(Re)classifying Bikol Languages
Critiques on the Three Language Classifications of Bikol
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.
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’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.
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
“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.
