1.1 Biases in Philippine English Studies

“In order to understand social life in the twenty-first century,” Blackledge and Creese (Reference Blackledge, Creese and Canagarajah2017) write, “we need to understand mobility, and understanding mobility requires attention to the movement of linguistic and other semiotic resources” (p. 31). They urge us to seriously consider the realities of everyday social contexts, where communication does not always occur through language practices neatly delineated by geographically bounded territories. Rather, linguistic practices today are shaped by transnational flows (Bolander, Reference Brook, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) and diasporic communities (Zipp, Reference Zipp, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020), among others, that blur conventional boundaries. In this Element, I attempt to offer a more multifaceted understanding of the complex everyday realities of Philippine Englishes (PhEs) – a nomenclature that encompasses diverse substrate-influenced regional, social, and hybrid varieties of English across the Philippines (Gonzales, Reference Gonzales2017) – within the purview of mobility.

In sociolinguistics, mobility generally refers to the dynamic movement and circulation of people, linguistic resources, practices, and ideologies across geographic, social, cultural, digital, and political spaces (Blackledge & Creese, Reference Blackledge, Creese and Canagarajah2017; Blommaert, Reference Blommaert2010; Canagarajah, Reference Canagarajah2017). This movement enables motion, as one can be in motion only if they have the capacity to move. Mobility has three characteristics: (1) linguistic, referring to how languages travel, spread, and adapt across borders; (2) discursive, concerning the movement of texts, symbols, and ideologies; and (3) sociolinguistic consequences, such as multilingualism, identity negotiation, language contact, and the emergence of hybrid varieties. Within these characteristics, ordinariness and unexpectedness (Heller, Reference Heller and Heller2007a; Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2012) become central concerns because mobility inherently brings complexity and unpredictability, with language shifting from stable systems to resources in constant motion. At the same time, the complex and unpredictable nature of language mobility is not exceptional but rather ordinary.

In the relevant literature, human mobility has different types, ranging from overseas tourism, study abroad experiences, trade, and commerce, to labor migration (Johnstone & Pollack, Reference Johnstone and Pollak2016). These types vary significantly in their sociolinguistic consequences owing to many factors such as geography, demographics, and so on (Starr, Reference Starr and Onysko2021). In the context of mobility, languages are unbound. When people move across borders, they are taking their languages with them. Their languages and other linguistic resources flow across time and space, unrestrained from an imposed structure (Canagarajah, Reference Canagarajah2017). They can be appropriated by people at a specific time and place for meaning-making purposes. In this sense, languages are regarded as “mobile resources” (Blommaert, Reference Blommaert2010) for the construction of meanings and negotiation of identities and relationships.

Mobility is not new in the field of World Englishes (WE). For instance, in the Bloomsbury World Englishes Volume 1: Paradigms (Schneider & Heyd, Reference Schneider and Heyd2021), there are sections devoted to post-national framings and transnational ties. The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes (Schreier et al., Reference Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) also stands out for including three chapters that address topics closely related to mobility: Zipp (Reference Zipp, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) discusses how English is used in migrant and diasporic communities; Fox (Reference Fox, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) highlights that the mobility of English is always situated within multilingual settings; and Bolander (Reference Brook, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) explores how English operates in transnational contexts, emphasizing its role in global mobility and interactions across borders.

This Element seeks to contribute to the ongoing conversations by considering mobility as a process that shapes PhEs through the following mechanisms:

1. (1) Labor Migration – A type of human mobility that is intensified by globalization is labor migration. In a globalized economy, talented people, often from developing countries, move across borders to work for industries in developed countries, thereby contributing to global and local economies. As workers from diverse backgrounds cooperate in shared workplaces, language becomes important in this domain. Moreover, language is an important form of human capital in labor migration (Piller & Lising, Reference Piller and Lising2014). This importance is manifested, for instance, in language policies that are implemented in educational systems by governments to regulate, manage, and calibrate the increasing global flows of workers to and from their borders (Lorente, Reference Lorente and Canagarajah2017).

2. (2) Multilingualism – In conditions where a large number of people migrate to work across myriad borders, multilingualism is the norm (Blackledge & Creese, Reference Blackledge and Creese2014). Migrant workers adopt and adapt their English – one of the most dominant languages in a globalized workforce – and other languages in their repertoire to engage with diverse communities in host countries; henceforth, languages are influencing one another. Language contact within the context of “transnational multilingualism” (Heller, Reference Heller, Auer and Wei2007b) can occur at two levels. The first is the international level, where speakers of different nationalities use English as a lingua franca (e.g., a Filipino nurse and a German patient at a hospital in Ireland). The second level is the intranational, where speakers of the same nationality communicate in English and their home languages (e.g., a Filipino engineer and a Filipino priest at a Catholic church in Indonesia). Both levels involve a heterogenous array of linguistic processes with outcomes that are largely unpredictable.

3. (3) Transnationalism – Language has an important role in the establishment of nation-states. Oftentimes, the population of a nation-state is assumed to speak a single language, which serves as the national or official language, and a carrier of the ethnic/national culture, history, and collective values, as well as serving as the foundation for the government of the state. However, in the context of globalization where international organizations and corporations operate on an international scale, the idea of a nation-state has become more and more complicated. This complication emerges from the phenomenon of transnationalism, the idea that refers to the complex connections across national borders that are facilitated by the cross-boundary flows of people, products, and ideas (Basch et al., Reference Basch, Schiller and Blanc1994). The exponential growth of transnationalism in our globalizing world is seen as weakening the nation-state. While the modern nation-state was burrowed into the complex interface of territory, ethnicity, and language, the increasing rate of the cross-border flows of people, products, and ideas significantly challenges this interface (Brook, Reference Brook, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020; Park & Wee, Reference Park and Wee2009).

To be able to comprehend PhEs through the lens of mobility, there is certainly a need first to take stock of its past and present state. In 1969, the linguist Teodoro A. Llamzon wrote the monograph, Standard Filipino English, which presents evidence that the spoken English of educated Filipinos has acquired distinct forms and functions that are intelligible to other educated Filipinos and traditional “native speakers” of English. He pointed out the emergence of a Filipino variety of English that was systematic and rule-governed, a claim that was highly controversial at that time. However, Hidalgo (Reference Hidalgo1970) argued, among other things, that Llamzon’s criteria for selecting “educated Filipino” participants lacked scientific rigor. Criticisms aside, Llamzon’s (Reference Llamzon1969) study is considered groundbreaking in that it is the first to identify English in the Philippines as a variety, consequently establishing a clearing ground for fellow linguist Andrew Gonzalez (Reference Gonzalez1972) to rename the variety from “Standard Filipino English” to “Philippine English.”

Since Llamzon’s (Reference Llamzon1969) precedent-setting study, researchers have embraced a plethora of approaches which, to adapt Bolton’s (Reference Bolton, Schneider and Heyd2021) taxonomy of WE approaches, include English studies, corpus linguistics, features-based studies, the sociology of language, Kachruvian studies, applied linguistics, lexicography, literary studies, and critical studies, All these approaches, along with representative studies for each approach, are synthesized in Table 1.

Table 1 suggests the breadth of approaches that research on PhEs has accumulated. This breadth is supported by a robust body of literature, as demonstrated in two of the most recent works on PhEs. The first is the special issue on PhEs in the World Englishes journal, edited by Martin and Cruz (Reference Martin and Cruz2024). The second is a volume on the development, structure, and sociology of PhEs, edited by Borlongan (Reference Borlongan2023). Both works demonstrate the comprehensiveness of PhEs research. It is likely accurate to assert that PhEs are one of the most thoroughly researched postcolonial varieties of English (Tay, Reference Tay and Cheshire1991), consistently strengthening its disciplinary credentials through sustained scholarly attention.

The notion of mobility foregrounds the national bias that has shaped much of the scholarship on PhEs. A closer reflection reveals that the field has dominantly drawn on notions that tend to be understood from a nation-state perspective. Mair (Reference Mair, Schneider and Heyd2021) calls this perspective explicitly the “national bias” (p. 29) in WE research. The national bias is a spin-off from the idea of “methodological nationalism,” an assumption that “national social units represent the ‘natural’ order of the world, which involves taking these social units as a priori in the methodologies of scientific research” (Schneider, Reference Schneider2019, p. 3). The disciplines of social sciences, including linguistics and sociolinguistics, of which WE is a subfield, have been framed in methodological nationalism by presuming that the world is ordered along national categories, with such categories geographically imagined in locatable territories (Cresswell, Reference Cresswell2006; Schneider, Reference Schneider2019).

The national bias in PhEs studies carries the problematic assumption that language variation is exclusively territorial in that it occurs among Filipino speakers of English within the Philippines. This is not always the case, however, as variation can cut across national boundaries (Mair, Reference Mair, Schneider and Heyd2021; McArthur, Reference McArthur2003; Mesthrie & Bhatt, Reference Mesthrie and Bhat2008). Consider, for instance, the simplification of word-final consonant clusters, which, according to Gardiner and Deterding (Reference Gardiner, Deterding, Bolton, Botha and Kirkpatrick2020), is a phonological feature of both PhE and Indian English. Variations in PhEs, in other words, might be as typical of other varieties. Thus, the significance of national boundaries in the framing of PhEs is questionable considering that there are “interactions across Englishes” (Meierkord, Reference Meierkord2012) in circumstances where “natural” links between languages and their territories are weak due to the global flows of linguistic resources, such as migration and the Internet.

Another bias in the study of PhEs is the monolingual one. This bias is deep-seated in the corpus linguistics-based approach to PhEs. Both Mair (Reference Mair, Schneider and Heyd2021) and Lising (Reference Lising and Borlongan2023) criticize this monolingual proclivity, which is built into the design of established corpora such as the International Corpus of English (ICE), on which many studies about the development of standard or educated PhE rely. The guidelines for spoken ICE corpora require compilers to consider monolingual English data. Traces of non-English languages should be tagged as <indig> for “indigenous.” This methodological regulation indubitably suggests that corpus-based PhE studies have “purified” the data toward monolingualism (Lising, Reference Lising and Borlongan2023; Mair, Reference Mair, Schneider and Heyd2021).

PhEs culled from contrived monolingual corpus-based data are extremely difficult to uphold in theory and practice. Typically, natural conversations among Filipinos are in translingual fashion, most commonly realized as Taglish (the mixing of Tagalog and English), which Thompson (Reference Thompson2003) identifies as an unmarked communicative practice. Depending on educational background and social class status, Filipinos routinely draw on one or more Indigenous languages alongside varying amounts of English. For instance, when catching up with my family through Facebook Messenger, I shuttle between PhEs, colloquial Tagalog, and a swathe of emojis. A monolingual way of studying PhEs is also an anomaly considering that English coexists with what Ethnologue (Reference Ethnologue2025) counts as 175 Indigenous and nine non-Indigenous living languages in the archipelago. Theoretically, this coexistence signifies that the status, functions, and variations of PhEs are influenced and shaped by a highly multilingual ecology.

This is not to overlook the important contributions of corpus-based studies to PhEs. Much of what we know about its grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation comes from detailed analyses of monolingual data in large corpora. However, what I seek to foreground in this Element is the necessity of complementing such approaches with perspectives that reflect the fluid and often multilingual nature of everyday language use among Filipinos, especially those in diasporic contexts. Corpus-based research is useful, but it often falls short of capturing the textured, mobile, and hybrid communicative practices that characterize speech in real-life interactions. Hence, this Element proposes a repositioning – toward approaches that can better accommodate the realities of linguistic diversity and mobility.

Now, what can we do to address the national and monolingual biases in PhEs studies? On theoretical and methodological grounds, this is an important question to raise because viewing PhEs along national and monolingual lines, as I have previously explained, does not fully capture the complexity and dynamism of PhEs and its speakers.

I propose to approach these increasing complexities and continuing dynamism as Philippine Englishes-in-motion, an echoing of Blommaert’s (Reference Blommaert2010) “language-in-motion” that assumes the mobility of language resources in transnational contexts. “Language-in-motion” is a conceptual departure from “language-in-place” that, on the other hand, assumes languages in a fixed and stable space (Blommaert, Reference Blommaert2010). The core assumption of Philippine Englishes-in-motion is as follows: The mobility of Filipinos across transnational spaces involves the movement of PhEs and other communicative resources (such as Indigenous languages, registers, and sociolects) within their multilingual repertoire. The usage patterns of speakers of PhEs interact with the linguistic resources of other interlocutors from diverse communities, potentially resulting in a wide range of linguistic and sociolinguistic outcomes.

Philippine Englishes-in-motion is both an analytical approach and as a way of referring to varieties of English mobilized by Filipinos in transnational spaces. As an approach, Philippine Englishes-in-motion allows for the analysis of PhEs not as a national variety but as a range of communicative practices that are constantly being shaped by processes involving labor migration, multilingual interactions, and transnationalism. At the same time, as a descriptor of varieties, Philippine Englishes-in-motion refers to evolving varieties of English used by Filipinos across global diasporic contexts. This dual conceptualization is intentional and essential, allowing for a more complex understanding of PhEs – one that avoids the limitations of nation-state and monolingual framings.

The notion of Philippine Englishes-in-motion that I am propositioning here is, in fact, long overdue. As will be discussed in Section 2, the Philippine government, under the rule of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., formalized overseas labor migration in 1970. Initially, labor migration was viewed as a temporary response to the growing social and economic challenges of the time. However, as the remittances sent by overseas Filipino workers helped stabilize the struggling Philippine economy, the government chose to make it a permanent policy and practice. Since then, state-sponsored migration has grown significantly, with Filipino migrant workers now spread across nearly 100 countries (Tyner, Reference Tyner2004). Considering this long and enduring history of the Filipino diaspora, it is about time that we study the development of PhEs beyond the nation-state. What has not been studied in depth yet is the dispersion and development of PhEs that have been opened up through the export of labor – one of the many aspects of globalization. PhEs in relation to globalization-induced labor migration evade descriptions within Kachru’s (Reference Kachru1982) “Three Circles Model,” leading to the repositioning of PhEs within the remit of the “sociolinguistics of globalization” (Blommaert, Reference Blommaert2010).

The need to study PhEs from a transnational perspective, specifically in the labor migration context, has been articulated by Schneider (Reference Schneider and Borlongan2023) in his statement:

Schneider’s (Reference Schneider and Borlongan2023) observation about the lack of scholarly inquiry into PhEs in the context of labor migration is on point. So far, there are three publications along this line of inquiry, and they are the following:

1. (1) Leung (Reference Leung2012) compares kindergarteners and secondary school students in Hong Kong who have had Filipino maids with those who have not, in order to probe the impact of exposure to PhE. One major finding is that children with Filipino maids outperformed those without such exposure on listening tasks involving American English, British English, and Hong Kong English. They also performed well on stimuli spoken in PhE.

2. (2) Starr et al., (Reference Starr, Theng and Wong2017) investigate the development of sociolinguistic knowledge among local and expatriate children in Singapore. They find no correlation between having a Filipino maid and children’s ability to identify PhE and other English varieties. All local children, regardless of whether or not they have Filipino maids at home, are found to be skilled at identifying PhE due to the fact that Filipino workers have a visible presence in the service sector and other areas of the labor market in Singapore.

3. (3) Lorente (Reference Lorente2018) looks at how Filipino maids in Singapore use language resources to negotiate their roles as well as navigate their way through a cross-cultural employer-employee relationship. From the interviews, she finds that they juggle three varieties: (1) PhEs, which Filipino maids are proud of because they approximate standard American English, (2) Singapore English, which they consider incomprehensible and undesirable, and (3) American English, which they aspire to be proficient in because they think it would increase their chances of moving from Singapore to Canada. Overall, the findings reveal a transnational system that is built on inequalities of English, class, gender, and race.

These studies offer useful insights into PhEs when they travel across transnational borders, specifically in countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, where English is a linguistic capital. They also help us understand how English is inextricably woven with the material and social lives of Filipino domestic workers. In broad strokes, this Element shares some resemblance to these studies. It is similar to Leung (Reference Leung2012) and Starr et al., (Reference Starr, Theng and Wong2017) in that it explains the sociolinguistic consequences of deterritorialized PhEs on individual and societal levels. Furthermore, it is similar to Lorente (Reference Lorente2018) in terms of rendering attention to power and inequality.

While this Element builds on the groundwork that these studies have already laid, it differs from them in some aspects. First, this Element follows what Mufwene (Reference Mufwene2001) calls a “feature pool” to describe the linguistic selection processes that are involved when variable features of PhEs are in contact with other languages spoken by Filipino migrants and non-Filipinos in Japan, a country that has a long history of importing Filipino workers. Such processes transpire at the levels of phonology, lexicon, grammar, and discourse in their “everydayness” (de Certeau, Reference de Certeau1984). By everydayness, I take into account communicative practices of PhEs in various settings (e.g., workplace, place of worship, and supermarket), and different interlocutors (e.g., coworkers, family members, and friends). The reason for this is that Filipino migrants are not just human bodies within the confines of the workplace. They can be members of a religious organization, supporters of a political group, nongovernment organization volunteers, husbands or wives of a Japanese national, parents, and so on. How and why they use PhEs must be understood in relation to mobile and multiple roles, connections, trajectories, and pathways that define their daily experiences.

There is also a difference in terms of the representation of speakers of PhEs. While past studies concentrate on Filipino domestic workers, this Element, on the other hand, presents Filipino migrants from diverse backgrounds. As will be described in Section 3, the cohort of participants in my study is heterogenous with regard to occupation, age, gender, place of residence in Japan, language repertoire, and ethnolinguistic membership. This heterogeneity mirrors the contemporary Philippine migration in Japan, from privileged expatriates to those with precarious social and economic prospects. In addition, this attention given to diversifying the representative profile of Filipino migrant workers is meant to break tendencies of stereotyping, homogenizing, and essentializing them. Filipino migrants are a polyphony of elite and less elite residents. They are as diverse as the linguistic resources they bring with them to other countries. They differ substantially in their histories with and use of English. They have motivations that are not static and given. Just how diverse or varied Filipino migrant workers are is aptly illustrated by Faist (Reference Faist2000), who said that migrants’ lives:

Another aspect that sets apart this Element from previous studies is its unpacking of global and local factors that influence the evolution of PhEs beyond national borders. In this sense, Buschfeld and Kautzsch’s (Reference Buschfeld and Kautzsch2020) “Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces Model” covers the ground for transnational PhEs as it provides a lens that examines the different external and internal factors at work in the entrenchment and development of PhEs in Japan. As will be explained in Section 6, some of these factors have to do with demographics, labor migration policies, English-oriented schooling, and many others.

Guided by concerns of mobility and its entanglements with migration, multilingualism, and transnationalism, this Element will focus on the following key points:

1. (1) PhEs scholarship has traditionally been influenced by monolingual and national biases. For this reason, it is imperative to examine PhEs through the lenses of mobility, labor migration, multilingualism, and transnationalism, taking into account the multilingual competencies and dispositions of Filipinos dispersed across Japan.

2. (2) In Japan, PhEs interact not only with other varieties of English but also with non-English languages, leading to complex and dynamic linguistic selections (Section 4).

3. (3) The mobility of PhEs across Japan involves movement across orders of positioning (Section 5). Filipino migrants actively mobilize their linguistic resources to navigate diverse communicative needs and audiences, shaping their roles and positions in the spaces they occupy.

4. (4) Both external and internal factors influence the spread and evolution of PhEs in Japan, indicating that their mobility is not a neutral process (Section 6).

What, exactly, might we accomplish if we seriously consider PhEs in light of the concerns raised in these key points? In Section 1.2, I will specifically discuss how studying PhEs in Japan can offer, among other insights, a perspective that nuances widely held beliefs about English in Japan.

Before progressing to the next section, I find it important to acknowledge that I bring my own biases and subjectivities into the writing of this Element. As a Filipino migrant for more than a decade, I have personally witnessed how PhEs circulate across different spaces – from workplaces and social interactions to online communities – and how these dynamics are far from neutral. Having lived and worked in Japan for many years, I have been able to witness how PhEs are not a static linguistic form, but rather a dynamic resource that adapts and shifts according to context. In my interactions with kababayans (fellow Filipinos), non-Filipinos, and people from diverse backgrounds, I have seen how PhEs enhance communication, bridge cultural divides, and play a role in the negotiation of identities within a multilingual environment. My dual perspective (as both an insider and an observer) allows me to explore the nuances of PhEs in Japan.

I also recognize that my position as a university professor affords me privileges not shared by all Filipino migrants in Japan. I have gainful employment, in contrast to those with precarious working conditions. I am also mindful of the power dynamics at play in my interactions with the research participants, aware that my identity as an academic (a position of relative privilege within Japanese society) may influence the ways I shape my relationships with them and how they communicate their everyday linguistic practices to me.

While my academic position offers me certain affordances not accessible to many of the Filipino migrants I have engaged with, I do not claim to speak for them or to encapsulate the full range of migrant experiences. Instead, I aim to amplify the linguistic practices that Filipino migrants themselves enact and negotiate in their everyday lives. The insights offered in this Element are therefore shaped not solely by my own interpretations, but also by the recorded interactions, linguistic choices, and metacommentaries of the participants. In this way, I strive to balance my interpretive lens with a commitment to representing the complexity and heterogeneity of migrant voices, without reducing them to a singular narrative.

By making my positionality explicit, I hope to provide readers of this Element with a clearer understanding of the lenses through which I interpret the data, thereby offering greater context to the research findings. I approach my work with a reflexive mindset, and through this, I invite readers to engage with, critique, and build upon this Element from diverse perspectives, contributing to more complex conversations about PhEs.

1.2 Philippine Englishes in Japan

Filipinos in Japan are both multilingual and diglossic. They commonly speak Filipino, Japanese, English, and various Indigenous languages such as Ilocano, Kapampangan, Waray, and Hiligaynon. The Japan Statistical Yearbook 2024 reports that Filipinos constitute the largest group of foreign residents from countries where English is widely used (Japan Statistics Bureau, 2024), as shown in Table 2. This suggests that Filipinos are the largest English-speaking migrant community in Japan. This demographic pattern underscores the presence of PhEs in Japan, suggesting that Japan’s engagement with English is not solely shaped by “native speaker” norms but also by the varieties brought by this diverse migrant group from the Global South.

The study of PhEs in Japan may carry some implications, one of which could be its potential to nuance the following prevailing assumptions about English in Japan:

1. (1) Japan is a monolingual country – a belief likely to be reinforced by the dominance of Japanese as the official and most widely spoken language;

2. (2) English in Japan is a “foreign” language – often based on the idea that English originates predominantly from Western, so-called native-speaking countries;

3. (3) Japanese people do not speak English or possess limited proficiency – a belief frequently supported by standardized test scores, which are commonly interpreted as indicative of broader communicative limitations; and

4. (4) English is not part of Japanese people’s identity repertoire – perhaps stemming from the perception that English is inherently “foreign” and is treated as an academic subject rather than a language embedded in daily life.

Although these perceptions are pervasive, they overlook the complexity of Japan’s linguistic ecology, which reflects “a tension between a highly monolingual norm embedded in a multilingual normal” (Kraft & Flubacher, Reference Kraft, Flubacher, McKinney, Makoe and Zavala2024, p. 372). The role and status of English in Japan are more multifaceted than often assumed, and the presence of PhEs offers a valuable lens through which to nuance these beliefs.

One commonly held perception that this study seeks to nuance is the view of Japan as a strictly monolingual society (Heinrich, Reference Heinrich2012). While Japanese remains the dominant language in daily life, the presence of English varieties, such as PhEs, Indian English, and Pakistani English, highlights the country’s growing linguistic diversity. Filipino migration to Japan has been a driving force behind the circulation of PhEs, with Filipino communities fostering environments where these varieties are spoken and heard. This migration further disrupts the notion of Japan as culturally and linguistically isolated, illustrating the interconnectedness between Japan and the Philippines.

The present study not only complicates the monolingual belief but also problematizes other commonly held views, such as the notion of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Edwards and Seargeant (Reference Edwards, Seargeant, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) describe EFL as an oversimplified categorization. The dominant discourse that English is a “foreign” language largely stems from studies in the field of language teaching, such as Matsuda’s (Reference Matsuda2003) research, where Japanese high school students view English as belonging to “native speakers.” In contrast, Seargeant (Reference Seargeant2009) argues that Japanese students’ attitudes toward English are merely seen as a result of classroom instruction, overlooking “other sources of information which might influence the students’ views” (p. 94). Pennycook (Reference Pennycook2007) similarly challenges the idea of EFL, highlighting how English is reclaimed and appropriated in Japan through “transcultural flows,” visible in Japanese pop culture, music, fashion, public signs, and even labor mobility. These “other sources of information” (Seargeant, Reference Seargeant2009) and “transcultural flows” (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2007) could, in my view, include PhEs. By encountering PhEs in everyday contexts, Japanese people may experience English beyond the classroom. Over time, this exposure to PhEs could help stabilize English as a shared global language. This is not far-fetched; as Yano (Reference Yano and Seargeant2011) observes regarding the status of English in Japan, “And by learning other cultures and by interacting with users of other languages, we can extend and enrich our conceptual systems, namely, the way we view and interpret events, the way we cut up reality or the way we categorize our experience” (p. 141).

Examining PhEs in Japan also offers valuable insights into how English evolves through migration. Adopting a transnational perspective helps us understand that English in Japan is neither static nor confined to formal educational settings. The role of PhEs in professional spaces, such as multinational corporations, and in Filipino community spaces demonstrates how English is actively used, adapted, and localized, rather than remaining a “foreign” or academic language. This aligns with a broader trend in Japan where English is increasingly seen as a functional tool for communication rather than a language governed by “native-speaker” norms (Konakahara & Tsuchiya, Reference Konakahara and Tsuchiya2020; Yano, Reference Yano and Seargeant2011).

Moreover, the growing role of PhEs in Japan highlights the bilingual and multilingual realities that exist alongside Japan’s monolingual image. PhEs, alongside Japanese and other languages, form part of a more complex linguistic identity that Japanese people can and do engage with. This perspective adds depth to the simplistic view of English as an isolated linguistic entity and shows how it is integrated into everyday life, both as a communicative tool and as part of an identity repertoire (Heinrich, Reference Heinrich2012; Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2007; Seargeant, Reference Seargeant2009).

As previously mentioned, the concept of Philippine Englishes-in-motion can be exemplified through the communicative practices of Filipino migrants in Japan. In Section 2, I offer a concise overview of this highly mobile and diverse diasporic group.

4.1 Linguistic Selection Processes

What can emerge through contact is the likelihood that features are selected, modified, and rejected from a range of available linguistic features (such as vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation, etc.) from different languages or those within the speakers’ linguistic repertoire. In this section, I present evidence of such linguistic selections derived from selected recordings of conversations involving the participants mentioned in the previous section, as well as a rearticulation of findings from my previous study (Martinez & Martin, Reference Martinez, Martin, Rüdiger, Neumaier, Leuckert and Buschfeld2025).

The voice recordings provide rich insights into three linguistic processes through which features are altered or repurposed, each of which will be exemplified here.

1. (1) When a PhE feature becomes a potential source of communication breakdown, it may be substituted with a feature from another variety of English, which is not necessarily an Inner Circle English variety.

2. (2) When a PhE feature is introduced to an interaction, non-Filipino speakers may acquire it through repeated exposure, or even after a single instance of contact.

3. (3) PhE features may be merged with features from other varieties of English and non-English languages, resulting in hybridized forms and meanings.

Table 5 offers an overview of the findings related to the linguistic selection processes outlined here. Some of the supporting evidence is presented here, while other evidence could not be discussed in detail due to space constraints.

Table 5An overview of findings related to linguistic selection processes

Table 5Long description

Three linguistic selection processes emerged from the data: feature substitution to mitigate communicative breakdown, feature acquisition through interactional exposure, and feature hybridization. The first process involves lexico-semantic substitution, exemplified by the replacement of Philippine English lexical items with Japanese English equivalents. The second process encompasses phonological acquisition as well as morphological and syntactic acquisition, with examples reflecting Philippine English phonology and grammar. The third process includes hybridized phonology and code-switching. Hybridized phonology is characterized by the integration of phonological features from both Japanese English and Philippine English. Code-switching involves alternation between Philippine English and other Indigenous languages, such as Tagalog, Cebuano-Bisaya, and Ilocano.

5.1 Orders of Positioning

Danny and Mark, both Filipinos, are English teachers employed at the same eikaiwa (English conversation school). Danny is five years younger than Mark. While Mark has resided in Japan longer than Danny, both individuals began their employment with the company in the same year.

Throughout the conversation between Danny, Mark, and Marina (female, Japanese), the word “sir” is commonly used. In PhE, one of the many possible realizations of “sir” is /ser/, where the vowel resembles the short “e” sound as in “bed” or “set,” contrasting with the American English pronunciation /sɜːr/. In Excerpt 13, I examine how this particular phonological feature is enacted across different positioning orders.

1. 1. (1) Danny: Uy [Tagalog: ‘Hi’], sir Mark, may problem sa scheduling [Tagalog: ‘there’s a scheduling problem’]

   2. (2) Mark: What’s the problem?

   3. (3) Danny: Marina-san here said that one of the teachers suddenly resigned.

   4. (4) Mark: OH MY, who RESIGNED?

   5. (5) Marina: Sofia sensei [Japanese: ‘Teacher Sofia’]

   6. (6) Mark: I don’t know her personally

   7. (7) Danny: So, sir, she has classes this Saturday.

   8. (8) Mark: Okay (.) And?

   9. (9) Danny: Marina was wondering if you can sub

   10. (10) Mark: Danny, you know naman [Tagalog: ‘you obviously know’] that I don’t want to work on weekends.

   11. (11) Danny: I know, sir

   12. (12) Mark: Ikaw na lang [Tagalog: ‘Just you’], Danny

   13. (13) Danny: I have classes that day, sir Mark

   14. (14) Mark: Is there no one else? (…) Okay, fine.

   15. (15) Marina: Thank you, SIR MARK, SIR DANNY! Onegaishimasu [’Japanese: ‘please’], sorry for the trouble. I’ll inform Luke.

   16. (16) Danny: It’s alright.

In this brief workplace exchange, Danny informs Mark about a teacher’s sudden resignation and a scheduling issue. They discuss who can cover the class, with Mark reluctant to work on the weekend and Danny also unavailable. Eventually, Marina thanks them both for handling the situation.

As illustrated in Table 6, the term “sir” shifts meaning across the orders of positioning, reflecting different levels of respect and authority within the interaction.

Danny addresses Mark as “sir” (line 1), which immediately positions the latter as a superior or authority figure within the institutional hierarchy. This constitutes first-order positioning, as the term “sir” frames Mark as the person with the authority to resolve the issue.

Danny repeats “sir” (lines 7, 11, and 13) while navigating Mark’s resistance. Each repetition reaffirms Mark’s authority, yet at the same time functions as a negotiation strategy by shifting the responsibility back onto him. This reflects second-order positioning, since the authority established in the first order is now being contested and renegotiated in light of Mark’s reluctance.

Finally, Marina invokes “sir” for both Mark and Danny (line 15), even though Danny had not previously been positioned as a superior. This constitutes third-order positioning, as she reconfigures both men as higher-status figures who collaboratively contribute to solving the scheduling problem.

The following conversation illustrates a well-known PhE feature, “comfort room” (CR), which means a room equipped with a toilet and washing facilities (Bautista & Butler, Reference Bautista, Lourdes and Butler2000), and how it is used to position the participants and their interlocutors within the interaction. In Excerpt 14, Tina is accompanied by her partner Allan (male, American) and her friend Brandon (male, Filipino) as they dine at a fast-food restaurant.

1. 1. (1) Tina: Are we all good?

   2. (2) Brandon: Yup

   3. (3) Allan: I’m good.

   4. (4) Brandon: (XXX) Excuse me, I need to go to CR.

   5. (5) Tina: Sure

   6. (6) Allan: Need to go what?

   7. (7) Brandon: CR (.) I’ll be back.

   8. (8) Tina: Short for comfort room.

   9. (9) Allan: Sorry?

   10. (10) Tina: C for comfort, R for room

   11. (11) Allan: Oh, okay. (XXX) So CR’s a smoking area?

   12. (12) Tina: It’s toilet. In Manila, we call it CR.

   13. (13) Allan: Oh @@@ that’s interesting

   14. (14) Tina: I know. @@@ It’s just how it is.

   15. (15) Allan: You’ve never told me that before.

Here, Brandon indicates his intention to leave briefly to use the CR. While Tina readily acknowledges his statement, Allan does not recognize the term and requests clarification. Tina explains what CR means, eliciting Allan’s surprise and interest in this PhE feature.

Brandon’s deployment of the term “CR” exemplifies multiple orders of positioning within the conversation (Table 7). At the first-order level, “CR” positions him as a member of the PhEs-speaking community, assuming a shared understanding with Tina, who immediately recognizes the term (lines 4–5). At the second-order level, the term acquires sociolinguistic salience when Allan does not recognize it, thereby casting him as an outsider to PhEs and highlighting how such lexical items signal insider knowledge and cultural familiarity. At the third-order level, the interaction assumes a metalinguistic dimension as Tina explicates the term letter by letter (line 10), framing herself as a cultural mediator who explains the expression to Allan.

In Excerpts 1–14, the different orders of positioning encompass multiple interlocutors within a single conversation. However, positioning can also manifest across separate conversations, where the same individual engages in reflective role-shifting. Excerpts 15 and 16 feature Janice’s conversations with Yoko (female, Japanese) and Daryl (male, Filipino), respectively. In Excerpt 15, Janice speaks with Yoko, the department coordinator at the university where she works. In Excerpt 16, she has a video call with her son, Daryl, who is studying in the Netherlands.

1. 1. (1) Janice: Yoko-sensei, [Japanese: ‘Professor Yoko’I I sent the draft of the test [tʰɛst] to your email two days ago. I haven’t received any feedback.

   2. (2) Yoko: Is that so? I’ll check it later (.) swamped with student essays.

   3. (3) Janice: Okay, I understand. Thanks.

      (Martinez & Martin, Reference Martinez, Martin, Rüdiger, Neumaier, Leuckert and Buschfeld2025, p. 274)

In Excerpt 15, Janice reminds Yoko about the test draft she emailed, and Yoko notes being busy with student essays. Janice acknowledges her explanation courteously.

1. 1. (1) Janice: Kumusta bagong cellphone mo? [Tagalog: ‘How’s your new cellphone?’]

   2. (2) Daryl: Di ko pa nabubuksan iyong box. [Tagalog: ‘I haven’t opened the box.’] Later, ma.

   3. (3) Janice: (…) Do you have a test [tɛst] tomorrow? Homework? Basta huwag laging cellphone ha.[Tagalog: ‘Don’t use your cellphone always.’]

   4. (4) Daryl: Okay, ma.

      (Martinez & Martin, Reference Martinez, Martin, Rüdiger, Neumaier, Leuckert and Buschfeld2025, p. 274)

Here, Janice checks on Daryl’s new cellphone and reminds him not to overuse it, while Daryl responds politely, acknowledging her advice.

Janice’s pronunciation of the word “test” varies depending on her audience. In her professional setting, she articulates it as /tʰɛst/, with aspiration of the voiceless stop /t/, aligning with American English phonological patterns. In contrast, during her conversation with Daryl, she pronounces the word without aspirating the /t/, a feature associated with PhEs (Shahruddin et al., Reference Shahruddin, Ran, Low and Borlongan2023; Tayao, Reference Tayao, Lourdes, Schneider, Burridge, Kortmann, Mesthrie and Upton2004).

In the interview, I asked Janice to comment on her pronunciation changes. She explained that her variation in pronunciation is intentional: At work, she adopts a pronunciation that closely aligns with American English, while at home, she uses a more familiar PhE accent. This phonological alternation demonstrates how Janice negotiates linguistic identity across different social contexts.

Based on the foregoing discussion, the following movement of “test” across orders of positioning emerges, as shown in Table 8.

In first-order positioning, Janice instinctively aligns her speech with the linguistic norms of her environment. In her academic department, which includes many white American colleagues, she adopts American English pronunciation to align with the dominant standard. In contrast, at home, she speaks with a PhE accent and incorporates Tagalog, creating a familiar linguistic space with her son. These choices go beyond accent; they reflect her competence in both PhEs and American English.

In second-order positioning, others ascribe roles and expectations to Janice based on their interpretation of her language use. Yoko, as the department coordinator, likely expects a certain level of linguistic professionalism that aligns with institutional norms rooted in American English. While Excerpt 15 provides limited phonological data from Yoko, Janice’s perception of departmental norms shapes how she anticipates being evaluated. At home, Daryl’s use of “ma” (short for mama or mother) reflects warmth and closeness, portraying Janice as a caring figure in a relaxed and personal setting.

In third-order positioning, Janice explicitly reflects on the strategic nature of her linguistic performance. She understands that her adoption of an American English accent at work is not only about clear communication but also about navigating institutional expectations. During the interview, she remarked, “Baka mawalan ako ng trabaho dito” [Tagalog: “I might lose my job here”], suggesting that speaking with a marked PhEs accent might be perceived as less professional. Although said jokingly, this comment highlights the pressure many Filipino migrants, especially those whose work involves frequent use of English, feel to conform linguistically in order to retain professional legitimacy. Conversely, Janice is also aware that speaking with an American English accent at home might feel “strange” or overly formal to her son. She associates her register (PhEs and Tagalog) with warmth, familiarity, and maternal authority – an emotional and linguistic bond she does not wish to disrupt.

The orders of positioning surrounding Janice’s use of the word “test” reflect broader ideological forces. Her deliberate modulation of accent reveals an awareness of how linguistic capital functions in transnational settings. By downplaying her PhEs accent at work, she aligns with institutional norms that privilege American English, a phenomenon Tupas (Reference Tupas2004) refers to as “Unequal Englishes.” Within this framework, linguistic variation is not just a matter of phonetics. It is also a negotiation of power, legitimacy, and survival in multilingual, racialized, and classed spaces.

Ultimately, Janice’s case illustrates how phonological variation, while seemingly minor, becomes a powerful site of identity work, shaped by both institutional constraints and personal affiliations. Through her conscious shifts in pronunciation, she navigates professional credibility, maternal connection, and the broader realities of being a PhEs speaker in Japan.

5.2 Self and Other Positioning

Self and other positionings not only shape identities but also reveal much about societal views on language, status, and cultural affiliation. This is evident in Excerpt 17, which features a banter between Antonio and his Filipino friends, Michelle (female) and Zorayda (female).

1. 1. (1) Michelle: Di ko alam ano lulutuin bukas. [Tagalog: ‘I don’t know what to cook tomorrow.’]

   2. (2) Zorayda: Huwag na masyado mag-effort. [Tagalog: ‘Don’t put in too much effort.’]

   3. (3) Antonio: Pa-deliver [dɛˈlɛvər] na lang. [Tagalog: ‘Just have food delivery.’]

   4. (4) Zorayda: Ano? [Tagalog: ‘What?’] @@@ deliver [dɛˈlɛvər] @@@

   5. (5) Michelle: @@@ De-LI-ver, kaloka ka. [Tagalog: You’re funny.]

   6. (6) Antonio: Sa amin sa Cebu [Tagalog: ‘In our place in Cebu’], deliver (dɛˈlɛvər)

   7. (7) Zorayda: O sige na, pa-deliver [dɪˈlɪvɚ] na nga lang, [Tagalog: ‘Alright then, just have food delivery’] less stress

The conversation starts with Michelle expressing uncertainty about what to cook the next day. Zorayda responds lightly, advising not to overthink it. Antonio suggests using food delivery, pronouncing “deliver” as /dɛˈlɛvər/, with the second vowel like the /ɛ/ in “bed,” making it particularly noticeable. Zorayda and Michelle laugh at Antonio’s pronunciation, with Zorayda playfully imitating him and Michelle teasing him by using the standard /dɪˈlɪvɚ/, which aligns more closely with American English and what is often treated as standard PhE. Antonio responds by framing his pronunciation as typical of Cebu, his hometown.

Antonio’s pronunciation of “deliver” functions as a marker of self-positioning, signaling affiliation with his regional identity in Cebu. By framing his variant as common in his local community, Antonio constructs a sense of linguistic legitimacy tied to place and group belonging. Conversely, from the perspective of his peers, Antonio’s pronunciation is treated as humorous and nonstandard. Through laughter and correction, Zorayda and Michelle momentarily position themselves as linguistic authorities, upholding an American English-influenced variety of PhE.

Although the teasing is playful, the interaction is not entirely egalitarian. What appears to be friendly banter also reveals subtle power dynamics, where linguistic norms, often aligned with metropolitan or elite usage, are used to establish boundaries of correctness. In this moment, Antonio is othered as a speaker whose English deviates from the perceived norm. Yet, by asserting “Sa amin sa Cebu” (“In our place in Cebu”), Antonio engages in resistant positioning, reaffirming the legitimacy of regional variations of PhEs and pushing back against homogenizing standards of “correct” English.

This episode illustrates how linguistic variation within PhEs in transnational contexts can become a site of identity negotiation, where self- and other-positionings reflect broader issues of language hierarchy, regional pride, and the complex social meanings embedded in everyday speech.

PhEs can also be a tool for self- and other-positioning, particularly in relation to individuals’ socioeconomic status. Excerpt 18 illustrates this dynamic in an interaction involving Vina, her daughter Ashley, and a Filipino freelance worker named Manoling.

1. 1. (1) Vina: Dumating na ba si kuya na gagawa ng tiles? [Tagalog: ‘Has kuya, the one who will do the tiles in the kitchen, arrived?’]

   2. (2) Ashley: Dunno. Parating na yata [Tagalog: ‘He might be arriving soon.’]

   3. (3) Vina: Let me know when kuya arrives ha

   4. (4) Ashley: Ma, I think he’s here (…) Kuya, pasok [Tagalog: ‘Kuya, please come in.’]

   5. (5) Manoling: Ohayogozaimasu. [Japanese: ‘Good morning.’]

   6. (6) Vina: Ohayogozaimasu [Japanese: ‘Good morning.’] (…) Nagsasalita ka Tagalog? [Tagalog: ‘Do you speak Tagalog?’]

   7. (7) Manoling: Yes, boss. Taga Zambales ako. [Tagalog: ‘I’m from Zambales.’]

   8. (8) Vina: Ay talaga, saan sa Zambales? Taga Pampanga kami. [Tagalog: ‘Oh really, where in Zambales? We’re from Pampanga.’]

   9. (9) Manoling: Sa Iba [Tagalog: ‘In Iba’], boss.

   10. (10) Vina: Marami ako kaibigan doon, kuya. [Tagalog: ‘I have many friends there, kuya.’]

This exchange, in Japanese, Tagalog, and English, revolves around the arrival of Manoling, a freelance worker installing kitchen tiles. Vina asks in Tagalog if he has arrived, and Ashley replies with a mix of English and Tagalog. When Manoling enters, Ashley addresses him as “kuya,” a PhE term used to refer to an older brother or an older man, which was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015 (Salazar, Reference Salazar and Borlongan2023).

Vina asks Manoling if he speaks Tagalog. He confirms and uses the term “boss,” which is particularly salient in PhE sociolinguistic contexts. Although “boss” is not exclusive to PhE, it has acquired unique social meanings in Filipino interactions, especially in informal work settings. Among working-class Filipinos, “boss” is often used to address employers or customers, signaling deference while simultaneously establishing rapport. In this case, Manoling’s use of “boss” suggests an awareness of social hierarchies among co-ethnic migrants in Japan. It also reflects a respectful stance toward Vina, who, as the interview data show, holds a high-paying position at a multinational company and lives in an affluent part of Tokyo.

In contrast, Vina addresses Manoling as “kuya,” a Tagalog kinship term for an older male that conveys familiarity and respect. While “kuya” traditionally evokes family or brotherly ties, it is frequently used by middle- and upper-class Filipinos to refer to workers or service personnel. This usage serves a dual function: It softens the power differential through linguistic intimacy while still signaling class-based distance. In this context, Vina’s use of “kuya” acknowledges their shared cultural background, but it also affirms her higher social status by invoking a culturally appropriate but class-inflected form of respect.

Ashley’s use of English and her code-switching between Tagalog and English reflect her upbringing in an elite international school environment. Her speech positions her as a second-generation Filipino migrant aligned with globalized, middle- to upper-class social circles. The contrast between Ashley’s English, Vina’s fluent multilingualism, and Manoling’s deferential tone underscores the stratified roles of Filipino migrants in Japan.

What might appear on the surface as a cordial exchange is undergirded by a web of social positioning. Through the PhEs “boss” and “kuya,” both Manoling and Vina navigate their respective places within diasporic hierarchies. Manoling’s use of “boss” reveals his awareness of unequal relations while maintaining professional courtesy. Vina, on the other hand, uses “kuya” to invoke cultural commonality while maintaining a subtle assertion of authority. The interaction reflects how PhEs, embedded in multilingual practice, serve as a resource for enacting, negotiating, and at times complicating social distinctions within Filipino communities in Japan.

The conversation in Excerpt 19 illustrates how Filipino migrants strategically position themselves and others in relation to social class and migrant identity, particularly through the contrast between the codified PhE term “OFW” (an initialism for Overseas Filipino Worker) and “expat” (short for expatriate). In Excerpt 19, Sheryl has a lighthearted exchange with her friends Aiko (female, Japanese) and Lulu (female, Filipino).

1. 1. (1) Aiko: Nice, where did you buy this skirt?

   2. (2) Sheryl: I forgot the store, but in the Philippines.

   3. (3) Aiko: Eeeeh, sugoi. [Japanese: ‘Wow, cool.’]

   4. (4) Sheryl: You like it?

   5. (5) Aiko: Yeah, pretty

   6. (6) Lulu: Momsh, very, very OFW pormahan mo ngayon [Tagalog: ‘Momsh, you’re dressed like an OFW today.’] @@@

   7. (7) Sheryl: Hello, EXPAT ako, noh! [Tagalog: ‘I’m an expat, you know!’] BASHER ka! [Tagalog: ‘You’re a basher!’]

At the center of this interaction is an act of other-positioning, with Lulu jokingly casting Sheryl as an “OFW.” While “OFW” is officially used by the Philippine government to refer to all overseas Filipino workers – regardless of occupation – the term has become socially marked. In popular discourse, “OFW” is often associated with lower-income, labor-intensive occupations such as caregiving, factory work, and domestic service. By describing Sheryl’s fashion style as “very, very OFW,” Lulu playfully aligns her with this working-class migrant image. Humor, in this case, operates as a softening device that allows social commentary without overt confrontation, yet the classed undertones remain clear.

Sheryl, in turn, engages in self-repositioning by calling Lulu a “basher” (a Filipino slang term for a harsh critic), thereby rejecting the label “OFW” and asserting a more prestigious identity as an “expat.” Unlike “OFW,” which is a government-imposed classification rooted in labor export policies, “expat” is often a self-adopted label that suggests professional mobility, autonomy, and long-term relocation. It tends to be associated with higher socioeconomic status, greater educational attainment, and professional employment in white-collar or creative industries. By declaring that she is an “expat,” Sheryl distances herself from the working-class connotations of “OFW” and aligns with a more cosmopolitan, middle- or upper-class migrant identity.

This moment reflects a class-inflected discourse within the Filipino diaspora in Japan, where labels like “OFW” and “expat” are not merely descriptors but markers of social position. The term “OFW” carries the institutional and historical baggage of labor migration, while “expat” invokes notions of agency, privilege, and professional advancement. Importantly, the distinction between these terms also mirrors global racialized patterns in which “expat” is typically applied to Western professionals, while non-Western migrants, even those in highly skilled jobs, are often labeled as “migrant workers.” Sheryl’s use of “expat” reflects an attempt to claim this symbolic capital, illustrating how Filipino migrants appropriate and contest these categories for their own positioning.

The presence of Aiko, a Japanese interlocutor, adds another layer to the interaction. Sheryl’s repositioning may be read not only as a response to Lulu’s teasing but also as a performance of identity in front of a non-Filipino friend. In multilingual and multicultural settings, Filipino migrants may be especially attuned to how they are perceived and may engage in self-positioning that asserts a more desirable image. Here, “expat” becomes a way for Sheryl to frame herself as modern, mobile, and professionally accomplished, not just to Lulu, but perhaps to Aiko as well.

Overall, this brief but telling exchange reveals the subtle yet powerful ways in which Filipino migrants use PhEs and other languages to navigate and negotiate social hierarchies. Lulu’s humorous framing of Sheryl as an “OFW” and Sheryl’s playfully defensive assertion of being an “expat” reflect deeper tensions around class, respectability, and identity within the diaspora. While laughter and teasing are central to the interaction’s tone, they also serve as tools through which boundaries are drawn, contested, and reimagined.

So far, the available data suggest that the mobility of PhEs within and across interactions are influenced by a complex interplay of factors that shape how Filipino migrants position themselves and others within social interactions. These factors include occupation, social class, ethnicity, power and authority, and accent, each of which plays a significant role in how a Filipino migrant is perceived and how they negotiate their social position in daily interactions.

A more thorough understanding of linguistic selection and positioning involving PhEs requires attention to the conditions that enabled their entry and diffusion in Japan. These dynamics cannot be accounted for in isolation from the broader sociolinguistic forces that underlie their emergence. In this regard, Buschfeld and Kautzsch’s (Reference Buschfeld and Kautzsch2020) Extra- and Intra-Territorial Forces (EIF) Model, an add-on to Schneider’s (Reference Schneider2007) Dynamic Model, offers a useful framework for analyzing the spread and development of PhEs in Japan. I will discuss these forces in Section 6.

6.1 Collusion of State and Non-state Institutions in “Languaging Labor Export”

In a board resolution dated July 27, 2007, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the government agency responsible for managing and overseeing technical education and skills development in the Philippines, approved the establishment of the Language Skills Institute (LSI), later renamed the National Language Skills Center. The LSI’s mandate is to provide training programs in various languages, including English, Nihongo (Japanese), Korean, Mandarin, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, 2007). The inclusion of “other languages as needed” in this list suggests that language training is driven by job market demands, particularly in capitalist economies where linguistic competencies are tailored to labor-export needs.

The language training programs aim to enhance the linguistic competencies of potential overseas Filipino workers, preparing them to communicate effectively in the languages predominantly spoken in labor-receiving countries. Initially, TESDA established thirty-one LSIs nationwide, a number that has grown, underscoring the government’s commitment to preparing Filipinos for labor markets abroad. However, while TESDA spearheads this initiative, it also receives additional funding from foreign embassies and private organizations (Indino, Reference Indino2007). This supplementary funding highlights what I call the “languaging of labor export” – a process through which language instruction is framed not merely as an educational tool, but as a strategic means of preparing workers for the global labor market. In this process, the Philippine government, in collusion with non-state actors, positions language not only as a communicative tool but also as a commodity essential for labor mobility.

This intersection of language training and labor export creates a structure in which language, particularly English, becomes a bridge to migration and employment opportunities. The Philippines’ investment in language training programs underscores the crucial role that language plays in preparing individuals for the international job market, where proficiency in multiple languages often increases employability. But it also indirectly contributes to the spread of PhEs. As Filipinos trained for specific jobs in Japan, such as nurses and caregivers, are exposed to Japanese language programs, they simultaneously maintain and use PhEs in their professional and social contexts.

Non-state actors, particularly the Japan Foundation Manila (JFM), have played a significant role in facilitating this process. Established in 1996, JFM initially received funding from the Japanese government, but it began operating as a nongovernmental organization in 2003. In 2011, JFM started organizing preparatory Nihongo language training programs for Filipino nurses and caregivers, acknowledging the growing need for multilingual workers in Japan’s healthcare sector. Interestingly, Maribeth (female, nurse) and Eric (male, caregiver), two participants in my study who underwent this Nihongo training, also use PhEs in their workplaces in Japan, highlighting how the languaging of labor export extends beyond Japanese to include PhEs, which becomes an important mode of communication in their professional environments.

Maribeth and Eric have taken part in the JFM’s Nihongo training program. An interesting point they mentioned during the interview is that, despite being trained to communicate in Nihongo, they also use PhEs in their workplaces.

Maribeth mentioned that one of her Japanese patients has developed a strong rapport with her and occasionally communicates with her in English. Eric noted that there are instances in which he has assisted Japanese nurses by translating medical jargon from Japanese to English. In such scenarios, Filipino healthcare workers assume roles that necessitate switching between English and Japanese.

Filipino healthcare workers like Maribeth and Eric, having undergone Nihongo training programs, jointly facilitated by the Philippine government and non-state actors, enter Japan with varying degrees of Japanese proficiency. However, their preexisting competence in PhEs – languages they have been formally exposed to since childhood – ensures that PhEs remain an important resource in their daily work and social interactions. The interaction between Japanese and PhEs highlights the dynamic nature of multilingual communication in their professional and social environments, further emphasizing the spread of PhEs in Japan.

By framing these instances as exemplified above within the languaging of labor export within this context, it becomes clear that PhEs are not just languages spoken in the Philippines, but a globalized form of English that is increasingly being used by Filipinos in Japan and other countries as they navigate labor markets. TESDA’s language programs, with their focus on labor migration and multilingualism, are an important mechanism by which PhEs become embedded in the international labor ecosystem. This framing highlights that language training programs designed for migrant workers, while primarily focused on languages like Nihongo, also unintentionally facilitate the spread of PhEs in workspaces where Filipino migrants are employed, particularly in caregiving and nursing sectors in Japan.

Thus, the process of languaging labor export not only prepares Filipinos for employment in Japan but also promotes the use of PhEs as a strategic communicative resource. It underscores the way PhEs circulate globally, not as a passive byproduct of migration but as an active element in the multilingual tapestry of labor markets. This global circulation of PhEs is also evident in reverse flows of mobility, particularly in the growing number of Japanese students traveling to the Philippines to study English, as discussed in the next section.

6.2 Mushrooming of English Schools in the Philippines catering to Japanese Students

Cebu, where some participants in my study were born and raised, is home to a variety of nonformal institutions offering a range of English language courses tailored to Japanese students, including conversation, grammar, business English, and preparation for standardized examinations. These institutions are commonly referred to by various names, such as “English academy,” “ESL school,” “English institute,” and “English learning hub.” One notable aspect of Cebu’s English schools is their business collaborations with hotels, shopping malls, beach resorts, and travel agencies, allowing Japanese students the opportunity to combine English study with leisure activities like travel and accommodation. As such, studying English in Cebu is marketed in Japan as an all-inclusive package, blending education with relaxation.

While Japanese-operated English schools are also present in Metro Manila and Baguio, Cebu accounts for approximately 70 percent of the market (Cacho, Reference Cacho2023). Popular English schools in Cebu include Happy Life Cebu Academy, QQ English, and Howdy English Academy, which was commissioned by the Philippines’ Department of Tourism to host a tour for Japanese high school teachers in 2024, showcasing how English is taught by Filipino teachers (The Japan Times, 2024). The overwhelming presence of English schools for Japanese students underscores the role of the Philippines as a key producer of language education, while Japan remains a primary consumer in the globalized market for language learning.

The proliferation of English schools, which Lim (Reference Lim, Schreier, Hundt and Schneider2020) describes as “new contact sites for Asian Englishes with other Asian Englishes” (p. 91), is a major driver in the spread of PhEs in Japan. Japanese students in Cebu’s English schools engage intensively with Filipino instructors, who typically speak standard PhE, often through a one-on-one teaching model. This immersion increases the likelihood that students will acquire features of PhEs, including its pronunciation, vocabulary, and syntax. Upon returning to Japan, students may retain these features and use them in various social settings, influencing peers in workplaces, schools, and informal interactions. However, it is worth noting that Japanese students may also encounter other varieties of English, such as American or British English, and the interaction between these varieties can complicate the extent to which specific PhE features are retained and used in Japan. Further research into how these multiple English varieties influence students’ language use upon returning to Japan would provide a more nuanced understanding of the spread of PhEs.

Another avenue for the diffusion of PhEs is the migration of Filipino teachers from Cebu to Japan. Many teachers who work at these language schools in Cebu later move to Japan to become Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) in eikaiwa schools, or to work in public or private schools. These teachers bring PhEs with them, further contributing to the linguistic diversity within Japan’s educational institutions. Christopher, one of the participants in the present study, leveraged his experience teaching at an ESL school in Cebu to secure a teaching position in Japan. He notes:

Filipino teachers moving to Japan represents a significant form of horizontal transmission of PhE, particularly in educational contexts. Filipino ALTs in Japanese schools are likely to use PhEs in their teaching and interactions with students, further entrenching its presence in Japan.

Additionally, platform-based ESL schools such as RareJob, Eigox, and DMM Eikaiwa employ Filipino instructors, many of whom have experience teaching at English schools in Cebu and other parts of the Philippines. RareJob, for example, has employed over 17,000 Filipino tutors since its establishment in 2007 (RareJob, 2025), demonstrating the extensive reach of PhEs in Japan through online learning platforms. These platforms make English language education more accessible and flexible, particularly for young Japanese learners and working professionals who study English after work hours. Through remote learning, Filipino instructors bring PhEs directly into Japanese homes, making it more likely for students to be exposed to and retain certain features of PhEs in their speech.

In the globalized economy, Japan’s demand for English language skills fuels the growth of language education industries in the Philippines. As these English schools proliferate, both physical and digital, they serve as important sites for the circulation of PhEs in Japan.

6.3 Japan Exchange and Teaching Program as a Gateway for Filipino English Teachers

While Christopher used his experience as a teacher in one of Cebu’s English schools to gain entry and employment in Japan, some Filipinos take a different route by applying through the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program, a Japanese government initiative that recruits nationals from more than forty countries to work in Japan, primarily as ALTs. There are also nonteaching positions, such as Coordinator for International Relations and Sports Exchange Advisor.

The JET Program has a political dimension that often goes unmentioned in discussions about its role in language education and cultural exchange. In the 1980s, Japan and the US were engaged in a trade conflict. As part of trade negotiations, Japan offered the JET Program as a symbolic gesture to the US, allowing young Americans to work in Japan and experience its culture firsthand (Fujimoto-Adamson, Reference Fujimoto-Adamson2020). The program was later expanded to include the Philippines in 2014, and other countries, but its origins reflect Japan’s broader economic and diplomatic strategies. This political context adds another layer to understanding the JET Program – not just as an educational initiative, but also as a tool for soft diplomacy.

As shown in Figure 1, the trend in the number of Filipino ALTs in the JET Program from 2021 to 2024 indicates a general increase, with some fluctuations along the way (The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program, 2024). Between 2021 and 2022, the number dropped from eighty-one to fifty teachers. However, it rebounded to eighty-one in 2023. A sharp rise to 122 in 2024 suggests an expansion of the program, possibly due to increased demand for Filipino English teachers, relaxed entry policies, or enhanced diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan.

Figure 1 Number of Filipino Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) in the JET Program, 2021–2024.

Note: Data were collected from the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program (2024).

As of 2024, Filipinos constitute the fourth-largest cohort of ALTs in the JET Program, following participants from the United States, UK, and Canada (The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program, 2024). Beyond simply filling teaching posts, Filipino ALTs bring with them educated varieties of PhE, thereby broadening the linguistic resources available in Japanese schools. Their growing presence between 2023 and 2024 signals not only a demographic shift but also a rising openness to recognizing PhEs in Japanese educational contexts.

ALTs in the JET Program are employed on relatively short-term contracts, with a maximum duration of five years. Upon completing their contracts, some Filipino ALTs choose to remain in Japan rather than return to the Philippines. Many transition to more stable positions in local schools, securing direct employment through local boards of education or private institutions. One of the participants, Mark, follows this career trajectory, with the JET Program serving as a gateway to a more extended teaching career in Japan.

The growing number of Filipino ALTs in the program, coupled with their continued employment beyond JET, highlights the expanding and enduring presence of PhE in Japan’s education system. As more Filipino ALTs secure teaching positions outside the JET framework, they further contribute to sustained exposure to PhEs among Japanese students. This trend underscores that PhEs are not merely transient linguistic resources in Japan’s English language education.

Filipino ALTs also bring a multilingual perspective to their classrooms, as many are proficient in Filipino, English, and various Indigenous languages. This multilingual disposition offers an opportunity to challenge the prevailing view of English in Japan, which is often perceived as a monolithic, native-speaker-centric language. By incorporating their own linguistic backgrounds into teaching practices, Filipino ALTs can help reshape the way English is understood and taught in Japan, encouraging a more inclusive and pluralistic view of language learning.

Furthermore, as the presence of Filipino ALTs expands, their impact on the way English is taught in Japan becomes increasingly evident. By positioning PhEs as a viable and relevant resource in the teaching of English, Filipino teachers contribute to the diversification of English language education, shifting students’ perceptions away from a singular “native speaker” norm toward a more global understanding of English. This transformation is not only reflective of the multilingual nature of English today but also reinforces PhE’s role in fostering a more inclusive and flexible approach to English proficiency.

The spread of PhEs in Japan is mediated not only by educational programs such as JET but also by formal labor agreements. Section 6.4 explores this dynamic further.

6.4 Bilateral Labor Agreements as Sociolinguistic Conduits

Bilateral labor agreements – such as the JPEPA and the TITP – facilitate the entry and potential spread of varieties of PhE in Japan, albeit indirectly. A detailed discussion of these bilateral labor agreements will not be undertaken here, as their nature and provisions have already been examined in Section 2. A pertinent point I would like to make here is that, although the JPEPA and TITP agreements require proficiency in Japanese as a key criterion for employment, this does not preclude the introduction and circulation of PhEs within Japan’s linguistic ecology. There are two specific mechanisms through which this process occurs.

First, these agreements enable the migration of Filipino professionals, including caregivers, nurses, and technical interns, who bring with them their linguistic resources. As they interact with Japanese colleagues, clients, and fellow foreign workers, they introduce PhEs into multilingual and multicultural environments. While English is not the dominant language in most Japanese workplaces, it serves a purpose in multinational corporations, tourism, education, and specialized sectors with international connections – a point elaborated in Section 5.7. Within these contexts, Filipino migrants use features of PhEs, shaping how English is perceived and practiced. This is illustrated in Excerpt 6, which captures a workplace interaction at a hotel, where Raquel communicates in PhE with colleagues from Myanmar and Japan.

Second, the continued growth of Filipino communities in Japan, particularly as a result of sustained labor migration, has led to the formation of various social spaces – such as churches, community gatherings, and online networks – where PhEs are actively used and circulated. Over time, as these social spaces expand, PhE’s visibility within Japan’s broader linguistic ecology increases, influencing local perceptions of PhE and its varieties.

While the primary aim of these labor agreements is economic, they also function as sociolinguistic conduits for PhEs. Filipino migrants contribute to the presence of PhEs in Japan, helping reshape how English is taught, perceived, and used. However, the spread of PhEs is not without challenges. In certain formal sectors, Japanese preferences for “native-speaker” norms in English can present barriers to PhE’s full integration. Additionally, Filipino workers’ proficiency in Japanese often influences how they code-switch between languages, with English (especially PhEs) becoming more prominent in informal or international contexts, while Japanese remains dominant in local interactions.

Nonetheless, bilateral labor agreements not only facilitate the mobility of Filipino workers but also contribute to the growing presence of PhEs in Japan. Through professional and social interactions, Filipino migrants help introduce PhEs into Japan’s multilingual environment, where it is gradually integrated into various social, educational, and professional domains.

Extraterritorial factors are often conditioned by intra-territorial factors, underscoring the complex interplay between global structures and domestic imperatives. For example, the bilateral labor agreements between Japan and the Philippines can be understood as extraterritorial mechanisms that are largely driven by Japan’s internal demographic challenges, particularly its aging population and persistent labor shortages. These demographic concerns are discussed more thoroughly in Section 6.5.

6.5 Overlapping Issues of an Aging Population and Shrinking Labor Force

The job advertisement shown in Figure 2 is from an outsourcing agency accredited by the Philippine government. The advertisement specifies the qualifications required for Filipinos seeking employment as farmers in Japan and provides the monthly salary in Philippine pesos, which approximately translates to 170,000 yen. This advertisement was shared on a Facebook page with 74,000 followers, and upon reviewing the comments, I observed that there were more than 100 responses, reflecting the considerable interest among Filipinos in pursuing agricultural work opportunities in Japan.

Figure 2 Screenshot of a job posting for Filipino farmers.

Note: Screenshot taken from Philippine Go Network (2024).

This job posting must be understood within the broader context of Japan’s enduring challenges related to an aging population and labor shortages. According to an article in Nippon, Japan’s farming population has been steadily declining over the decades, alongside an increase in the average age of farmers (Nippon Communications Foundation, 2018). The article cites data from a 2015 census by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, which revealed that 2.09 million individuals were engaged in agriculture, representing a 60 percent decrease compared to thirty years earlier. Additionally, 63.5 percent of those employed in agriculture were aged sixty-five or older, a figure 3.3 times higher than it was three decades ago. The census also indicated that the average age of agricultural workers had increased by 7.2 years over the past decade, reaching sixty-seven. This demographic shift is particularly pronounced in Japan’s highland and mountainous prefectures, where over 70 percent of farmers are aged sixty-five or older. The article highlights that the aging farming population, combined with a decline in labor availability, is a primary factor contributing to the rise in unused and abandoned farmlands across the country.

Local city offices in Japan (shiyakusho) provide assistance to Filipino farmers and others employed in industries badly affected by aging demographics and shrinking labor force, particularly in relation to English use. While the degree and type of assistance may vary by prefecture, some common ways in which local city offices help Filipino migrants include the following:

1. (1) Multilingual Information and Support – Some local city offices provide information in multiple languages, including English and Filipino (Tagalog), to help Filipino migrants access essential services. This includes brochures, websites, and posters explaining how to use local services, rights, and community resources.

2. (2) English-Speaking Staff – In areas with large foreign populations, local city offices employ English-speaking staff who can assist Filipino migrants in navigating local services and communicating effectively. This ensures that Filipino migrants can seek help without facing language barriers.

3. (3) Cultural Exchange and Multicultural Events – Many local city offices organize multicultural events that feature English-language activities, offering Filipino migrants a chance to use their PhE and interact with the local Japanese community.

These efforts indicate a growing recognition of the importance of English in helping Filipinos integrate and access essential services. On this matter, English serves as a valuable resource for overcoming communication barriers between Filipino migrants and local authorities, enabling them to navigate their new environment, access public services, and integrate more easily into Japanese society. Although Japanese is the dominant language, English remains a crucial resource in supporting the integration of Filipino migrants in Japan, especially since many Filipinos are more fluent in PhEs than in Japanese, particularly during the early stages of migration.

The ways in which Filipino migrants use English underscore its wider importance in Japan, serving not only as a means of societal integration but also as a language whose status is rising within the Japanese educational system, a trend explored in Section 6.6.

6.6 Elevated Status of English in Japanese Schools

In 2025, the city of Tsukubamirai in Ibaraki Prefecture, situated northeast of Tokyo, implemented a program to deploy ALTs to all kindergartens and daycare centers within its jurisdiction (Nobuta, Reference Nobuta2025). This program builds on an earlier effort in 2023, when ALTs were assigned to only three public kindergartens. The expanded program now includes both public and private institutions. The responsibilities of ALTs extend beyond formal instruction, as they are also expected to engage with children in English during daily routines and activities, thereby promoting early exposure to and familiarity with the language.

The city’s across-the-board implementation of introducing English to children as young as zero to five years old in daycare and three to five years old in kindergarten represents a significant departure from prevailing educational norms in Japan. Traditionally, English has been a compulsory subject beginning in junior high school (grades 7–9) and continuing through senior high school (grades 10–12), with optional implementation in some elementary schools. This shift suggests an elevation in the perceived status of English, as evidenced by measures aimed at early language exposure and acquisition during the foundational years of a child’s development.

A noteworthy aspect of this move toward early English exposure is the prominent involvement of Filipino teachers. As part of the Tsukubamirai Municipal Government’s initiative, a total of twenty-two ALTs, all Filipinos, were deployed across all kindergartens and daycare centers within the city (Nobuta, Reference Nobuta2025). This strategic inclusion of Filipino teachers reflects Japan’s reliance on foreign teachers to implement early English language education and signals the growing visibility of Filipino migrants in the country’s educational system. It also reveals broader trends in language policy, where early English instruction is promoted as part of Japan’s globalization efforts. At the same time, it illustrates how transnational labor, particularly from English-speaking countries like the Philippines, is mobilized to meet local education policy goals and reflects shifting ideologies surrounding English in Japan.

Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) clearly articulates the purposes of teaching and learning English as promoting cultural exchange and understanding, as well as fostering academic achievement. These objectives are explicitly outlined in the MEXT’s Course of Study, which serves as a framework for curriculum and educational guidelines in Japan. However, there is a noticeable shift in this direction. The Tsukubamirai Municipal Government, which implemented the early English language education program discussed earlier, has stated that the primary objective of the initiative is to cultivate future workers (Nobuta, Reference Nobuta2025). This development suggests a growing tendency for English language education in Japan to align with neoliberal objectives, where the study of English is increasingly grounded in economic rationality. Filipino ALTs, many of whom have been primed by an educational system in which English is framed as a tool for economic advancement, are particularly familiar with and attuned to this neoliberal mindset. Evidently, Japan is recalibrating its approach to English teaching and learning to serve the interests of global and local job markets, reflecting a shift toward economically driven imperatives. This observation brings us to the next intra-territorial factor.

6.7 Incentivization of English in Workplaces

In Japan, English has increasingly become essential for work-related purposes, particularly as globalization and international business demands rise. Several Japanese companies use English as their official internal language and have implemented incentives to encourage employees to enhance their English proficiency. The following are some examples of these companies:

1. (1) HENNGE K.K., an IT company, declared English as its official language in 2013. It has introduced various support programs, including full subsidies for English learning expenses and an English language allowance ranging from 120,000 yen to 1,080,000 yen per year, depending on proficiency levels (HENNGE, 2023).

2. (2) Softbank, a multinational conglomerate, offered substantial bonuses of up to $10,000 to employees who scored above 900 out of 990 on the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), aiming for all 17,000 employees to achieve scores over 800 within three years (Nagata, Reference Nagata2013).

3. (3) Rakuten, an e-commerce company, implemented an “Englishnization” policy in 2010 requiring employees to speak English, providing free English conversation classes tailored to various worker groups, with the goal of having all 7,000 employees proficient by 2012 (Mikitani, Reference Mikitani2021).

4. (4) Money Forward Inc., a company specializing in financial technology services, introduced mandatory English communication within its computer engineering division, offering free weekly English lessons and allowing employees to complete homework during work hours to support this transition (Turner, Reference Turner2025).

A key feature of these initiatives is the central role of PhEs, particularly in companies with diverse, multilingual workforces. For example, HENNGE has subsidized English studies in Cebu, and Rakuten employs Filipino staff, both of which contribute to the circulation of PhEs within their corporate environments. In this way, PhEs become part of the multilingual landscape in Japan’s increasingly globalized workforce.

As an increasing number of companies in Japan mandate the use of English among their employees, more Japanese professionals are turning to platform-based English schools to enhance their business and workplace English skills, which are defined along the lines of TOEIC. Faye, one of the participants in my study, used to teach TOEIC preparation courses to Japanese professionals before moving to Japan to work as airport staff.

PhEs can and do spill over into Japan, even in contexts where the instructional focus is on American English, such as TOEIC preparation. While Filipino teachers may be tasked with teaching American English norms to align with test-oriented curricula, their own linguistic practices often embody features of PhE. These include phonological patterns, lexical choices, and discourse styles, such as specific ways of giving instructions, asking questions, managing classroom interactions, and framing English culturally, especially in multilingual settings. In classroom interactions, such features subtly influence the communicative environment, not necessarily through explicit instruction, but through accents, expressions, pragmatic norms, and classroom discourse management.

This tendency toward flexibility and inclusivity in language use is mirrored in the corporate world, where language proficiency is increasingly seen as a tool for connection rather than a barrier to entry. Mickey Mikitani, chairman and CEO of the Rakuten Group, captured this evolving perspective in 2021:

Mikitani’s statement suggests a possible shift in Japan’s corporate world, where English may be increasingly regarded as a tool for global business success. His emphasis on communication over “perfection” points to a potentially more inclusive stance, one that appears to accommodate diverse English varieties, including PhEs, often labeled as “non-native.” By emphasizing mutual understanding rather than “perfect English,” Mikitani’s view seems to resonate with broader tendencies in Japan’s business environment that place greater value on effective communication than on strict adherence to “native-speaker” norms.

At the same time, this perspective illustrates how English in Japan’s corporate world can be framed less as a rigid standard and more as a flexible resource for collaboration. In such contexts, PhEs and other “non-native” varieties of English may be positioned not as deviations but as useful linguistic resources – or, in Mikitani’s words, as tools for doing “great things together.”

Beyond corporate settings, the spread of PhEs also intersects with social and religious networks, shaping the formation and dispersal of Catholic communities in Japan, as explored in Section 6.8.

6.8 Formation and Dispersal of Catholic Communities

There is a popular joke that says if you are looking to meet a Filipino overseas, just head to a church. Filipinos, in general, have a strong cultural connection to their faith, especially the Catholic Church. This connection dates back to the Spanish colonial era, which lasted more than 300 years in the Philippines. During this period, the Spanish introduced Catholicism to the archipelago, which quickly became deeply intertwined with Filipino identity and daily life. Many Filipinos, regardless of where they are in the world, seek out churches as places of community, comfort, and connection to their roots. It is not uncommon to find Filipino communities gathering for Mass, social events, or volunteer work, making churches “a magnet for Filipino aggregation” (Anderson, Reference Anderson, Ember, Ember and Skoggard2005, p. 811).

Filipino migrants in Japan attend English-language Masses, with 178 churches offering them across the country as of 2025 (see Table 10). The Tokyo Diocese has the most, reflecting the growing Filipino migrant population and the church’s response to their needs. While some Filipinos also attend Masses in Tagalog, these are fewer in number, with dioceses like Sapporo, Fukuoka, Nagasaki, and Naha not offering them at all. Whether in English or Tagalog, these Masses help migrants connect with the liturgy and maintain their spiritual ties. They also provide a sense of comfort, cultural continuity, and shared faith through familiar hymns, prayers, and interactions with fellow Filipinos.

Filipino migrant parishioners often form the heart of a community that facilitates the exchange of information about life in Japan and provides opportunities for social interaction, including engagement with Japanese parishioners. Before and after Mass, many Filipino congregants gather to reconnect with friends, share updates, and offer mutual support. However, it should be noted that not all parishioners may participate in these gatherings in the same way, as some may not form close ties with other churchgoers or may engage in different social activities. In some churches, Filipino newspapers and magazines are made available after services, contributing to the circulation of community-relevant information. Additionally, vendors may offer prepared Filipino dishes, reinforcing cultural ties and creating a familiar, communal atmosphere within the church setting.

Within liturgical services, Filipino migrants, including priests, lectors, and choir members, play key roles, often using PhEs during scriptural readings, homilies, prayers, and interpersonal interactions with fellow parishioners of diverse national backgrounds. English, particularly in multicultural parishes, also functions as the default medium for announcements, social gatherings, and informal conversations. Within these contexts, PhEs are commonly spoken and heard. Some churches distribute newsletters, prayer guides, and bulletins authored or translated by Filipino clergy or parishioners, which may feature linguistic characteristics aligned with PhEs norms, including vocabulary choices, grammatical structures, and discourse conventions.

In these ways, Catholic churches in Japan serve not only as spiritual and social anchors for Filipino migrants but also as spaces where PhEs are actively used, transmitted, and made visible in a transnational context. The role of Filipino migrants in these religious spaces, along with the ways in which PhEs circulate, highlights the complex dynamics of language use in multicultural communities and underscores the growing visibility of PhEs in Japan’s multilingual landscape.

To draw a final point, the spread of PhEs in Japan is shaped by a mix of external and internal factors. On the one hand, external influences, such as the collaboration of state and non-state institutions and the proliferation of English schools catering to Japanese students, play a significant role in spreading PhEs across various spaces in Japanese society. On the other hand, internal factors, such as the issues of an aging population and labor shortages, as well as the incentivization of English in workplaces, help solidify its status in Japan. These elements work together to create a dynamic linguistic ecology where PhEs continue to evolve, adapt, and diffuse both locally and globally.