This paper provides a framework for designing a local-variety-based pedagogic model for teaching English grammar and a specific case in which the frameWork ma Ee applied ± something that is missing in the literature as far as teaching English grammar endonormative is concerned. Put more succinctly, this paper endeavors to offer a general blueprint for designing a Philippine-English-based pedagogic model for teaching grammar. While World Englishes (WE) and Philippine English (PhE) studies provide sound ideological and philosophical positions and propose the advancement of local varieties to a formal pedagogical agenda, it appears that literature on the actual or physical design of an endonormative pedagogic model remains scant or inadequate. It seems that both in international and local stadia, there is paucity, if not only a small amount of substantial information is available, on the evolution and effective implementation of a homegrown model of teaching English and how the test of “pedagogic acceptability” is applied to a local norm.
Keywords: Endonormative pedagogic model, Philippine English, World EnglishesAlonsagay, I., & Nolasco, J. (2010). Adversativity and the get-passive in Philippine and British English: A corpus-based contrastive study. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 41, 1-13.
Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1-14.
Banjo, A. (1993). An endonormative model for the teaching of English language in Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 261-275.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2000a). `Defining stanGarG philippine (English ,its status and grammatical features. Manila: De la Salle University Press.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2000b). The grammatical features of educated Philippine English. In M.L.S.
Bautista, T. Llamson, & B. Sibayan (Eds.), Parangal Cang Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday (pp. 146-158). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2000c). Studies of Philippine English in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 39-65.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2001a). Studies of Philippine English: Implications for English language teaching in the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2(2), 271-295.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2001b). Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading Philippine universities towards Philippine English. Asian Englishes, 4(1), 4-32.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2003). The new Englishes and the teaching of grammar. In J.E. James (Ed.), Grammar in the language classroom: Changing approaches and practices (pp. 62-90). Anthology Series 43. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2004). The verb in Philippine English: A preliminary analysis of the modal would. In M.L.S.
Bautista, & K. Bolton (Eds.), World Englishes, 23(1), 113-128.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2008). Investigating the grammatical features of Philippine English. In M.L.S.
Bautista, & K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp. 201-218). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2011a). Studies of Philippine English. Exploring the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English. Manila: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2011b). Introducing the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English circa 2010. In M.L.S.
Bautista (Ed.), Studies of Philippine English (pp. 3-22). Manila: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Benson, J., & Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(12), 789-800.
Bernardo, A.S. (2011). De-hegemonizing the hegemonized: An exploratory study on the dominion of American English in the oldest University in Asia. imanager’s Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(3), 1-23.
Bernardo, A.S. (2013).Toward an endonormative pedagogic model in the teaching of English grammar in Philippine Higher Education Institutions. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Santo Tomas, Manila.
Biber, D. et al. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Bolton, K., & Bautista, M.L.S. (2008). Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Bolton, K., & Butler, S. (2008). Lexicography and the description of Philippine English vocabulary. In M.L.S Bautista, & K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp. 175-200). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Borlongan, A.M. (2008). Tag questions in Philippine English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39(1-2), 109-34. Borlongan, A.M. (2009). A survey on language use, attitudes, and identity in relation to Philippine English among young generation Filipinos: An initial sample from a private university. The Philippine ESL Journal, 3, 74-107.
Borlongan, A.M. (2011a). The grammar of the verb in Philippine English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila.
Borlongan, A.M. (2011b).The preparation and writing of a grammar of the verb in PhilippineEnglish and the teaching of the English verb system in Philippine schools. Philippine ESL Journal, 7, 120-123.
Bratt, S.E. (2009). Development of an instrument to assess pedagogical utility in e-learning systems. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. CCC, 57(4), 586-619.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dayag, D.T. (2010). Philippine English and college textbooks in oral communication: Exploring the link between the World Englishes paradigm and L2 pedagogy. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 41, 63-75. Espinosa, D. (1997). English in the Philippines. Global issues in language education (Language Institute of Japan) (26): 9. Retrieved from http://jalt.org/global/26Phil.htm
Gill, S.K. (1993). Standards and pedagogical norms for teaching English in Malaysia. World Englishes, 12(2), 223-38.
Gonzalez, A. (1983). When does an error become a feature of Philippine English? In R. Noss (Ed.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia. Anthology Series No. 11. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 150-72.
Gonzalez, A. (1997). The history of English in the Philippines. In M.L.S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context (pp. 25-40). Australia: The Macquarie Library Pty., Ltd.
He, D., & Li, D. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the China English debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70-89.
Hung, T. (2009). Hong Kong English or language error? Message posted to Language Learning Forum of Language Centre of HKBU. Retrieved from http://lc.hkbu.edu. hksallforumforumdispla php"fd
Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (2006). World Englishes in Asian context. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kaushik, S. (2011). Teaching English in Indian contexts: Toward a pedagogic model. World Englishes, 30(1), 141-150.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes. Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2008). Theoretical issues. In A. Hashim, & L.E. Ling (Eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Llamzon, T. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Matsuda, A. (2002). Representation of users and uses of English in beginning Japanese EFL textbooks. JALT Journal, 24(2), 80-98.
Matsuda, A. (2003). The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools. World Englishes, 22(4), 483-496.
Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), 332-344.
McKaughan, H. (1993). Toward standard Philippine English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 41-55. Paine, M. (2010). Standard vs. non-standard Englishes: Which model are we teaching and why? Retrieved from http://www.eilj.com/Thesis-Paine.pdf
Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Schneider, E.W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233-281.
Schneider, E.W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Trenkic, D. (2009). Accounting for patterns of article omissions and substitutions in second language production. In M.G. Mayo, & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second language production in M.G. Mayo, & R. Hawkins (Eds), Second Language acquisition of article: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 115- 146). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tupas, T.R.F. (2006). Standard Englishes, pedagogical paradigms and their conditions of (im) possibility. In R. Rubdy, & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 169-185). London: Continuum Press.
Uittamo, H. (2009). Global English: Varieties of English in textbooks. (Unpublished thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Department of Languages.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377-388.