Missionary linguistics is a discipline that crystallises in the early 21st century, although there are many previous studies (see Segovia-Gordillo, 2023, or Esparza-Torres & Niederehe, 2023 for a complete bibliography), and as a discipline it encompasses a wide range of territories and languages (García-Medall, 2010; Acevedo-López, 2022a & 2022b; Acevedo-López & Esparza-Torres, 2020). These studies have shown how the grammars and vocabularies produced in the Spanish colonies between the 16th and 19th centuries are of special interest for the history of linguistics, in that they reveal significant aspects of the extensive processes of grammatization that involve the knowledge of, and reduction to, grammars of European and non-European vernacular languages, Amerindian and Philippine in the Spanish case, starting from the Renaissance. This is the result of a much broader transcultural process that involved constructing, understanding and describing the culture of these peoples, discovering new realities, and communicating the doctrine of the catholic faith in the language of the other speakers (Zimmermann, 2006).

There are numerous works on grammars of American origins, whereas those dedicated to the languages of the Philippines are not as plentiful. Hence, we believe that there remains a need to situate these languages in the context of a Hispanic tradition, as products of their own epistemological framework and as examples of a contrastive approach which uses Latin and the missionary’s vernacular language as points of reference.1

In the remarkable process of the grammaticization of the languages of the New World and the Philippines, it is fundamentally Nebrija’s Introductiones (along with other notable influences), in its Recognitio edition or in a subsequent editions, that within integrate them in the long Graeco-Latin tradition. As Baños-Baños & Téllez-Nieto (2015) point out, the influence of this grammatical treatise can be observed early on in missionary-colonial grammars, first in America and later in the Philippines. In their analysis of Andrés de Olmos’s2 Arte de la lengua mexicana (1547), they accurately identify the model provided by the Introductiones (see also Cuevas-Alonso, 2011; Acevedo-López, 2022a) and date Olmos’s source to an edition following the Recognitio, probably the editio cantabrica extensa of 1508 or a later one (the Venetian or Lyon editions, 1512 and 1513, respectively), which, of particular relevance to us, contained the minor work De vi ac potestate litterarum.

TThat said, as these authors acknowledge, and as Esparza-Torres also notes, we cannot assume that the missionaries who arrived in the Philippines aboard the Manila Galleon from New Spain (along with copies of the Introductiones) simply relied on this work, which they would undoubtedly have studied in their religious training, continuing as it did the de-Latinisation of grammar initiated by Nebrija. Rather, they “conocían no solo por sus estudios las obras del gramático, sino también el modo en que sus compañeros habían aplicado sus saberes a la gramatización de lenguas muy diferentes del latín” [knew not only the works of the grammarian through their studies, but also the way in which their companions had applied their knowledge to the grammaticization of languages very different from Latin] (Esparza-Torres, 2023, p. 96; see also Esparza-Torres, 2015 and 2016)3. The expectation that the learner would recognise the Graeco-Latin model and that of the missionary-colonial tradition allowed grammarians to omit extensive explanations of the meanings of metalinguistic terms (vowel, consonant, penultimate prorrepta/corrupta, diphthong, herir (to weaken a vowel or consonant), etc.), explanations that occur when these terms are redefined to adapt to the reality of the languages they describe, or concerning the internal structure and organisation of the grammar itself.

In this regard, we must bear in mind that, if an indigenous grammatical tradition existed, in many cases, and particularly for the Philippines,

However, as we will see, they use terms from that tradition to explain particular features of the language, as happens, for example, in the case of uayaon, or else establish correlations between these and Latin ones, as we will see in the case of soft and hard vowels (malatà and matigàs, respectively, in the Filipino tradition) (see also Cuevas-Alonso, 2011).

Spanish is the language of description4, and Latin grammar constitutes the foundational descriptive framework from which the metalanguage is also adopted. This metalanguage is modified with new methods and explanatory approaches in order to bring it into line with what has come to be called the vernacular turn. This adjustment uses the data from the languages that are being analysed, but without proposing much new metalanguage that would be more in line with the linguistic characteristics of those languages (Breva-Claramonte, 2008a, 2008b; Nieto, 1975, vol. II, p. 39; Suárez-Roca, 2000; Swiggers, 2003, 2004).

However, they did develop and seek out original descriptive solutions (Altman, 1999), and in this way declensions, word classes, etc. became the initial foundations on which contemporary theoretical frameworks are built, frameworks that “[son] producto de la aguda capacidad para percibir diferencias intrínsecas, rasgos únicos o construcciones originales” [are the product of an acute ability to perceive intrinsic differences, unique features or original constructions] (Galeote, 2002, p. 1727) .

As Esparza-Torres (2023, p. 96) argues “la caja de herramientas con la que contaban los gramáticos incluía un instrumental de origen grecolatino, pero cuando empiezan a trabajar en Filipinas, atesoraban ya una experiencia de muchísimos años” [the tools available to grammarians included Greco-Latin instruments, but by the time they started working in the Philippines, they had already gained extensive experience] from their work on Amerindian languages. This is clearly seen through the various references in these works not only to Nebrija, but also to earlier texts from the missionary-colonial tradition, from which they borrowed strategies and examples (see also Cuevas-Alonso, 2011; Ridruejo, 2011; Esparza-Torres, 2016). In many cases, there are references to earlier missionary grammars, particularly that of Blancas de San José (Fernández-Rodríguez, 2014; Cuevas-Alonso, 2011).

The approach involves a dual process. On the one hand, given that the grammatical artifice from Europe is applied, we find a form of exogrammatization. On the other, since they use grammatization tools from the missionary tradition, they are aware of the typological affinities between the languages they describe. These instruments of grammatization were developed for other languages - whether European, Amerindian, or specifically Philippine - regardless of whether these belonged to the same linguistic family or not.

As various authors have noted, the application of the Latin model was not done unthinkingly; as Suárez-Roca (2000, p. 78) observes, the languages that the missionaries described required new methods and explanatory schemes. The missionaries themselves were aware of the inadequacy of the Latin mould, and indeed they adapted, redefined and transformed it, a fact which the grammarians themselves acknowledged5. Klötter (2011, p. 89), for example, points out that, alongside knowledge of the Greco-Latin tradition, we find other explanatory elements in the missionary grammars: “(1) the use of transcriptions and the arrangement of examples, which are not related to terminology in any way; (2) the avoidance of terminology; (3) the questioning of existing terminology by denying its relevance; (4) the redefinition of existing terminology; and (5) terminological innovation” (see also Gómez-Asencio, 2001; Galeote, 2002, p. 1725; Cuevas-Alonso, 2011, chap. 4; a concept recently revisited by Winkler, 2016, though without citing these earlier works)6. This results in an intermediate phenomenon between exogrammatization and endogrammatization.

In this regard, recent research, seen from the perspective viewed through the lens of the transmission of knowledge, identifies three stages in the history of missionary-colonial linguistics in the Americas, which could potentially include the Philippines. The first stage involves missionaries acquiring knowledge, which they then organise and structure to fit a specific model, as previously noted. In the second stage, they aim to understand grammatical structures and vocabulary in order to facilitate evangelisation. Finally, they document this knowledge in writing for broader dissemination (see Loon & Peetermans, 2020).

It should be noted that the missionaries recognise the typological proximity of the languages. Nonetheless, they do not often establish a concrete linguistic genealogy nor explain their common origins of these, as observed in the following passages:

With the aim of teaching the missionaries who would arrive after them, a grammaticization project was initiated. Almost from the very beginning, in America, this project involved, in addition to translations of gospels, lives of saints, confessional writings, etc., the creation of primers in the Latin alphabet, grammars (or arts), and vocabularies. These included descriptions of the phonetic units and some of the suprasegmental features, primarily (or almost exclusively) accent (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011; Máynez, 2023).

Grammars, therefore, were closely linked to the practical and everyday use of the language, the cultural immersion of the missionary in the indigenous society, the vocabularies, and the doctrinal and sacramental books, etc. These served simultaneously as guides for evangelisation and the administration of sacraments, and as tools for formalising the translation of sacred matters to ensure that they were in full communion with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. They differ, thus, from what was being done in Europe at the same time in a more formal and systematic way. In these grammars, for example, we do not find explicit definitions of either the letters or their properties.

The analysis described in the present study is based on 15 grammars and one orthographical work from the 17th and 18th centuries, produced by missionaries in the Philippines, (references listed in the Primary Sources section). In selecting these works, we have attempted to cover most of the known documents of this type that have been preserved. We focus on the first stage of the grammatical description of indigenous languages, which can justifiably be properly termed missionary linguistics, in that it was carried out by religious figures and spans the 16th to 18th centuries (see Suárez, 1983; Sueiro-Justel, 2003; Cuevas-Alonso, 2011). In the 19th century, there was a decline in production, which Koerner (1994) associates with growing interest in universal and philosophical grammar. Sueiro-Justel (2003) notes, as a primary reason here, a shift in language policy at the end of the 18th century. This shift, with the generalisation of the school system, led to the emergence of different audiences and a corresponding change in the methodology for describing languages, alongside the increased promotion of the teaching of Spanish (see Quilis & Casado-Fresnillo, 2008, §1.4.4.3). Additionally, civilians began to take part in this grammatical work as they moved increasingly into university education (Wesseling, 2003[1993]). In this study, we will not address other grammars from the same missionary sphere (such as Chinese or Chamorro) that relate to languages not spoken in the Philippines, even if they were printed there, such as the Arte de la lengua chio chiu (see Klöter, 2011; Klöter & Zwartjes, 2008; Winkler, 2016).

In previous studies (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011; 2015; 2022), we analysed how the missionaries in America and the Philippines described phonetic systems using the Latin alphabet as a reference. We noted the importance of the previous tradition and how, similar to the grammars of vernacular languages, we find contrastive grammars addressing language difficulties in the Spanish/Latin-Filipino context (see Quilis, 1982, 1997; Sueiro-Justel, 2002, 2003; Ridruejo, 2005a). This is also seen in the Portuguese tradition (see Carvalhão-Buescu, 1983).

In Filipino grammars, the section dedicated to the phonological component can sometimes appear at the end of the work, as in Francisco de San José (=Blancas de San José, 1614), following the model of Nebrija’s Introductiones. It may even be placed within a section that includes orthography, the suppression/addition of letters, syncope, or the way of describing time, as seen in Ortiz (1740). In other works, it appears at the beginning, within the preliminary notes, as observed in Ezguerra (1747=1663) or Totanes (1745). This positioning reflects the way Nebrija’s Gramática de la lengua castellana (1492) presents orthographic matters. After explaining the invention of letters, he identifies which ones from Latin are used for Castilian, which ones are not, and those that are absent from the classical language, adhering to Quintilian’s principle (see Cuevas-Alonso, 2022). This final distinction, with clear pedagogical value for those familiar with Latin, is broadly followed in all the works there.

However, as Ridruejo (2011) observes, in the anonymous Sambal grammar (1601), it is peculiar to find this section as a note in the fifth section, which is dedicated to the verb (although, as he points out, later correctors added a reference to this part on folio 1v). This may have been because it had originally a separate section at some point.

The missionaries were aware of the difficulty in pronouncing these new languages, due to differences in some sounds compared to the reference languages: Latin and Spanish, and in the Filipino case also the previously grammaticised Amerindian languages. They also recognised the challenge of oral comprehension for learners encountering languages so different from those with which they were familiar.

Castro, in the 18th century, expressed it thus in his orthography: “La mayor dificultad esta en pronunciar natural y rectamente; y tambien en entenderlas quando el Tagalo las pronuncia; que si no tienes oido de corzo, y de buen musico, trabaxos te mando” [The greatest difficulty lies in natural and correct pronunciation, and also in understanding the Tagalog when they speak. If you do not have a keen ear and musical talent, you will face great challenges] (Castro, 1776, p. 48) .

Although the Filipino languages had syllabic writing systems for various languages when the Spaniards arrived, the missionaries established a connection between these symbols, the Latin alphabet letters, and the corresponding sounds. They followed the same strategy used in America, based on Nebrija’s Spanish grammar, which draws on Latin. This involved distinguishing between letters that represent sounds directly (graphic-phonetic correspondence), letters that represent different sounds than in the reference languages, and letters that are not used in Spanish or Latin. For these, various strategies were developed, such as using trigraphs, adding signs to known letters, or borrowing from other alphabets (Cuevas-Alonso, 2015; 2022). They adhered, then, to the Quintilian maxim of ‘pronounce as you write and write as you pronounce’. Some grammarians, such as Blancas de San José (1610), recommended learning the Tagalog characters to pronounce them correctly, although he noted the great difficulty in reading “expeditamente la lengua Tagala en sus mismos caracteres” [the Tagalog language fluently in its own characters].

They describe “aquellos sonidos que, si bien son similares a los de español y latín, presentan diferencias relevantes, una fonoortografía del castellano y del latín trasladada a estas nuevas lenguas (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011), aspecto este, el fonoortográfico, que subyace a todo alfabeto (Moses, 1964, p. 33)” [those sounds that, while similar to those in Spanish and Latin, present significant differences, a phono-orthography of Spanish and Latin transferred to these new languages (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011). This phono-orthographic aspect underlies every alphabet (Moses, 1964, p. 33)] (Cuevas-Alonso, 2022) , and create terms for unknown sounds: g gangosa,7 saltillo or cortadilla, for example, which they describe in an impressionistic manner, although in many cases they leave the learning of these to a process of usage and practice with the native speakers (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011; Ridruejo, 2011). This impressionistic description is found even in the tradition prior to the arrival of the Spanish in the islands. For instance, Totanes — and later, Castro (1776, p. 32) — noted a differentiation that relates avant la lettre to the degree of openness (greater articulatory tension in the hard versus soft sounds):

Thus, unlike the Spanish grammarians who adhered strictly to Nebrija’s orthography, these grammarians had some freedom to adapt the Latin alphabet to the linguistic realities they were describing (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011).

By the 18th century, the Latin alphabet had completely replaced the Filipino syllabaries.9 Oyanguren de Santa Inés noted in his Tagalog grammar: “Oy dia se van olvidando de estas letras, porque los Españoles introdujeron las letras Gothicas, y los Operarios Evangélicos ayudan con incessante desvelo, manteniendo en cada Pueblo su Escuela” [These letters are gradually being forgotten, as the Spaniards introduced Gothic letters, and the Evangelical workers tirelessly assist by maintaining schools in every town] (Oyanguren de Santa Inés, 1745, pp. 3-4). This situation was similar to what happened with the American writing systems and symbols when the teaching of the alphabet was introduced to children (Motolinía, 1541). Such a shift was intended to resolve interpretation issues, as observed by Ortiz in his work on Tagalog (1740), and also noted by Castro in a text filled with colonial undertones:

It is worth asking how the missionaries were able to determine the sounds corresponding to the letters. Let us briefly recall how in the European tradition, which these scribes knew well, primarily through Nebrija’s Latin grammar, the concept of a letter held almost a phonematic value — the triple graphic-phonetic dimension of nomen-figura-potestas (see Pérez-Rodríguez, 1996 and 2002; for the Spanish tradition, see Martínez-Gavilán, 1983). Various researchers link this to an unconscious analysis of language “y la reflexión sobre la segmentación del contínuum sonoro” [and reflection on the segmentation of the sound continuum] (Cuevas-Alonso, 2022; see also Abercrombie, 1965; Kramsky, 1974; Hospers, 1980; Allen, 1981; Auroux, 1994; Cuevas-Alonso, 2011 and 2015). Zwartjes (2010) further notes that missionaries managed to identify the significant units of the languages they were describing, linking them to the written symbols by starting from the materiality of speech but using the Spanish phonological system as a filter. As Calvo Pérez (2005) points out, orthography and letters are not arbitrary; the phonetic criterion leads us to “considerar que la palabra letra tiene dos significados: el de signo escrito y el de signo pronunciado” [consider that the word letter has two meanings: the written sign and the pronounced sign] (p. 166). This method explains why the authors make observations in their works that are close to phonology, although not in the current sense, as they lacked the systematicity and thoroughness of applying the principle of commutation.

However, they do not explicitly distinguish between a letter and its properties - nomen, figura and potestas; rather, there. There is an identification between a letter and its phonetic and graphic properties. This situation becomes evident when, in referring to the units of indigenous languages, they note the absence of some letters and the presence of others which differ from Latin, directly alluding to the presence, absence, or necessity of certain letters. Consider this example.

Some grammars, however, will refer to two different aspects: pronunciation on one hand, and the letter on the other. Nonetheless, within the same grammar, proclivity to unify the two concepts is also seen:

TThe grammarians, then, begin with a synchronic description of the most widespread usage, keeping morphological aspects and syllabic restrictions in mind due to their relevance in determining and modifying roots and affixes. Using a contrastive procedure, already attested in contemporary European grammars for foreigners, they employ a commutation method that we have previously described as propaedeutic (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011 and 2022)10. This method allowed for a fairly accurate description of the phonetic component of the languages and addressed some issues related to contextually conditioned distribution, whether specific or not, with or without alternation. However, such descriptions are not without instances of under or over-specification (see Smith-Stark, 2005, for Amerindian grammars; Cuevas-Alonso, 2011, for Filipino grammars); as Ridruejo (2011) points out, confusion sometimes arises between letters due to these cases of under- and over-specification. The same practice of a propaedeutic commutation is attested in Amerindian grammars as noted by Monzón-García (2005), who also observes that the introduction of this commutation when exemplified, often replaces the formulation of a rule.

Thus, we observe in our grammars that the grammarians are aware that a change in the phonetic unit —the sound component of the letter— results in a change in meaning. This is expressed by some of them in the following terms:

Also, in some cases, they create tables with oppositions of word pairs. They even compare the phenomenon they are illustrating with what happens in Spanish varieties, or by referring to earlier grammarians of the Amerindian or Filipino traditions. This can be seen again in the following example from Oyanguren de Santa Inés (1742, p. 7).

As observed by Suárez-Roca (1992, pp. 82 and ff.) regarding the treatment of phonetic aspects in Nahuatl, missionary-colonial grammars from the Philippines reflect a somewhat unbalanced interest on the part of their authors on these issues. Additionally, they sometimes exhibit attempts by these missionaries to surpass or summarise previous grammars.

Nevertheless, compared to the sections dedicated to syntax or morphology, which are extensive due to the need for a detailed treatment of the particles attached to roots to convey syntactic relations and their various significations, the sections on phonetic aspects are relatively brief. These sections focus primarily on matching graphemes and corresponding sounds of the Latin alphabet to those of the languages being described - and, in the case of the Philippines, also taking into account what was learned in America - plus addressing pronunciation in the most practical way possible. This is done either impressionistically or in a more articulation-based approach, and includes the graphic representation of the sounds specific to the Philippine languages (Cuevas-Alonso, 2011 and 2015).

On numerous occasions, spelling and pronunciation, along with other issues, such as the definition of raíz (Eng. root), are addressed in the preliminary remarks or in the prologue. These remarks have an eminently practical character, facilitating the correct interpretation of the subsequent grammatical text and, at times, presenting supplements ((either in the same section or at the end of the grammar) that deal with accent, the pronunciation of the glottal stop (referred to as cortadillo in missionary terminology), reduplications, syncopations, etc., as we can observe, for example, in the grammars of Blancas (1610), Bergaño (1736=1729) and Oyanguren de Santa Inés (1742), among others. In some cases, there is even reference to prosody, mainly to accent and poetry (cf. Benavente, c. 1699) or to mutations related to morphophonemic matters associated with the composition of roots with particles, as in Ezguerra (1747=1663) or Ortiz (1740).12

In other works, preliminary remarks are not included, with spelling and prosody constituting independent chapters. Such is the case with the Tagalog grammar by Gaspar de San Agustín (1787=1703), which also addresses syncopations, contractions, mutation, and the addition of letters. It is noteworthy that this author titles the chapter “De la Prosodia” (Eng. “On Prosody”) and begins it with the definition of the term. Interestingly, in this characterisation, he combines the classical definitions of spelling and prosody found in Nebrija, without making a clear distinction between the two:

Although we find cases where specific sections do not appear, such as in Coronel’s Pampanga grammar (c. 1621), Andrés de San Agustín’s Bicol grammar (1795), or Francisco López’s Ilocano grammar (1792=1627), phonetic issues are generally addressed throughout the texts. However, these often omit references to the alphabet/syllabary and their correspondence with the sounds of the languages undergoing grammatization. Such phonetic considerations are particularly linked to morphophonemic issues (composition, reduplication, etc.) or stylistic matters, which they refer to as “elegancia de la lengua” (Eng. “elegance of the language”): syncopations, epentheses, dissimilations and assimilations, haplologies, etc.

However, in most of the grammars, we witness one of the two patterns established by Nebrija. First, there is the pattern of the Gramática castellana, in which orthography and prosody appear at the beginning of the work — grouped together, unlike in the Latin grammar, for reasons of coherence (Calvo- Pérez 1994, p. 128)— similar to Dionysius Thrax, Donatus, or Priscian. This pattern is less common and is documented, for example, in Ezguerra (1747=1663) or Andrés López (1690).

Secondly, we find the more widespread model, that of the Introductiones. This work includes a section dedicated to orthography and the general theory of prosody after the paradigms of declensions and conjugations. The description is completed with a detailed treatment of prosody — of initial, medial and final syllables, and accentuation — which is contained in a fifth book, the final one of the work. This model is followed, for example, in the grammars of Blancas, Bergaño, Oyanguren de Santa Inés, and Agustín de la Magdalena (1679), and, as Calvo-Pérez (2005, pp. 165-166) points out, also in Amerindian grammars.

It seems, therefore, that although the possibility is left open for missionaries to consider orthography as a constitutive part of grammar, the majority regard it as marginal. Nevertheless, this does not diminish its pedagogical importance, as they themselves tend to indicate by labelling the relevant sections as “preliminary remarks”. This perspective is already evident in the Amerindian missionary grammars, where phonetic aspects are reduced to notes on difficulties: voice-letter correspondence, phonetic differences between the reference languages and the one being grammaticized, and, in some cases, particularly challenging aspects for Spanish speakers, such as the case of the glottal stop (see, e.g., Rincón’s Mexican grammar (1595, fol. 70)).

However, as Ramajo-Caño (1987) points out, the division into orthography-prosody-morphology-syntax was not the only one. Some grammarians, such as Villalón, Corro, and Correas (in his trilingual grammar), consider only three parts - orthography, morphology and syntax - while others include just two - orthography and morphology - such as in the anonymous Spanish grammar of Leuven (1555), Luna, Franciosini, Zumarán, etc.

Some grammarians also deviated from the manner in which these issues were addressed in previous and contemporary Spanish grammatical traditions. In some cases, the general structure and specific treatment of orthography resemble more closely what is found in the fifth book of Nebrija’s Gramática castellana, titled “De las introducciones de la lengua castellana para los que de extraña lengua querrán aprender” (Eng. “An introduction to Spanish for non-native speakers”); this could have been their model. This seems to be the case, among others, for Blancas, one of the earliest authors whose grammar is preserved and which we reference here. Blancas addresses phonetic issues in the second and fifth sections. The latter section focuses on two important differences between Tagalog and Spanish, the first of these being the presence of two types of g: one similar to the Spanish [g], represented by the letter g, and the other nasal ng̃, [ŋ]13. The second difference is that the combination ‘u + vowel’ always behaves as a semivowel. Near the end of the grammar, we find a chapter dedicated to “De varia doctrina” (Eng. “Various doctrines”. As part of the fourth rule (pp. 298-303), the author discusses the pronunciation of letters.

As we can see, orthography and pronunciation do not occupy the same place in all the grammars analysed, nor do they all receive in-depth treatment. This is already evident in the American grammars, in contrast to what we find in the Spanish grammars of Nebrija, Corro, Villalón and Correas, where they occupy a significant chapter and are placed at the beginning rather than in a marginal position, as in Blancas. What is the reason for this treatment? Part of the answer lies in Blancas himself, as we previously mentioned: it is about resolving the difficulties that learners might face in developing their oral production, which cause problems in communication. It is not a systematic description, which is unnecessary for foreigners already familiar with the Latin alphabet’s phonetic values. Rather, it is a tool to assist in an immersive process of learning, serving as a manual for resolving doubts:

In this regard, Zwartjes, when interpreting the grammar by Oyanguren de Santa Inés, argues that “la sección dedicada a la fonología y ortografía no es muy extensa, porque la fonología tagala fue considerada menos difícil que la china, y sigue, grosso modo, la pronunciación ‘europea’” [the section dedicated to phonology and orthography is not very extensive because Tagalog phonology was considered less difficult than Chinese, and it broadly follows ‘European’ pronunciation] (Zwartjes 2010, p. 52). We interpret this to mean that, for Tagalog, the letters that function independently are more numerous than for Chinese, and therefore, Tagalog shares more significant units with the Spanish or Latin system of that time than with this other Asian language.

The phonetic description of Philippine languages follows the path established by the European tradition and Amerindian colonial missionary work. As we have seen, numerous studies have noted the early influence of Nebrija’s Latin grammar on the Amerindian grammars and how the edition likely used was one published after the Recognitio. However, as has been observed, this was not the only influence on the Filipino artes, just as it was not in the Americas, since the missionaries brought with them a prior grammatical tradition that they were familiar with and used as a model for the development of their own grammatical treatises. Rather than simply adopting this tradition, they reworked and adapted it to fit the specific characteristics of the Amerindian and Philippine languages, continuing what Percival (1999) calls the “vernacular turn” or what Swiggers (2003) refers to as the ‘vernacularisation’ de la grammaire.

Thus, in the grammars analysed here we have found references to both the earlier European tradition, primarily Nebrija, and the missionary tradition, particularly in the Filipino context with Blancas de San José. In this regard, as Gómez-Asencio (2001) points out, what matters most is not the origin or modification of the terms used to describe these languages, but rather the exceptional descriptive adequacy that the grammarians achieve through their redefinition, as in the case of the Latin penultimate law, or by introducing new terms, such as saltillo or cortadilla to refer to the glottal consonant. In this adaptation of Latin material, they did not hesitate to incorporate concepts and metalanguage from the native “linguistic” tradition that existed prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. This is evident in the definition and description of the uayaon or the hard and soft vowels.

In this context, we find that the way phonetic aspects are introduced in the works we studied, with the exception of the Sambal grammar described by Ridruejo (2011), aligns with what we observe in Nebrija’s Introductiones. Specifically, they appear either at the end of the work or, serving a preparatory purpose for those familiar with Latin, at the beginning, as seen in Nebrija’s Spanish grammar. These two positions are also attested in the Amerindian missionary tradition.

Despite the existence of native syllabaries at the time of the Spaniards’ arrival, the missionaries did not hesitate to use the Latin alphabet as a reference. This gradually led to the replacement of the existing writing systems with the Latin alphabet.

The descriptive procedure in these grammars follows a pre-established script. This framework seems to follow the one found in Nebrija’s grammar, which is also attested in the Amerindian missionary artes. Thus, in the grammars where a section on orthography appears, we observe that the relationships between the Filipino syllabaries and the Latin alphabet are indicated, coincidences and differences are determined, and elements absent in the reference languages (Latin and Spanish) are described. This approach respects the Quintilian maxim expressed in Nebrija’s Latin grammar as litterae in usu and focuses on adapting the reused alphabet to represent pronunciation accurately. As is attested in the Americas, graphemes are conceived as signifiers of pronunciation, with graphemic diversity reflecting phonetic diversity. This also has pedagogical value. It involves comparing the sounds of Philippine languages with those of Latin, which were well known to the missionaries, and is approached from an orthographic perspective. In addition, references to various Spanish dialects or other languages are often made to illustrate the pronunciations of the languages in this archipelago.

In the missionary-colonial tradition, a “practical” or “pedagogical” shift can be observed, which aims to teach learners the differences in meaning that result from changes in the signifier. It should be noted that this approach is never adopted as a systematic criterion for recognising the units of the languages being grammaticized, leading to under- and over-differentiations. Nevertheless, this significant feature of changes in meaning caused by changes in the signifier is thoroughly exemplified in the grammars analysed here.

Like the Amerindian grammarians, the Filipino grammarians are capable of describing phenomena such as specific realisations or context-conditioned alternations, recognising a difference between what should be written (significant unit) and what is pronounced, which may vary.

We find descriptions of particularly challenging aspects, such as the uayaon or the treatment of semivowels, which are often addressed together with vowels or consonants.

Finally, we believe that we find here a notable chapter in the history of phonetics and phonology, showcasing the development and adaptation of linguistic ideas to accommodate the foreign languages of that era. The descriptions, in their form, structure and content, are very similar to each other, and this similarity extends to the Amerindian artes and even to Nebrija’s grammar, aligning with the idea that we are dealing with gramáticas en cascada (i.e., grammars produced in a series, copying one another and innovating upon what came before) (see Galeote, 2002, for the Americas; Cuevas-Alonso, 2011, for Philippine languages) characterised by a distinct methodological sequence. This is the result of grammaticization processes common to the missionary-colonial sphere, where the prior knowledge and experience of the missionaries —both European and missionary (in the Americas and the Philippine archipelago itself)— play a significant role in this sequence. These grammars, while developed within a shared framework, also reflect individual originality (Hernández-de-León-Portilla, 2003).