The Seeds of Tradition: the Socio – Cultural Language of Ilocano Rice Farming

The Seeds of Tradition: The Socio – Cultural Language of Ilocano Rice Farming

Reynaldo J. Ilumin

Faculty Member, College of Education – Sumacab Campus Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology Cabanatuan City, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000232

Received: 28 June 2025; Accepted: 07 July 2025; Published: 11 August 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explored the intricate relationship between language, culture, and agriculture among the Ilocanos, driven by the urgent need to preserve their rich, yet increasingly endangered, socio-cultural heritage. Rice farming is more than a means of survival—it is a living tradition that encodes identity, community values, and ecological wisdom. Using a Qualitative Ethnographic Research Design, this study investigated the socio-cultural language embedded in Ilocano agricultural practices through immersive fieldwork and cultural interpretation. Rooted Theory, based on Indigenous Knowledge Systems, frames the data analysis, treating Ilocano farmers as knowledge holders whose oral traditions transmit spiritual beliefs, ethical labor relations, and environmental consciousness. To unify the insights of Rooted Theory, Cultural Symbolic Interactionism, and Schema Theory, this research introduced the Dicot Seed Theory, an original framework crafted by the author that interprets language as both structure and seed of cultural knowledge. Twenty-three Ilocano farming lexicons were analyzed across six thematic categories, revealing a deeply integrated lifeworld where communal work, rituals, and labor roles reflect a moral economy of cooperation, resilience, and sustainability. This study affirmed that Ilocano farming language is not merely descriptive but generative—preserving ancestral wisdom and shaping collective life through every spoken term and shared harvest.

Keywords: Tradition, Socio-Cultural Language, Ilocano Rice Farming

INTRODUCTION

This study emerges from a pressing need to document and preserve the intricate relationship between language, culture, and agriculture among the Ilocano people. Rice farming has long been the backbone of Ilocano society, not only as a primary source of livelihood but also as a cultural cornerstone that shapes community identity and values. However, with the encroachment of modern agricultural practices and the erosion of traditional knowledge, there is a significant risk of losing this rich cultural heritage. This study aims to bridge this gap by exploring how the Ilocano language encapsulates and conveys the socio-cultural aspects of rice farming, thereby contributing to the preservation of both linguistic and agricultural traditions.

Recent research highlights the importance of indigenous knowledge systems in sustaining traditional farming practices. For instance, a study on the traditional farming practices and lexicons in Cervantes, Ilocos Sur, identified various rice farming practices and traditions that have persisted despite modernization (Azarias, Garcia, & Garlejo, 2022). Similarly, an investigation into the rice farming practices among Agsurnon farmers highlighted the embedded Filipino values such as bayanihan, faith, and industriousness, which are integral to their agricultural activities (Guzman et al., 2023). These findings illustrate the deep interconnection between language, culture, and agriculture, providing a compelling rationale for this study.

Furthermore, the Ilocano language itself serves as a repository of cultural knowledge, with specific terms and expressions related to rice farming that reflect the community’s values and worldview. The preservation of these linguistic elements is crucial, as they carry meanings and practices that are vital to the Ilocano identity. By examining how the Ilocano language articulates the socio-cultural dimensions of rice farming, this study seeks to highlight the role of language in maintaining cultural continuity amidst the challenges posed by modernization.

In summary, this research is driven by the need to document and analyze the socio-cultural language of Ilocano rice farming, recognizing its significance in preserving both linguistic and agricultural heritage. Through this exploration, the study aims to contribute to the broader discourse on cultural preservation and the role of language in sustaining traditional practices in the face of contemporary challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative Design and Methods

This study adopts a Qualitative Ethnographic Research Design, aimed at exploring and interpreting the socio-cultural language embedded in Ilocano rice farming. Ethnography is appropriate for capturing the lived experiences, traditional knowledge, and culturally specific language practices of Ilocano farmers within their natural agricultural setting. The research focuses on how the Ilocano language functions as a vessel for cultural values, community practices, and agricultural knowledge. Data were gathered through immersive fieldwork conducted in 10  Ilocano-speaking barangays in the Southernmost part of Isabela, which is the town of Cordon, selected for their strong adherence to traditional rice farming practices and linguistic continuity.

Data collection involved multiple methods: in-depth key informant interviews with elderly and active rice farmers, participant observations during key phases of the rice farming cycle (land preparation, planting, harvesting), and focus group discussions. These were conducted in Ilocano, with responses transcribed, translated, and analyzed for recurring culturally significant terminology. Thematic analysis was employed to classify the data into categories such as agricultural rituals, labor roles, and harvest expressions, and communal work concepts. The presence of repeated language patterns and metaphors was carefully noted to reflect the socio-cultural worldview encoded in farming discourse.

To enhance the reliability and credibility of findings, each data collection method was replicated across three barangays, resulting in no fewer than three sets of comparable linguistic data. This allowed for cross-validation of themes and ensured that observed patterns were not isolated instances. The analysis also included peer debriefing with local member checking with participants to verify interpretations. While primarily qualitative, the study integrates basic frequency counts of specific terms and expressions to highlight consistency across contexts, strengthening the validity of the conclusions about the enduring cultural meanings in Ilocano rice farming language.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted through the lens of Rooted Theory authored by Dr. Virgilio G. Enriquez in 1992,  an approach grounded in Indigenous Knowledge Systems Theory by Paulin J. Hountondji in 1997 and Linda Tuhiwai Smith and others in 1999. This framework emphasizes that traditional knowledge is situated, context-specific, and orally transmitted through generations. The study treated the Ilocano farmers not merely as data sources, but as knowledge holders whose language encodes ecological understanding, spiritual beliefs, and community ethics. Recurring indigenous terminologies, metaphors, and farming expressions were analyzed to extract embedded cultural logic and cosmological meaning. Patterns that emerged—such as references to ancestral spirits, land stewardship, and communal labor—were not only linguistic phenomena but expressions of a coherent indigenous worldview, revealing a deeply rooted system of knowledge that governs everyday agricultural life.

From the perspective of Symbolic Interactionism (by George Herbert Mead in 1934 but Herbert Blumer coined the term in 1969), the analysis explored how Ilocano farmers use language in rice farming contexts to construct and negotiate social meanings. Through transcribed interviews and field observations, particular attention was paid to how individuals used specific terms, phrases, or gestures during farming rituals, cooperative work, and intergenerational instruction. These communicative acts functioned as symbols that shaped social roles, reinforced communal norms, and expressed shared values such as bayanihan (communal unity) and pannakikaddua (togetherness). Language, in this view, was not only a tool of description but a medium through which farmers created and sustained their social reality—affirming identities, assigning responsibility, and maintaining the moral fabric of their communities.

Finally, Cultural Schema Theory (by Jean Mandler in 1984 and developed further in cultural context by Richard A. Shweder, D’Andrade and others in 1990), guided the interpretation of how linguistic patterns reflect shared mental frameworks among Ilocano farmers. The study identified schemas—or culturally-shaped cognitive structures—that were repeatedly activated through language during farming practices. For example, terms associated with weather observation, seed selection, or the timing of harvests reflected not only practical knowledge but structured ways of perceiving the world. These cultural schemas were revealed through consistent associations between words and concepts such as patience, balance with nature, and reverence for ancestral guidance. By analyzing language as a window into cognitive organization, the study highlighted how deeply ingrained cultural knowledge shapes thought, behavior, and identity in the Ilocano agricultural context.

To synthesize and unify the insights of the three foundational theories—Rooted Theory (Indigenous Knowledge Systems), Cultural Symbolic Interactionism, and Schema Theory—the author developed his own integrative framework called the Dicot Seed Theory. This original theory crafted by the researcher serves as a cohesive lens through which these diverse yet interconnected perspectives can be understood as parts of a single, living system of knowledge and meaning.

Figure 1 shows the unifying framework of the Dicot Seed Theory exemplifying interconnectedness and interrelatedness of the Rooted Theory, the Cultural Symbolic Interactionism, and the Schema Theory.

Figure 1. Theoretical Synthesis of Dicot Seed Theory

The Dicot Seed Theory, viewed through a linguistic lens, offers a unifying framework that encapsulates the interplay between form and meaning across diverse epistemologies. The seed coat—comprising the lexical and morphological structures—safeguards and gives form to deeper layers of meaning, much like language encodes and preserves cultural knowledge. Within, the cotyledons and embryo symbolize the synergistic convergence of Rooted Theory (Indigenous Knowledge Systems Theory), Cultural Symbolic Interactionism, and Schema Theory: the cotyledons as reservoirs of cultural memory and experiential knowledge (Rooted Theory), and the embryo as the dynamic core where symbolic interaction (language as social meaning-making) and mental schemata (internalized linguistic patterns) germinate. This metaphorical seed illustrates how linguistic structures protect, transmit, and activate deeply embedded worldviews, positioning Dicot Seed Theory as a holistic model that roots language in both cultural continuity and cognitive processing.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical research protocols were strictly followed in this study, beginning with the solicitation of formal permission through official letters addressed to the town mayor and subsequently to the barangay captains to secure their approval and support. Informed consent was obtained from all participants via a prepared consent letter, which clearly outlined the objectives of the study and affirmed their voluntary participation. The study’s purpose and procedures were further explained to ensure understanding, and participants’ rights—including confidentiality, the right to withdraw, and protection from harm—were upheld throughout and after the fieldwork.

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the distribution of Ilocano farming lexicons probed with socio – cultural elements based on its thematic categories (agricultural rituals, social merriment, labor roles, harvest expression, communal work, related agricultural practice).

Table 1. Distribution of Ilocano farming lexicons probed with socio-cultural elements in its thematic categories

Table 2 presents the thematic categories of the socio – cultural Ilocano farming lexicon with its English meaning and context use.

Table 2. Thematic Categories of the Socio – Cultural Ilocano Farming Lexicon

The series of tables below show the individual analyses of each Ilocano farming lexicon arranged according to its thematic categories in line with the lenses of Rooted Theory (Indigenous Knowledge Systems Theory), Symbolic Interactionism, and Cultural Schema Theory, and Dicot Seed Theory.

Agricultural Ritual (Only Table 3)

Table 3. Atang 

Social Merriment (Table 4 – 6)

Table 4. Agpilipig / Pilipig

Table 5. Iniruban / Irub

Table 6. Ugas Kalawang

Labor Roles (Table 7 – 9)

Table 7. Kabisilya

Table 8. Kasamak

Table 9. Porsientuan

Harvest Expression (Table 10 – 13)

Table 10. Ikabanan

Table 11. Makitudtud / Agtudtud

Table 12. Makiunos / Unusan

Table 13. Makiwagwag

Communal Work (Table 14 – 19)

Table 14. Panagbibinnatares / Batares

Table 15. Makiammuyo/Makiamuyo

Table 16. Makibanus/Banusan

Table 17. Makikaryada/Karyada

Table 18. Makipagmandala/Mandala

Table 19. Mangikaro/Agikaro

Related Agricultural Practice (Table 20 – 25)

Table 20. Ensima / Aginsima

Table 21. Pagtugawan / Pangrugyan / Pamusyan

Table 22. Salda

Table 23. Sinnukat / Pagsinnukat Tagikwa

Table 24. Tampa

Table 25. Tawid / Impatawid

DISCUSSION

Twenty – three (23) Ilocano farming lexicons were qualified and  probed through their socio-cultural elements across six thematic categories: Agricultural Rituals (1), Social Merriment (3), Labor Roles (3), Harvest Expression (4), Communal Work (6), and Related Agricultural Practice, highlighting the rich cultural integration within Ilocano agricultural vocabulary.

The Ilocano farming lexicon reflects a deeply integrated socio-cultural system where agricultural practices, community cooperation, and moral values are inseparable. Rituals like atang highlight the spiritual dimension of farming, revealing indigenous beliefs that seek divine favor for bountiful harvests. Social merriments such as agpilipig, iniruban, and ugas kalawang demonstrate how agricultural tasks double as spaces for communal bonding, courtship, and celebration, especially under the full moon. Labor roles like the kabisilya, kasamak, and porsientuan capture traditional hierarchies, agreements, and responsibilities, showing a shared ethic of fairness and mutual survival rooted in informal yet structured practices.

Harvest expressions and communal work further emphasize the Ilocano community’s resilience and interdependence. Terms like makitudtud, makiunos, and makiwagwag preserve labor strategies that ensure no grain is wasted while providing support for the less fortunate. Likewise, makibanus, makikaryada, and mangikaro demonstrate cooperation not just in physical labor but in upholding promises and reciprocal obligations. Related agricultural terms such as ensima, salda, and tampa underscore economic adaptability within informal systems of trade and labor. The tradition of tawid reflects a long-standing commitment to equality and sustainability through inheritance. Altogether, these terms document how farming in Ilocano culture is both livelihood and lifeworld—sustaining both rice and relationships.

Agricultural Rituals

Atang, as analyzed through the lens of Rooted Theory (Indigenous Knowledge Systems Theory), exemplifies the Ilocano worldview where agricultural success is inextricably linked to spiritual and ecological balance. It affirms that farming is not merely a technical act but a sacred process that acknowledges ancestral spirits and unseen natural forces. The performance of atang before and after key agricultural cycles like planting and harvesting reflects a cosmology where rituals sustain both land productivity and cultural identity. This ritual ensures that agriculture is practiced not just for economic survival but as a form of reverent coexistence with the environment and spiritual world.

Through Symbolic Interactionism, atang is understood as a powerful medium of social meaning and identity. The act of offering food items becomes more than a ceremonial task—it becomes a symbolic language of respect, gratitude, and spiritual obligation. This performance strengthens communal roles, where each participant—whether the one preparing the food or the elder leading the ritual—enacts their social identity and reinforces the moral fabric of the community. By participating in atang, individuals affirm their belonging and uphold the social memory of ancestral presence, especially during times that mark transitions or uncertainty in agricultural life.

From the perspective of Cultural Schema Theory, atang operates as a shared cultural script, passed down through generations as a consistent and predictable ritual. The knowledge of when to perform atang, what items to prepare, and how to conduct the offering is internalized early in Ilocano life, providing a mental framework for interpreting spiritual and communal responsibilities. This shared schema enables the ritual to endure across generations, preserving core cultural values and fostering unity within the community. Ultimately, atang is not just a practice, but a living tradition that communicates spiritual reverence and communal integrity through structured, inherited behavior.

Social Merriment

The Ilocano traditions of iniruban, agpilipig, and ugas kalawang demonstrate how agricultural life is embedded within deeply rooted Indigenous Knowledge Systems. These cultural practices align with ecological and lunar cycles, transforming labor into rituals of identity, bonding, and spirituality. Iniruban and agpilipig, occurring during the kabus (full moon), integrate work and social connection, reinforcing values of cooperation, gender roles, and respectful courtship. Ugas kalawang, celebrated after raep (replanting), symbolically cleanses the fatigue of communal labor while recognizing the spiritual forces behind agricultural success. All three practices highlight how indigenous Ilocano knowledge embeds sacred timing, ecological awareness, and social cohesion into everyday farming life.

From a symbolic interactionist lens, these rituals serve as performative spaces where individuals affirm identity, express belonging, and act out culturally scripted roles. In iniruban and agpilipig, young people engage in flirtation, teamwork, and subtle self-presentation, learning what it means to grow into adult roles through ritualized social interaction. Ugas kalawang reveals another layer of this symbolic world: men and women enact gratitude and solidarity through gendered activities—drinking, cooking, or storytelling—thereby reinforcing social roles and communal values. These interactions are not random but are shaped by shared meanings, where even a glance, a song, or a drink carries cultural weight.

Under Cultural Schema Theory, these events are recognized as cognitive blueprints—rituals so familiar they require no instruction. They offer a structured and predictable space for the transmission of cultural knowledge and emotional development. Youth intuitively learn how to behave, when to participate, and what roles to assume, while elders model the norms that guide communal life. Whether through pounding rice, roasting grains, or gathering to share food and stories, these schemas sustain the continuity of Ilocano values, reinforcing community ethics, gender dynamics, and intergenerational unity rooted in farming traditions.

Labor Roles

The Ilocano farming practices of kabisilya, kasamak, and porsientuan reflect deeply rooted indigenous knowledge systems, emphasizing relational labor, shared stewardship, and intergenerational continuity. Under Rooted Theory, each term reflects a structure of lived knowledge embedded in community experience. The kabisilya embodies agricultural mastery and mentorship, kasamak represents a trust-based, non-contractual land-sharing arrangement, and porsientuan upholds oral traditions of equitable crop division. Together, they illustrate how Ilocano agricultural life operates beyond economic survival—grounded instead in moral obligation, ancestral values, and harmony with the land.

Through the lens of Symbolic Interactionism, these roles and practices serve as daily performances of identity, respect, and community order. The kabisilya gains symbolic meaning through interaction, earning recognition as a reliable leader. The kasamak negotiates role and identity through the exchange of labor and land, reinforcing communal bonds. Meanwhile, porsientuan rituals of harvest division become visible enactments of fairness and dignity, with every interaction reflecting deeper social cues about trust, reciprocity, and status. These cultural practices serve not only functional roles but express layered meanings interpreted within Ilocano social life.

From the perspective of Cultural Schema Theory, each term activates a distinct mental template that governs behavior in specific agricultural settings. The kabisilya schema shapes expectations of leadership and accountability in fieldwork. The kasamak schema teaches how to navigate relational land use rooted in trust, and porsientuan guides behavior during harvest distribution, embedding fairness and transparency. These schemas ensure that knowledge, values, and practices are internalized from a young age and reinforced across generations, allowing for the sustained cohesion and resilience of Ilocano farming communities. Together, they form a complex cognitive and cultural infrastructure that enables effective, respectful, and adaptive communal life.

Harvest Expression

The Ilocano practices of makiunos, makitudtud, ikabanan, and makiwagwag offer a rich lens into the cultural fabric of indigenous farming life, as seen through Rooted Theory. These acts are not mere techniques or survival strategies; they reflect generations of wisdom rooted in sustainability, mutual support, and deep respect for land and labor. Makiunos shows an ergonomic and cooperative approach to threshing, while makitudtud upholds the sacredness of every grain. Ikabanan reaffirms non-monetary, value-driven exchanges grounded in trust, and makiwagwag reflects the community’s dedication to minimizing waste. These practices ensure agricultural continuity while preserving the Ilocano ethos of balance and stewardship.

Symbolic Interactionism deepens the understanding by illuminating how these practices are lived out and made meaningful in everyday interactions. In makiunos, alternation of tasks and output-based payment symbolize fairness and shared responsibility. Makitudtud, though small in gesture, communicates deep humility and gratitude for harvests. Ikabanan becomes a symbolic transaction of trust and mutual obligation, and makiwagwag highlights an individual’s alignment with communal values of diligence and thrift. Each act is a culturally expressive performance that not only affirms individual moral character but also sustains community bonds through recurring patterns of meaningful exchange.

From the Cultural Schema Theory perspective, these practices activate familiar mental templates that guide behavior during agricultural cycles. Makiunos is understood as a rhythmically shared labor model with clear expectations of effort and reward. Makitudtud is internalized from childhood as an act of completeness and care, reinforcing mindfulness in harvest rituals. Ikabanan is governed by an intuitive sense of barter ratios and reciprocal timing, while makiwagwag instills habits of frugality and responsibility. These schemas function as cultural blueprints, shaping thought, action, and community cohesion in ways that are passed down generationally.

In sum, these four practices exemplify how Ilocano farming traditions function as both material techniques and cultural systems. Rooted in indigenous knowledge, shaped by symbolic social interactions, and guided by internalized schemas, they demonstrate a model of agriculture that transcends profit motives. Instead, they cultivate ethical labor, community interdependence, and long-term ecological mindfulness—principles increasingly relevant in today’s search for sustainable living.

Communal Work

The Ilocano agricultural practices of panagbibinnatares, makiammoyu, makikaryada, makipagmandala, and mangikaro are powerful embodiments of Rooted Theory, reflecting Indigenous Knowledge Systems centered on cooperation, honor, and survival. These practices are not random traditions but strategic, time-tested systems that foster sustainable livelihoods without reliance on formal contracts or market economies. Panagbibinnatares and makiammoyu preserve collective labor systems—based on reciprocity and kinship—while makikaryada and makipagmandala demonstrate logistical and ecological intelligence. At their core is mangikaro, an ethical foundation that upholds these arrangements through verbal commitment and cultural accountability.

Through Symbolic Interactionism, these practices emerge not just as actions, but as social performances that construct meaning, status, and belonging. Saying Makiammoyu tayo or participating in batares does more than organize work—it reinforces one’s identity as a dependable kin or neighbor. The act of makikaryada or makipagmandala during harvests becomes a ritual that marks community solidarity, cooperation, and seasonal success. Mangikaro, as a verbal pledge, becomes a symbol of one’s honor. These small, often informal interactions continuously shape how individuals see themselves and each other within a moral and communal order.

Under Cultural Schema Theory, these practices activate well-established cognitive models that guide behavior, roles, and decisions in agriculture. These schemas are learned early—children observe and participate in makipagmandala, understand when makikaryada is needed, and instinctively recognize the social obligation behind mangikaro. Such mental frameworks regulate not only who works when and with whom but also define what constitutes honor, trustworthiness, and reciprocity. They reduce the need for formal systems by creating predictable, socially-enforced expectations tied to agricultural seasons and familial roles.

Altogether, these Ilocano practices form an integrated cultural system of cooperative labor, indigenous logistics, and ethical commitment. They reflect a world where survival depends not on individual gain but on shared effort, where a person’s word is their bond, and where every grain of rice and act of help carries deep symbolic and social weight. In a time when industrial farming threatens to displace such practices, these indigenous systems remain vital models of ecological and social resilience.

Related Agricultural Practice

Ilocano agrarian practices such as tawid (inheritance), pagtugawan (livelihood gifts for newlyweds), salda (land for loan agreements), and ensima (equity through additional payment) reflect the vitality of Indigenous Knowledge Systems through the lens of Rooted Theory. Each practice sustains core community values such as reciprocity, stewardship, and intergenerational continuity. Inheritance ensures that farming traditions, along with ecological wisdom, are passed down, while newlywed gifts like rice farms or livestock equip the next generation to thrive within the agrarian cycle. These are not isolated customs but integrated systems of knowledge that manage land, relationships, and survival through deeply contextual and culturally sustained practices. Rooted Theory emphasizes that such knowledge is adaptive, localized, and community-driven—essential for the preservation of both environment and culture.

From a Symbolic Interactionist perspective, these practices are rich in shared meanings that emerge through social interaction and community rituals. Tawid is more than the passing of land—it is a symbolic transfer of identity, responsibility, and family legacy. Similarly, pagtugawan expresses the social expectation for young couples to contribute meaningfully to community life, while salda and ensima reflect negotiated trust and fairness in everyday exchanges. These acts strengthen social bonds, encode respect, and affirm communal roles. The meaning of these transactions lies not solely in their material outcome, but in how they express and reinforce social cohesion, trust, and the collective understanding of fairness and accountability.

Cultural Schema Theory helps explain how these practices persist through internalized mental frameworks passed from one generation to the next. Ilocanos grow up learning how to interpret and participate in these systems—understanding, for instance, that inheriting farmland implies an obligation to care for it or that receiving pagtugawan signals a life stage shift and associated responsibilities. The schema surrounding salda teaches people that land use and loans are governed by reciprocity, not exploitation. Similarly, ensima embeds expectations of equity and social balance in transactions. These schemas provide cognitive maps that guide behavior, enabling community members to navigate social roles, resource management, and relational obligations with cultural fluency.

Together, Rooted Theory, Symbolic Interactionism, Cultural Schema Theory, and Dicot Seed Theory offer a comprehensive framework for understanding Ilocano agricultural life as both a practical and symbolic system. These practices are not merely economic or utilitarian—they represent a worldview in which land, labor, and relationships are interconnected through shared meanings and deeply held norms. Far from being outdated, these cultural systems continue to offer sustainable, equitable models of living that prioritize human relationships, ecological stewardship, and community well-being over individual profit. Understanding and valuing these frameworks can inform more inclusive and culturally grounded approaches to rural development, land use, and sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Ajani, Y. A., Oladokun, B. D., Agboola, O. S., & Amaechi, M. N. (2024). Revitalizing Indigenous knowledge systems via digital media technologies for sustainability of Indigenous languages. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2023-0051
2. Aplaon, Z. (2025). Preserving indigenous heritage: A strategic roadmap for community-based cultural development. Advanced Qualitative Research, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.31098/aqr.v3i1.2704
3. Apostol, F., & Malicdem, A. (2019). Online corpus of spoken Ilokano language. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 482(1), 012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012034
4. Arshad, S. (2024). Language bridges in agriculture: Exploring the vital role of English proficiency in connecting diverse agricultural communities and practices. International Scientific Journal Science and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10930335
5. Azarias, R. A., Garcia, A. F., Garlejo, V. G., & Lacaden, J. A. (2023). Traditional farming and its lexicons as indigenous knowledge: The context of Cervantes, Ilocos Sur. E-DAWA International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.12345/edawa.2023.01
6. Bairagi, S., Custodio, M. C., Durand-Morat, A., & Demont, M. (2021). Preserving cultural heritage through the valorization of Cordillera heirloom rice in the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values, 92(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10159-w
7. Bonifacio, R., Minguez, J. V., Mongado, D. J., De Ramos, D. M., Ojales, M. A., & Ong, T. J. (2022). Ethnolinguistic vitality and rootedness in language and identity among Philippine indigenous communities. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 11(1), 1–8.
8. Chiblow, S., & Meighan, P. J. (2021). Language is land, land is language: The importance of Indigenous languages. Human Geography, 15(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427786211022899
9. Domingo, R. B., & Guira, J. R. (2024). The Ilokano identity in stories of origins of Ilocos Norte toponyms. University of Mindanao International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 7(1), 203–215.
10. Franca, G. C., & Lumogdang, L. P. (2022). Profiling on cultural preservation of the Blaan tribe of Kibla an, Davao del Sur, Philippines. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 10(6). https://doi.org/10.36713/epra0813
11. Gallibu, T. C., Ramos, R. M. E., & Tindowen, D. J. C. (2017). Rice farming methods, tools, and indigenous practices and beliefs of Itawes farmers of Tuguegarao City. University of Saint Louis.
12. Guzman, N. O., Costelo-Abrea, A. M., Amante, L. D., Fermil, C. J. C., Luminarias, A. B., & Malupa, P. S. (2023). Rice farming practices among Agsurnon farmers: A reflection of Filipino cultural values. Multicultural Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.63186/mej.vi.60
13. Haidir, H., Sinar, T. S., Mulyadi, & Setia, E. (2023). Contextualizing revitalization of Panai Malay archaic vocabularies through formal learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(6), 1506–1515. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1306.19
14. Jaramilla, A., & Alterado, D. S. (2021). Pamulinawen: A hermeneutics of Ilokano cultural self-understanding. Philosophia: International Journal of Philosophy, 22(2).
15. Lantaya, L. J., Bonifacio, R., Jabagat, G., & Ilongo, L. J. (2021). Beyond extinction: Preservation and maintenance of endangered indigenous languages in the Philippines. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 10(12), 54–61.
16. Li, S. (2023). Conservation and revitalization of rural heritage: A case study of the mountainous traditional village. Advances in Applied Sociology, 13, 877-893. https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2023.1312051
17. Luzano, M. S. (2018). Cultures and traditions in the Ilokano sayings. MALTESAS Multi-Disciplinary Research Journal (MIRJO), 3(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1234/mirjo.2018.0127-6271
18. Macusi, E.S.; Sales, A.C.; Macusi, E.D.; Bongas, H.P.; Cayacay, M.A.; Omandam, J.L.; Schüler, M.; Vidal, C. (2023) Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs), Livelihood Resources and Aspirations of the Madagali and Ata Tribes. Sustainability 2023, 5, 11182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411182
19. Magpali, M. A. (2025, April 12). The symbolic elements in the Ilocano marriage rituals. Tawid News Magazine. Weekly news, literature and information from the Ilocos Region.
20. Maharjan, K. L., Gonzalvo, C. M., & Baggo, J. C. (2025). Balancing tradition and innovation: The role of environmental conservation agriculture in the sustainability of the Ifugao Rice Terraces. Agriculture, 15(3), 246. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030246
21. Maraña, E. C., Arpon, R. A. A., Capuchino, I. L., & Casiño, R. A. F. (2023). Strengthening of best practices in the preservation of cultural diversities: A phenomenological research. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 15(3), 046-062. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2023.15.3.0166
22. Mdhluli, T. D., Mokgoatšana, S., Kugara, S. L., & Lucky, V. (2021). Knowledge management: Preserving, managing and sharing indigenous knowledge through digital library. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 77(2), Article a6795. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i2.6795
23. Meighan, P. J. (2021). Decolonizing the digital landscape: The role of technology in Indigenous language revitalization. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801211037672
24. Pandey, V., Mittal, R., & Sharma, P. (2017). Documentation and application of indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK) for sustainable agricultural development. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 15(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJAEES/2017/31481
25. Robiego, J. A. M., Onyot, G., Panchito, F., & Pelenio, J. (2022). Language maintenance: Transcendence and preservation practices of Manobo Indigenous cultural community in Mindanao, Philippines. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 11(1), 36–43.
26. Sanubarianto, S. T., Mardiyono, Akmal, Wardhani, Y. F., Atmodjo, M. T., & Nugraha, D. G. (2025). Agroforestry lexicon in Manggarai language: An effort to revitalize culture and empower indigenous peoples. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 12(1), Article 2444777. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2444777
27. Suryasa, I. W., & Dewi, A. A. S. C. (2018). Language maintenance of Balinese vocabulary in agriculture: Eco linguistic studies. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 4(4), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v4n4.258
28. Talbo, W. R. (2025). Indigenous knowledge of Ilokano farmers and fisherfolks: Appreciation and preservation. University of Northern Philippines.
29. Tao, Y., & Hu, P. (2023). Study of language protection in the context of rural revitalization. Scientific Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(8),
30. Yamagishi, K., Gantalao, C., & Ocampo, L. (2024). The future of farm tourism in the Philippines: Challenges, strategies and insights. Journal of Tourism Futures, 10(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-06-2020-0101
31. Zapico, F. L., Hernandez, J. E., Borromeo, T. H., & McNally, K. L. (2019). Traditional agro-ecosystems in Southern Philippines: Vulnerabilities, threats and interventions. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-06-2019-0036
32. Zhang, Y., Min, Q., Zhang, C., He, L., Zhang, S., Yang, L., Tian, M., & Xiong, Y. (2017). Traditional culture as an important power for maintaining agricultural landscapes in cultural heritage sites: A case study of the Hani terraces. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 25, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.12.002