(Re)classifying Bikol Languages - by Jerimah Cordial

 

(Re)classifying Bikol Languages

Critiques on the Three Language Classifications of Bikol

·by J. Cordial orginally posted Feb 23, 2025

Inthe home of the oragons lies a fascinating family with a complex structure.

Bikol Languages refer to a group of languages spoken primarily by more than 4.43 million speakers in the Bicol peninsula (figures date back from the 1990 census).

Like many Philippine languages, Bikol shares deep linguistic roots with other Austronesian languages, reflected in its cognates and etymological connections. However, Bikol is not a single language but a macrolanguage — an umbrella term encompassing 12 distinct languages and at least 24 different dialects and varieties.

Understanding the relationships between these languages allows us to trace their historical development and linguistic evolution. A systematic classification — much like a family tree — provides a clearer framework for analyzing their connections. But until today, the classification of Bikol languages remains a challenge. “How many languages in Bikol are there, exactly?” The answer depends.

Existing Classifications

Bikol languages has many classifications, the more popular of which is by Lobel (2000). But prior to Lobel, there were two other classifications made.

Let’s characterize each of them:

1. Ethnologue — Bikol has three language groups: (1) Coastal Bikol, (2) Inland Bikol, and (3) Northern Catanduanes.

Ethnologue, a comprehensive database of world languages published by SIL International, assigns each language a unique ISO 639–3 code for standardization. While its classifications are sometimes updated based on linguistic research, field studies, and contributions from linguists, many scholars criticize Ethnologue for being overly rigid or too reliant on ISO codes, which may not fully capture linguistic diversity.

Ethnologue’s classification follows a genealogical and linguistic relationship-based approach, meaning languages are grouped based on linguistic similarities rather than purely geographic factors.

Ethnologue Classification of Bikol Languages (Relationship-Based Approach)

Under this framework, Agta languages (i.e. Isarog Agta, Mount Iraya Agta, and Mount Iriga Agta) are classified as languages of their own. Additionally, Albay Bikol is recognized not as a single language with dialects but as a cluster of four closely related languages

2. McFarland (1974) — Bikol is only one language with four subgroups: (1) Northern Catanduanes, (2) Inland Bikol, (3) Coastal Bikol, and (4) Southern Bikol.

In his study, McFarland identified “eleven relatively well-defined dialect areas” within the Bikol language group. His classification was based on dialect boundaries determined through isogloss bundles — linguistic features that mark distinctions between dialects.

However, McFarland used the term “dialect” (not language) to refer to speech varieties that are not mutually intelligible, meaning some Bikol speakers from different areas may struggle to understand one another.

McFarland (1974) Classification of Bikol Languages (Isogloss-Based Approach)

McFarland’s classification is isogloss-based approach. An isogloss is a boundary that separates areas where people speak differently. When many of these boundaries overlap in the same region, they form an isogloss bundle, which marks a significant language or dialect difference. Notice the numbers in the classification framework that indicates how many number of isoglosses occur in each bundle.

McFarland’s classification was the first to apply the term “dialect areas” to Bikol languages, supporting the concept of a dialect continuum. He observed that some varieties did not fit neatly into a single category, suggesting that Bikol dialects exist along a linguistic spectrum rather than within rigid classifications.

Additionally, McFarland separated Southern Bikol subgroup from Bikol languages due to high number of isogloss and strong Bisayan influences.

3. Lobel (2000) — Bikol has 4 languages: (1) Northern Coastal Bikol, (2) Southern Coastal & Inland Bikol, (3) Northern Catanduanes, and (4) Bisakol.

Lobel’s (2000) classification of Bikol languages is distinct in several ways, particularly in how it groups languages based on linguistic similarities while considering geography and historical migration patterns that have shaped language variation in the region.

In this classification, Lobel is one of the first to formally classify Bisakol (a mix of Bikol and Bisayan elements) as a distinct language. Ethnologue and McFarland (1974) did not include this because they they exhibit Bisayan phonological and lexical influences.

Lobel’s classification also refined McFarland’s framework, introducing a clearer distinction on Northern Coastal Bikol versus Southern Coastal & Inland Bikol, which McFarland did not explicitly separate.

Lobel (2000) Classification of Bikol Languages (Intelligibility-Based)

A major critique of Lobel’s classification is that he treats broad language groupings as separate languages, even though they clearly have multiple unintelligible languages each.

For instance, Lobel classified Buhinon as a dialect within Southern Coastal & Inland Bikol, but it is now recognized as a distinct language of its own.

Unlike McFarland, who focused on isoglosses, Lobel relies primarily on mutual intelligibility to determine language boundaries, maximizing on Swadesh list to measure lexical similarity by comparing basic vocabulary words across languages.

However, this approach can sometimes be subjective — mutual intelligibility varies based on exposure, context, and individual speakers’ familiarity with neighboring varieties, which can risk over-fragmentation of Bikol languages. Two languages may have a high lexical similarity but still be difficult to understand due to differences in pronunciation, grammar, or usage.

Another major issue with Lobel’s classification is his use of exonyms — language names that are externally assigned rather than locally recognized. Terms such as “Bisakol” and “Central Standard” are not commonly used by native speakers, making his framework more externally imposed.

Because of this, Lobel’s classification risks misrepresenting local linguistic identities, as many Bikol speakers do not necessarily recognize or accept these imposed labels.

Summary

A Summary of Bikol Language Classification

“How many languages in Bikol are there, exactly?” can never be determined with inconsistent data. Since these classifications are outdated, there is a need to reclassify Bikol languages. A clearer and updated classification not only aids linguistic research but also supports cultural preservation, education, and policy-making.

Personal Effort to Reclassify

Currently, I am reclassifying the Bikol languages to refine Lobel’s (2000) earlier work. In my framework, Bikol languages will be categorized into four language groups: Northern Coastal Bikol (NCos), Southern Coastal & Inland Bikol (SCI), Northern Catanduanes Bikol (NCat), and Central Sorsogon Bikol (CSor).

Lobel’s (2000) twelve identified “dialects” will be reclassified as distinct languages, except for Partido and Libon, which will remain dialects due to their high mutual intelligibility. Additionally, the Agta languages will be incorporated into this classification: Isarog Agta (NCos), Mount Iraya Agta (NCos), and Mount Iriga Agta (SCI).

Furthermore, Bisayan languages will be separated from Bikol languages in this framework. As a result, Southern Sorsogon (renamed Gubatnon) and Masbateño (renamed Minasbate) will no longer be classified among the Bikol languages. Tigaonon will also be recognized as a separate language.

This classification is based on a redefined concept of intelligibility within a community-centered framework, ensuring that linguistic distinctions align with how speakers themselves identify their languages. This will take a while, but it’s a step.

The Need for Reclassification

Language classification must evolve alongside linguistic and socio-cultural changes. The three classifications of Bikol languages are now outdated and require revision and, while their studies remain valuable, these frameworks no longer fully capture the region’s linguistic realities. We must also consider the policies of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), which officially recognized Rinconada and Buhinon as languages — contrary to Lobel’s (2000) classification of them as mere dialects.

One of the primary issues with past classifications is their rigidity in defining linguistic boundaries. Their inconsistencies highlight the need for a classification system that better reflects the continuum of Bikol language varieties. Terminology also requires reassessment. The term Bisakol, describing the mix of Bisayan and Bikol, is not recognized by native speakers. Moreover, given its strong Bisayan influence, Bisakol’s classification as a Bikol language should be reconsidered rather than applying artificial categories.

Reclassifying the Bikol languages is essential for a more accurate and inclusive framework that reflects recent linguistic developments and cultural identities. Just like any modern family, we need to consider who still belongs and who has moved out of the house to form a separate family of their own.

Family trees are always updated, and the same should be true for the classifications of our languages.

Yaon naman kami Ama sa paghagad nin proteksyon asin bendisyon sa gabos niamong mga gigibuhon, lugod magin tama an samuyang dalan na padudumanan.

Amen.

Dont Fix whats not broken to begin with. Bihira ako mag state ng opinion kasi ayoko ng biased. Hindi naman ako gaya nung Canadian na stalker para ipilit ung point of view nya sa mga tao at Manirang puri para sa clout chase, kidding aside. Ang ganda kaya ng Mayon kahit walang ilaw ilaw

 Grabeh Mayon Volcano lalagyan daw ng ilaw ilaw... 

Sinaunang Mayon

 

Mayon eruption in 1814 —IMAGE COURTESY OF CARLOS MADRID/INSTITUTO CERVANTES DE MANILA

An ancient illustration of the eruption of Mayon volcano in 1814 that wiped out the village of Cagsawa and buried 1,200 villagers should powerfully underscore the history of disastrous eruptions of the world’s most perfectly coned volcano.

The 1814 eruption of Mayon Volcano devastated Cagsawa, burying 1,200 villagers. An illustration from Franciscan archives in Spain, featured in historian Carlos Madrid’s monograph Seraphico, depicts the disaster as seen from Daraga. Created 15 years after the event, it served as both a historical record and a geographical reference for the affected areas. The eruption destroyed several villages, forcing survivors to relocate, though some eventually returned. Cagsawa was never rebuilt, and its church ruins remain a tourist attraction. The illustration and other historical documents are available for research at Casa Azul, a program by Instituto Cervantes.

Read more: http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/.../19th-century.../...

Pag ku-kwento

  

Sa Pilipinas buhay na buhay ang pag k kwento at kwentong pasa pasa o oral mythology maging sa makabagong panahon. Mga kwento ng Filipino, mitolohiya at mga kwentong bayan na ang agos ay binubuhay at pinapalakas ng mga story tellers at narrator . Lahat ng klase ng tao nakikinig ng kwento  mula sa mga atla de sosyedad, mga professionals, mga normal na estudyante at maging sa mga mangagawa, magsasaka nakikinig. Sa palengke, sa Bus at maging sa personal na pakikinig sa mobile phones. Ang pakikinig at pag k kwento Parte ito ng kultura ng mga Filipino. Maging sa ibang bansa, mga partition ng mga OFW nakikinig ng sama sama. Mga ibang Nurses abroad at mga migrante na nakikinig. Ang mga kwentong ito nagbibigay ng entertaiment, tuwa, takot at maging magandang aral.

Madalas kalabanin at maliitin ng iilang mga Filipino born and raised abroad ang pag kw kwento, dahil narin siguro pinalaki silang hindi mulat sa tunay na wika at kultura ng mga Filipino. Sobrang detach sila na di nila alam ung Good Morals and Right Conduct na napupulot sa mga kwento. Paggalang sa nakakatanda, importansya sa pamilya, pag-ibig, kabaitan at respeto sa kapwa. Kapupulutan ng excitment at Aral. Kabutihang ng loob, pakikipag kapwa tao, bayanihan. atibp

Mahirap ipaliwanag sa hindi Pilipino bakit buhay na buhay ang pag k kwento sa makabagong panahon. Ang mga kwentong ito pinagbubuklod ang mga Filipino, magkakaiba pero pag nakikinig ng kwento lahat magkakasama kahit magkakalayo, lahat pantay pantay. 

Ang mga storya at kwento para sa lahat, sharing is caring ika nga. pinag bubuklod ang mga tao. 

Isang taas kamaong pagpupugay sa mga Story tellers and Narrators at dubbers. Maraming Salamat sa mga Story teller, kayo ang nagbibigay buhay sa mga kwento ng mga Filipino sa makabagong panahon. 

Tara makinig tayo. Solid ka Yanggaw ako eh.

          

REMINDER

Mga kwentong Pilipino at pagkukwento ay para sa lahat...

Reminder

Avoiding Foreign Manipulation: Weaponizing myths and stories and using them as an excuse to attack, harass and even stalk storytellers or communities risks distorting their purpose. Myths are meant to unify, educate, or entertain, not to create division or hostility among Filipinos.

Filipino mythology belongs to everyone—Filipinos, Filipinix, and even foreigners. These stories are meant to unite, inspire hope, and empower. They are for all, ever-evolving yet forever a cultural treasure.

Both oral and written mythology in the Philippines are valid because they serve different but equally important roles in preserving Filipino heritage. What is truly harmful is when foreigners manipulate these discussions for personal gain, attempting to invalidate one aspect of Filipino mythology to cause division. Instead of falling for such tactics, Filipinos should embrace the richness and diversity of their own stories, ensuring that both oral and written traditions continue to thrive.

Orally transmitted stories undergo variations and evolve over time, resulting in numerous different versions. There are many different version told by Filipinos, and retold by Filipinos.

The orally transmitted mythology of the Philippines is intended for sharing and understanding. It is a dynamic narrative tradition that evolves over time, distinct from the standardized mythologies found in Western and European cultures. Unlike these established mythologies, the Philippine government has not mandated standardized versions of stories and legends.

Orally transmitted stories undergo variations and evolve over time, resulting in numerous different versions. There are many different version told by Filipinos, and retold by Filipinos.