with Lolo telling the student put the car in reverse, a metaphorical comment on the following scene with Mang Sammy, the Marcos apologist:

The car roars off in a forward gear.

Scene 6 - Your Idol is Dead. The scene shifts to Sammy's house, where Marcos is on TV. A photo of Imelda Marcos sits on a shelf. Marcos says:

Sammy says "What's wrong with the Filipino? What's wrong with the Filipino?" He questions why an American is teaching Philippine history: Anong Klaseng school anya? 'What kind of school is that?' Most conversations between Sammy and Paul are contentious. Paul's voice is tense and whiney, as it is in much of the film. A Filipina consultant described it as boyish or babyish. This heightens Paul's self-image of victimization and dependency. Sammy tells Paul he is just like the teacher. Implicitly accepting some measure of guilt, Paul says the teacher is worse because he doesn't speak Tagalog. Paul asks Sammy for help with the paper, but Sammy tells him to research it in the library. Paul implicitly rejects the suggestion and insinuates that Sammy has assumed too much authority:

Sammy contends,

'You are patronizing me. You are only lazy to do research.'

Paul points out that his question is still not answered. Sammy answers,

'Do you want an answer? The Filipino is vindictive. They like to hold a grudge.'

This turns the conversation to Marcos. Paul asks if Marcos is still his idol.

Sammy replies that at least he is not wishy-washy (balimbing), constantly changing parties. Paul says people who do that are only practical. Sammy says that they are like meat; they can be bought; the yellow party (Corazon Aquino's) advertises freedom of expression, but they put you under surveillance. Corazon Aquino is all words, not like Marcos. Sammy admits to being close to Marcos, but says he never accepted a bribe. Paul asks a skeptical question that reveals a cynical side:

The language in this scene contained many instances of code-switching and code-mixing. Besides the recurring question "What's wrong with the Filipino?", which is never asked in Tagalog, the scene contained the terms American, Philippine History, school, exchange professor, teacher, assignment, mag-research (2 instances), expert, mentality, vindictive, idol (2 instances), practical (2 instances), freedom of expression, ipapa-surveillance, Sir, marshal law baby, and September. It also contained the acronym B-day, for birthday. These 21 expressions occur in 50 lines of conversation. They are preponderantly nouns or noun-phrases.

Why English should invade this scene more than others is not clear to me. The terms Philippine History, school, exchange professor, teacher, assignment, and mag-research can probably be regarded as the heritage of the American school system, and school was one of the topics under consideration. It is no doubt difficult to discuss school without using some English terms. But that doesn't explain the expressions expert, mentality, vindictive, idol, practical, freedom of expression, ipapa-surveillance, Sir, marshal law baby, and September. Perhaps the answer is similar, that it is difficult to discuss imperialism without using the language of the dominant participant, or to discuss neo-imperialism without using the language that symbolizes imperialism. If this is the case, it supports the theory of Ma. Lourdes Bautista (1999) that the explanation for code switching is efficiency of communication. The expressions used in discussing a particular topic are those that are most salient, and often those are English. But recall that when Paul was discussing the teacher and classroom with his girl friend, they used almost no code-switching. So perhaps there is also a register change here, in which Paul is discussing education and politics with an older man who has intimate and formal knowledge of the topic.

Scene 7 — The Dying Profession. Scene 7 features a conversation between Paul and his uncle Manny, who teaches Philippine Studies. The conversation concerns the character of students and the structure of opportunity, which favors the study of Japan and America over the Philippines. It begins with Paul posing the question "What's wrong with the Filipino?" He answers himself that they are aimless (Panay lakwatsa ang nasa isip.) He thinks it must run in the family, because his uncle is known as a nationalist teacher, who, if he is not asleep, is never at home.

Uncle Manny says, "If we are going to talk about the shortcomings of the Filipinos [pagkakulang ng mga Pilipino], we can make an encyclopedia." He complains that his students only want to study things that will help them make money (pagkakakitaan ng pera). Paul counters by asking what kind of job you can get into (mapapasukan mo) if you finish only Philippine studies. Manny says that is why it is discouraging to teach. Does everything go home to money? If you say Japanese Studies or American studies, the class is full. But if you say Philippine studies, you will be begging for students. Paul says, of course, if you finish Philippine Studies, teaching is the only thing you can get into. "Let's face it, teaching is a dying profession." A teacher makes only one thousand pesos per month, probably not enough to live on. Then he points out that Manny is getting by on his sidelines, which no doubt constitute a distraction from teaching:

Well at least, you have a lot of sideline, you have a lot of ways to make money.

Manny answers "Oy, oy, oy" and asks Paul, if no one is interested in teaching, who will teach well?

Paul has a pet hamster in a cage and he places a photo of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos behind the cage. To me this symbolized the tedium of the treadmill to which Filipinos have been consigned by damage to the economy, but one of my consultants pointed out that hamsters like to sleep during the day and they are busy at night when Filipinos are sleeping. Paul plays a rag-time tune on the piano, which is badly in need of tuning. In the morning paper, Paul finds, and clips, a political cartoon depicting Uncle Sam as a wolf with big teeth, the better to cut foreign aid.

Then Manny asks Paul to get him a magazine subscription in the States. One of my consultants rather indignantly saw this as "leaching," a sign of Filipino dependency on others. Manny and Paul argue over whether Paul will be able to afford the subscription. Paul calls him kunat 'ductility, resiliancy', translatable as 'stingy'. Manny then invites Paul to go swimming at Green Meadows, which sounds like an American name for a middle-class subdivision. Paul asks "Whose house?" Manny answers "Kay pareng Toni," referring to a woman, but using the term pare, which originally referred to a male sponsor. My consultants objected that the term should have been mareng.

Looking back at this scene, we see that Paul is critical of Manny. Appearing to have what we would call "burn out", Manny criticizes students for their lack of nationalism. Paul defends them as practical and denigrates teaching as a financial dead end, pointing out that Manny only gets by with sidelines, a theme that echos Paul's earlier judgement that Filipinos are aimless. Paul and Manny are contentious, but there is no animosity. The scene contains quite a lot of English, including the lexemes uncle (4 instances), nationalist, encyclopedia, Philippine Studies (4 instances), Japanese Studies, American Studies, teaching, teacher, one thousand, magka-interest, subscribe, States, siswimming, and Green Meadows and the phrase well at least. In addition, it contains the sentences "What's wrong with the Filipino?" and "I guess it runs in the family." Several of the lexemes can be explained as previously, as part of the imposed language of education: encyclopedia, magka-interest, Philippine Studies (4 instances), Japanese Studies, American Studies, teaching, teacher, one thousand. The terms nationalist and States can be explained as part of the language of imperialism. However, the expressions subscribe, siswimming, and Green Meadows appear to have more to do with American consumerism and Filipino perceptions of American lifestyles. Only the expression well at least, seems not to fit a ready category in the topics of cultural imperialism, but it does contribute to the contentious language of the film.

Scene 8 — Ladies man ka ba, Paul? When Paul arrives at Toni's house, she is reading a magazine called Sexy Men. The conversation with Toni reflects a perception of leisure. Toni's language is marked by intersentential code-switching. Her first words to Paul are "You must be the pizza man." Paul answers in English "No, guess again." Toni switches to Tagalog "Aha, ikaw si Paul" 'Aha, you are Paul'. Paul answers "That's right" and Toni continues in Taglish:

Thereafter, Paul retreats to Tagalog, while Toni continues to switch. She says, "Why don't you work for me as an escort?" Paul replies in Tagalog "Anong gagawin ko?" 'What do I do?' Tony says,

For Toni, the bored housewife, the language of money and opportunity is English. The language of effort, practice, and instruction is Tagalog. Toni tempts Paul to become like Manny, living the easy life with no real purpose. Paul yawns.

Scene 9 — Aspirations and Images of America. This scene provides another conversation between Paul and Mang Sammy. Sammy asks Paul what he wants in life. Getting no response, he says "Uy, tinatanong kita." 'Hey, (I'm) asking you.' He asks what Paul is going to do when he finishes his studies. Tacitly questioning Sammy's right to ask, Paul answers with sarcasm that he is going to be President of the Philippines. Sammy completes the banter with "That makes two of us." He asks Paul how he knows he will like America, since he hasn't been there since he was born. Paul says,

Sammy says too bad Paul is leaving; he would recommend him to a newspaper. Paul, still identifying himself as American, says "You never know if I will return here." The scene is short, but the language is again contentious. Only two English terms appear in 13 lines: America, which appears twice, and TV.

Scene 10 — The Radicalization of Paul. Paul reads the Communist Manifesto. He tells the teacher the government is afraid of the communists because they are fighting for the right. Filipinos (ang mga Pilipino) can not succeed because only rich people and foreigners benefit from the government. The problem with Filipinos (sa mga Pilipino) is they don't know how to complain, they are fooled by capitalists and politicians, they endure and don't fight. Marx was right: A bloody revolution (madurugang himagsikan) is needed to solve the problem of the Philippines. This soliloquey is delivered in Tagalog with no expressions of obvious English derivation. Then Paul repeats his theme in English. His teacher says "Mr. Gabriel, are you aware that communism is dead? You have exactly three days to make my deadline. I suggest you make the most óut of it."

Scene 11 — Lolo. In spite of Paul's failure to satisfy his history teacher, preparations for his trip to America are advancing. Lolo is on the phone, exercising the prerogatives of a parent even across an ocean, giving bold-faced directives to Paul's parents in America:

On the phone with his mother Paul speaks English, telling her he is not failing any subject. Paul's end of the conversation subsequently reveals another issue generated in part by the transnational pose: the feeling that Filipinos are not given due recognition in America. Paul says, "Ma, why do I have to go to law school. I do not want to be a lawyer...You want me to be famous because Filipinos have no impact on American life. Well, that is not my problem."

When Paul gets off the phone he looks stricken. Lolo expresses sympathy (one of the few non-contentious conversations in the film). Paul explains that he has changed his paper so many times that he is tagilid 'sidewise'. Lolo recommends giving the teacher a present. Paul says the teacher doesn't take bribes. Lolo says:

Oh no, they are all the same. Everybody here can be paid (bribed).

Then Paul goes along with Lolo on his driving lesson. Lolo tells the student driver to go forward, but he goes backward and has an accident.

Scene 12 — Manny and Toni. Paul blames the accident on Lolo and tells Manny that Lolo is likely to be imprisoned for teaching driving without a driver's license. Manny says, "Ah, let him teach driving. It is good for him to have something to do. Anyway, we two are the only ones who know that he doesn't have a license." Is the message that Lolo lives a life of petty corruption and that those around him are complicit?

Manny tells Paul that Toni is looking for him, that he shouldn't be afraid because she is always joking, and she is very generous with those who are close to her. Paul, apparently considering his options, asks if she is married (she is separated) and if she was serious when she offered to help him make money. Manny asks what she asked him to do. When Paul tells him she asked him to be a dance partner for his friends, they both laugh conspiratorially. Paul dances with Toni, who knees him in the groin and drags him into the bedroom.

The next day, Paul tells Manny that a dance partner is not what Toni needs. She needs a sirkyero 'circus performer'. Manny says, "What, aren't you the one looking for a job?" Paul says "It's difficult to make money." Manny replies, "What, what, what, why are you complaining? How will you be rich? When is the next practice with Tony, hey?" They have another conspiratorial laugh. The genre is perhaps best characterized as banter rather than contention. Other than the term uncle, this scene of 30 lines contains only two English expressions: tutal ('anyway' ? < total), and dance partner (2 instances).

Scene 13 — Sammy's Monologue. This scene provides the most coherent presentation of the theme of the film. It also provides a good example of the contention and argument that pervade the film. Paul and Sammy discuss Paul's latest draft. The scene begins with Sammy's challenge of Paul's values and Paul's weak defense:

Sammy strikes again and Paul counters with what seem to be harsh judgements.

Sammy: Bakit ba yang author na iyan ang binabasa mo, eh?

Paul: Bobo naman yan dahil pinipintasan niya yung idolo niyo.

'He is stupid because he is belittling your idol.'

This is the scene in which Sammy points out that Filipinos are easily tricked. Others point out the shortcomings of Filipinos and get only bad news, but Filipinos get dizzy with happiness so long as they are featured in Time and Newsweek.

Then he says "What's rurang with the Filipino?", the first and only time this question is posed in Taglish. He answers himself with a rhetorical question, posed in English, "What's wrong with the American, with the German, with the Japanese? It's a stupid question." Then he returns to Tagalog:

Then Sammy has a monologue in which, I paraphrase, he says that Filipinos like to be pushed, they are often intimidated by other cultures, that's why we are always stepped on, why we are happy when others say bad things about us. Others are benefitting from the news, hindi tayo ('not us'). We should tell the story, not foreigners. We need to trust ourselves (magtiwala tayo sa ating sarili) and see the importance of our own opinion of ourselves. Others are not higher just because they are better or richer. Much of Sammy's language in this monologue is contentious, but the lack of pause for response shows that it is aimed at a wider audience, not at Paul alone. Sammy finishes with the following:

Think about it. Isn't it true? Beat that into your teacher.

The English expressions that appear in this section include American propaganda, maka-pasa 'apt-pass', author (2 instances), naturally, pa-pasa 'nc-pass', ma-extra 'irr-nc-extra', rurang 'r1-wrong', opinion (2 instances), and teacher. This is 11 usages in 41 lines. In addition, there is some intersentential code-switching with the question "What's rurang with the Filipino?" and Sammy's self-answer "It's a stupid question." Five of the usages belong to the language of education: maka-pasa, pa-pasa, author (2 instances) and teacher. The expression American propaganda belongs to the language of anti-imperialism. Rurang may be interference from Tagalog. Opinion is available as a borrowing from Spanish, so it may be wrong to regard it as Taglish.

Scene 14 — Paul's Dreams. Paul has a dream in which his teacher is the officer who approves visas. Coming before him in sequence are Lolo, Sammy, Toni, and Paul. Each answers in ways that reveal their character. All the speech is in English. Lolo is obsequious and tells the teacher-officer whatever he wants to hear.

Lolo: "O yes, oh, yes, yes."

In contrast to Lolo, Sammy is defiant. The teacher-officer asks him "Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party of the Philippines?" Sammy says "I am a nationalist." The teacher says "That's the same thing....You must be joking. Get out. Next." Sammy says "Asshole."

Toni tells the teacher-officer she is traveling with "a special friend" (Paul). Paul says "I'm an American." The teacher says "So, you've finally did your assignment." (sic) Then he tells Paul he is in deep trouble, a fraud, the paper is a forgery, that Paul is not capable of coming up with "this anti-imperialist stuff. ... Who figured it out for you, your travel agent?" Paul beseeches "You have to believe me," but he is dragged away.

Paul's second dream contains scenes of a crucifix and sarcophagus. Then Paul is on his hands and knees with a leash on his neck. His teacher is in a chair holding the leash in front of the TV where Marcos is speaking. The teacher shouts "What's wrong with the Filipino, Paul?" He tells Paul if he can't come up with his own answer, he will have to watch Marcos on TV for the next 20 years. He repeats the question and demands of Paul that he provide his own answer. Paul says, "We all know the answers, but we never use the answers to solve the problems." All the dialog is in English.

Scene 15 — Paul confronts his teacher. The scene begins with Paul reciting his paper in English. He concludes "We all know what the problems are and we all know the answers, but do we ever use the answers to solve the problems?...Action is what we need at this point...The question is unfair. I could ask 'What's wrong with the Americans?'" The teacher questions whether Paul wrote the paper himself. Then Paul becomes defiant:

The English sentence "I'm not perfect, but I can live with it" strikes one as a conventional phrase, ready to hand for defense of the self. The only other word that could be English is opinion, but that is also available from Spanish. The speech is very rapid with even intonation except for the stresses that I have marked.

Scene 16 — Sammy Tries Again. Paul prepares for his flight to America, a poster of James Dean on his bedroom door. Sammy says "So this means you are a graduate." Paul says "My teacher got old because of my answer," meaning he was stunned. Sammy berates him for his intention to go to America regardless of all arguments. He is especially concerned that other countries will be the ones to benefit. Sammy tells him he is like the politicians in the Philippines, all talk, but lacking in action. "Nasaan ang kumitment mo?" 'Where is your commitment?' Paul tells him "You are amazing. I am the only one who is going to be gone here. The Philippines will still run even if I am gone." Finally, Sammy says, "You are a waste, you are really a waste."

Scene 17 — America and denouement. Two years later Paul returns to Manila for a visit. They are speaking Tagalog and Paul now uses the respect form ho, perhaps hinting at a capitulation to Sammy's views. Sammy asks him about his parents. Paul says,

It is as though thought of the change in Paul's parents required a switch to English. This seems born out by subsequent passages. Sammy says "What do you mean?" Paul says in English "Well, for one thing, they don't want me to speak Tagalog in the house." Then he returns immediately to Tagalog:

Then, again reporting his parents' avoidance of Tagalog, he returns to English: "But no, they think it's backwards to speak in Tagalog, kaya away kami ('so we fight')." Then it is back to Tagalog: Diyan nga ako inis na inis, eh. 'Thats where I get very irritated, eh.'

Sammy doesn't understand why others are ashamed of being Filipino. Paul now sings a supporting role. Filipinos in America don't acknowledge each other. They act as though they are hiding something all the time. There are some he would like to punch. If you ask someone, "Are you a Filipino?" the answer is "No, I'm an Oriental." Filipinos have many illusions. He doesn't get along with his parents, so he got his own apartment. He says:

Filipinos there, if they imitate Americans, they beat the real Americans at it.

Yet Paul can't admit his real circumstances. He says its great to be independent, that life in America is like what you see on TV, everything is modern, food is really cheap, he cooks delicious food in his apartment. He actually fries Spam, but he claims kare-kare (peanut butter stew) and crispy pata (fried pork thigh) as his specialties. He says his American friends always visit him and he entertains them. He claims to be a computer programmer, when he is actually a janitor. He claims to work nine to five, but actually works two jobs. He claims a salary of $2000 per month. Sammy is impressed. These are the last four lines:

After such a good ending, I hate to continue, but there must be some comment, and then conclusions. The final scene between Paul and Sammy contains a few terms of English besides those clauses I have already discussed and a few additional clauses. We encounter enjoy, mag-ingles ('speak English'), plastic plastic ('hypocritical'), parents, TV, apartment, restaurant, programmer, computer, computer company, demand, one month, and forty-thousand. Unlike previous scenes, where the Taglish was derived from the language of education and imperialism, these expressions are served up mostly by the domains of American commerce and leisure. The additional English clauses are "It's great to be independent over there," "Food is really cheap," "You think I would settle for a TV dinner? No way. I always want my food fresh. I really make time for cooking," and "I go to work from nine to five and I only work for five days a week," all spoken by Paul. These expressions and clauses appeared in a total of 52 lines. Sammy utters only one English expression (forty-thousand) in his 12 lines. Paul, the American Filipino, is the main exponent of English. There is no conflict in these conversations between Paul and Sammy, only Sammy's curiosity and Paul's defensive fabrications.

I found 49 usages of demonstratives in the transcript of Dreaming Filipinos. These included iyon (~yun~yon), iyan (~yan), ito (~to), niyan, and diyan. Thirty-one of the usages involved iyon. Contrary to the finding of Fincke (1996), I found that four were used where disagreement with a proposition was clear and 16 were used where there was contention sufficient to be regarded as lack of social accord. Only two usages occurred contexts of agreement and only 10 occurred in contexts of accord. Not unexpectedly, the vast majority (25/31) designated old or accessible information, though this was sometimes hard to judge. The vast majority (24/31) occurred as modifiers (ex. yung problema, assignment na yon). In all seven instances where iyon stood alone as a noun phrase it designated old information.

There were 15 usages of iyan in the transcript. As with iyon, the majority (8/14) occurred in contexts where social accord seemed lacking. Two showed disagreement with a proposition. Strikingly, 13 out of 15 designated old or accessible information. Eight occurred as modifiers. Six stood alone as noun phrases. Of the remaining demonstratives there were only 4 usages, all negative accord, old information, and occurring as noun phrases. In summary, in this transcript, there is no evidence that social accord determines the usage of distal versus medial demonstratives.

This paper has examined the grammar of conversations in the film Dreaming Filipinos. Most of these conversations involve Paul, a young man who tries to complete his paper on "What's wrong with the Filipino" so that he can go to America to join his parents. Paul belongs to a transnational family very much like hundreds of others whose members are dispersed between the Philippines and the U.S. The film raises a number of important issues: cultural imperialism by Americans and other foreigners, the acquiescence and even participation of Filipinos in the process, the failure of some Filipinos to lead productive lives, the problem of petty corruption, the antagonism between older Marcos nationalists and leftist or ideologically fickle youth, and the brain drain as educated youth emigrate to America.

The language of Dreaming Filipinos is marked by contention and code-switching, but these vary greatly with scene and context. Conversations between Paul and his Philippine history teacher (scenes 3, 15) were confrontational, but the teacher spoke only in English, while Paul spoke English at times and Tagalog at other times. Conversations between Paul and Sammy (6, 13) were also highly contentious, but not as extreme as those between Paul and his teacher. Sammy posed many of his challenges as questions, but as it became clear that Paul was going to go to America, he became insulting: "Sayang ka, sayang ka talaga." Paul's language seemed equally contentious, even disrespectful, often imputing unflattering personal motives to Sammy's position. Only in the final scene (17) of Paul's return did Sammy use solicitous language in conversation with Paul and only then did Paul use the polite form ho. Contentious conversations also appeared in scenes with Manny, with Paul's parents, and with Paul's girlfriend, but they were not so intense as those with Sammy. Only with Lolo were conversations non-contentious, but Lolo made firm demands on Paul's parents.

Code switching occurs both within and between sentences. Code mixing is also common, taking the form of verbal derivations and inflections on word roots borrowed from English. Most of the expressions used in intrasentential code-switching come from one of three semantic domains: imperialism, formal education, and consumerism. Education and imperialism provided the vast majority of the terms and these occurred mainly in Paul's conversations with Sammy (scene 6) and Sammy's monologue (scene 13). The language of consumerism appears mainly in scenes with and about Toni, the bored housewife, and in the final scene in which Paul describes his life in America. Intersentential code-switching occurred most frequently in the language of Toni. But Dreaming Filipinos also has a third, macro level of code-switching in which whole monologues or even scenes may be presented in English, as with the history teacher (scene 3) and in Paul's dream of his teacher as immigration officer (scene 14).

Direct characterizations of Filipinos in general and of individuals were common. Filipinos were described by various characters as gullible, easily flattered, easily intimidated, aimless, liars, traitors, as vindictive, stupid, and inconstant (balimbing), as meat that can be bought and sold, and often, as having shortcomings.

The film contains a lot of unflattering character description. Sammy self-identifies as a nationalist. Paul is characterized by Sammy as a yam, as lazy, all talk, lacking in commitment, and a waste. His schoolmate calls him a nerd. He self-identifies as an American and a metaphorical coconut. He admits he is not perfect. He characterizes his teacher as "bigger than water carabao dung" and a beast. Paul's teacher calls him an incompetent fraud. Sammy calls the teacher an "asshole". Paul characterizes Sammy as "the expert in the Filipino mentality" and Uncle Manny as stingy (kunat). Tony calls Manny a ladies' man. Paul calls Filipino-Americans hypocritical (plastic plastic), embarrassed, and subject to illusions. Surprisingly, Americans are not described, but they are lumped with foreigners who profit from writing bad things about Filipinos. America was depicted as a place full of consumer goods where the work hours are light (nine to five), the pay good, one's social life is active, and one can live a life of leisure and luxury.

Analysis of demonstratives uncovered no evidence that remote forms indicate social accord. Discord predominated in usages of both remote (iyon~yon~yun) and medial (iyan~yan) deictics. Both remote and medial demonstratives signified old or accessible information in the preponderance of usages. I could discern no pattern of usage of agentive (active) versus non-control (stative) verb affixes.

A previous analysis of the melodrama Sana'y Maulit Muli focused on emotion-language (Palmer n.d.a). It was found that most talk about emotions involved the use of non-control (static) forms in contexts that revealed lack of agency, but at critical moments speakers would recognize the need to take control of their lives and this was reflected in a flurry of agent-oriented (active) verb forms in the emotion language. Dreaming Filipinos was a different kind of film, a dramatization of the fissures and ruptures that cultural imperialism produces in Filipino society and families. By comparison to Sana'y Maulit Muli', there was little emotion language, but a great deal of contentious language and domain-oriented code-switching. What's wrong with Dreaming Filipinos? I find nothing wrong with it at all, but in any case, I have no authority to say.