The semantics and grammar of adverbial disjuncts

in Philippine English
Shirley N. Dita

Introduction
The last 10 years have witnessed the rise of studies on world Englishes. There has
been considerable work on the distinct features of these new varieties of English (cf.
Platt, Weber and Ho, 1984; Kachru, 1986; Kachru, 1992 [1986]; Schneider, 1997; to
name a few). These studies have analyzed the phonological differences and structural
variations in the new Englishes.
While there is much research on the features of Philippine English (henceforth,
PhilE) in comparison with other varieties (e.g. Biermeier, 2008; Hundt, 2006; Nelson,
2003; Schneider, 2004), only a handful have focused on the distinctive characteristics
of PhilE alone (cf. Bautista, 2004; Borlongan, 2008; Dita, 2008, 2009; Nelson, 2005;
Schneider, 2005). In all the studies that have utilized the ICE parallel corpora, not a
single study, to the best of my knowledge, has directed the spotlight on adverbial
disjuncts. The present study addresses that gap and it further seeks to contribute to the
growing literature on the idiosyncratic features of PhilE.
The focus of our attention in this paper is the semantic subcategory of adverbials
called disjuncts by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985). They define
disjuncts as those adverbials that express an evaluation of what is being said either
with respect to the form of the communication or to its meaning. Disjuncts are
identified with the speakers authority for, or comment on, the accompanying clause
(p. 440).
It should be noted that the term disjunct is attributed to Quirk et al. (1985) and
Greenbaum (1996). The same class of adverbials has received a variety of labels in
the literature. For instance, Halliday (1985, 1994) refers to them as conjunctive
adjuncts and modal adjuncts; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999)
use the term stance adverbs; Huddleston and Pullum (2002) call them clauseoriented adjuncts or evaluative adjuncts; and others (e.g. Carter & McCarthy 2006)
label them sentence adverbs.
The figure below is a clear representation of the subcategories of disjuncts:

Fig. 1. The subcategories of disjuncts (Quirk et al., 1985: 615)

There are two main classes of disjuncts: style and content. Style disjuncts convey
the speakers comments on the style and form of what he is saying. This class
includes items like frankly, honestly, seriously (for manner) and generally, literally,
strictly (for respect). Content disjuncts, on the other hand, make observations on the
truth conditions or make value judgments of what is said. Examples include
obviously, apparently, basically (for truth conditions) and surprisingly, unfortunately,
hopefully (for value judgments).
In an earlier paper (Dita, 2008), I investigated the functions of single word -ly
adverbial disjuncts used in PhilE and suggested that these items typically function as
discourse fillers, especially in spoken registers. Additionally, these -ly disjuncts also
operate as cohesive devices or as mitigating devices. In this study I have expanded
that investigation by including the other possible forms of disjuncts.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the adverbial disjuncts used in PhilE on
the basis of different levels of grammar: (1) Morphologically, what are the common
forms of adverbial disjuncts as used in PhilE? (2) Syntactically, how are the surface
positions of these elements realized? (3) Semantically, what do the cognitive contents
suggest? (4) Pragmatically, what are the discourse functions of these items in terms of
certain extralinguistic factors?
Although the extralinguistic factors could not be verified given the corpus-based
nature of this study, all means possible were exploited (such as deducing the
underlying attitudes that are reflected in the conversations) to analyze the pragmatic
aspects of the utterances.

Methodology
This study is based on the Philippine component of the International Corpus of
English (ICE-PHI).1 The list of single-word, phrasal, and clausal disjuncts was drawn
from Quirk et al. (1985), Biber et al. (1999), and from my own observations of
everyday interactions. The items in the list were individually searched in the corpus.
Since -ly single-word adverbs can have multiple functions, the search word
yielded results that needed weeding. Take the case of the clearly which functions as
an adjunct in (1), as a subjunct in (2), and as a disjunct in (3) in the following
utterance units:
(1) To explain the answer clearly, let me use the example of country A and B. <W1A013#25>
(2) And what we will show clearly indicates that the diversion of taxes to the President 's
pocket was a planned and swiftly executed maneuver <S2A-063#22>
(3) Clearly, observing the environment or learning by perception is not enough and does not
guarantee language learning. <W1A-020#92>

In (1), clearly functions as an adjunct as it describes the manner with which the verb
explain was done adjuncts correspond to the traditional notion of adverb of
manner. On the other hand, clearly in (2) functions as a subjunct, specifically, a
maximizer, as it scales upwards the action denoted by the verb identifies. Finally,
clearly in (3) is a disjunct in that it expresses the speakers comment on the
accompanying clause.2

Since disjuncts are usually detached from the clause syntactically, those in initial
and final positions were relatively easy to identify. However, the -ly disjuncts in
medial position had to undergo careful analysis, such as paraphrasing and
substitution, to sort the samples. Occasionally, a second opinion from colleagues was
sought.
Here are other examples where -ly in the same word naturally could have multiple
functions:
(4) Naturally if there is a pro side there will always be a con side. <W1A-007#28>
(5) These cut portions are left for sometime at ambient condition to cure wounds naturally.
<W2A-033#113>
(6) According to him, the role of myth in an industrialized society is naturally governed by
the struggle of classes. <W2A-016#14>

The morphology of disjuncts in PhilE

Disjuncts in PhilE come in different forms: single-word adverbs, adverbial phrases,
prepositional phrases, and finite clauses. Each will be discussed in turn. Table 1
shows the most common single-word -ly disjuncts in the corpus.
Table 1 Summary of the top 10 -ly single-word adverbial disjuncts
Single-word disjuncts
actually
basically
hopefully
apparently
obviously
unfortunately
essentially
certainly
fortunately
naturally

Spoken

Written

Total

467
98
52
34
28
17
18
13
7
8

26
30
10
22
22
33
6
4
9
8

493
128
62
56
50
50
24
17
16
16

It is worth drawing attention to some figures in this table. Although the table
reveals only the top 10 -ly disjuncts, it still suggests that spoken registers are more
predisposed to using disjuncts than written registers. And as expected, actually
emerged as the most popular disjunct in PhilE. Less expected perhaps is the higher
proportion of unfortunately in the written registers than in the spoken. And
interestingly enough, the two disjuncts in which the written occurrences outnumbered
the spoken are fortunately and unfortunately. But while actually and basically
emerged as the most prevalent disjuncts in PhilE, the least favored were happily,
understandably, remarkably, and regrettably, with only one occurrence each in the
whole one-million word corpus.
It is also worth mentioning that although the corpus yielded 672 instances of
actually, only 493 function as disjuncts, the rest serve as subjuncts. To illustrate the
difference between the two, consider the following examples:

(7) Actually, it is more accurate to say that both have a common ancestor, probably some type
of rodent! <W2B-003#24>
(8) Rizal outwardly scoffed and actually laughed at his own dreams, but in his diaries and
letters to close friends he related the dreams which frightened him. <W2B-013#68>

In (7), actually functions as a disjunct as it gives a personal evaluation of the

proposition in the preceding clause. On the other hand, actually in (8) functions as an
intensifier, specifically an emphasizer (see Quirk et al. (1985:583-9) for a detailed
discussion of emphasizers) as it provides an evaluation of the verb laughed, and not of
the whole clause. Here are the other examples of -ly single-word adverbs used as
disjuncts in PhilE:
(9) Fortunately, my brothers escaped unharmed. <W2F-007#44>
(10) Basically, it is the same edifice, classic architecture and all. <W2B-004#9>
(11) Unfortunately, we got there five minutes too late! <W1B-011#55>
(12) Uh frankly Mr President I dont uh quite see the point uh you will allow foreigners to
come in so so that we will maintain our <S1B 057#85>

Correspondingly, these single-word adverbs can also be realized by longer

constructions, often having the same lexical base. The following table presents the
other possible forms of the disjunct frankly.
Table 2 Other forms of frankly
Adverbial disjuncts
frankly
very frankly
to be frank
quite frankly
to tell you frankly
frankly speaking

Spoken
4
2
1
1
1
1

Written
1
0
1
0
0
0

Total
5
2
2
1
1
1

The following examples illustrate how frankly can be expanded or rephrased in

different ways (14)-(16) are adverb phrases, with the first two being intensified and
the third being coupled with a participle speaking, while (17) is an infinitival phrase.
(13) Frankly, I found the talk on Post-Modernism boring. <W1A-001#64>
(14) . . .I think the way I see it very frankly is I think if there is some kind of solidarity here
then uh. . .<S1B-080#184>
(15) . . .the more credible witnesses just telling stories that make you quite frankly sort of
ashamed that youre a Filipino <S2A-027#27>
(16) Well definitely this is not being shared with you to impress you with the things that Ive
done because frankly speaking this was not done by me you know <S2A-045#43>
(17) To tell you frankly we were given enough support. . . <S2A-033#25>

Note that some -ly items coupled with the participle speaking are not classified as
disjuncts but viewpoint subjuncts, as argued by Quirk et al. (1985). Consider the
following utterances:
(18) Uh that means we dont fire guns you know figuratively speaking uh in the Senate
without any basis <S1B-034#84>
(19) It s not who is right and who is wrong uh academically speaking <S1B-044#44>
(20) Technically speaking, the post-modern political system should ensure a consolidated
public trust. <W1A-001#48>

(21) Philosophically speaking: What it means to be human <W2B-007#55>

(22) I do believe that uh the May eleventh election was uh on election day one of the most
peaceful and uh violence-free I mean comparatively speaking <S1B-028#31>

In (18), figuratively speaking can be paraphrased as if we consider what we are

saying from a figurative point of view. Even Quirk et al. (1985) admit that these
items seem to have the scope of disjuncts as both conjuncts and disjuncts seem to
have a superordinate relation to the other items in the sentence. The participle
speaking can also be omitted and the meaning of the sentence does not change, as in:
(20a) Technically, the post-modern political system should ensure a consolidated public trust.

Additionally, while it is clear that examples (18)-(22) do not evaluate the truth
conditions of the accompanying clause or are not identified with the speakers or
writers authority in relation to the clause, they cannot undergo intensification (see
[20b, 22b]), as opposed to (13b).
(20b) *Very technically, the post-modern political system should ensure a consolidated public
trust.
(22b) *I do believe that uh the May eleventh election was uh on election day one of the most
peaceful and uh violence-free I mean very comparatively [speaking]
(13b) Very frankly, I found the talk on Post-Modernism boring.

Aside from -ly single-word adverbs, disjuncts in PhilE also come in phrasal forms.
Table 3 summarizes the most common phrasal disjuncts in PhilE.
Table 3 Summary of phrasal disjuncts in PhilE
Phrasal disjuncts
In fairness
In all honesty
In short
In fact
As a matter of fact
At least
To be frank
To tell you frankly
For all we know

Spoken
5
0
7
169
41
186
1
1
1

Written
1
1
9
70
2
142
0
0
1

Total
6
1
16
239
43
328
1
1
2

As the figures show, the most popular prepositional disjuncts are at least and in fact,
which, according to my observation, still maintain that status until the present day.
The following examples illustrate how phrasal disjuncts are used in PhilE.
(23) And then James says I dont care anymore I dont care who knows in fact I want the
whole world to know <S1A-015#27>
(24) In view of this, I believe that it is wiser to utilize the land by planting either the lacatan
variety, if you still insist on producing bananas, but in all honesty, planting cash crops
high value crops will bring you more profit in lesser time than what the project you are
proposing is going to bring you in your investment. <W1B-020#137>
(25) In fairness to our other members in the broadcast panel La Salle and Ateneo they ve
stuck to the tradition of cheers while the other cheerers really you re a the real cheer
leader yourself Sev <S2A-007#58>

Also worthy of note is the scarcity of the expression in fairness in the whole corpus,
contrary to its prominence as the most popular Pinoy expression in recent times
(Dalisay, 2009). Five out of the six instances of in fairness, as in (25), provided a
prepositional complement, as opposed to present-day usage where fairness to whom
or what is never heard at the end of the expression.
Finally, disjuncts also come in the form of finite clauses. Table 4 sums up the
clausal disjuncts used in PhilE.
Table 4 Summary of clausal disjuncts in PhilE
Finite Clauses
I think
I guess
I believe
I bet
I suppose
Who knows

Spoken
1,294
242
91
8
50
9

Written
59
20
22
3
5
3

Total
1, 353
262
113
11
55
12

Here are some examples of PhilE clausal disjuncts:

(26) So, I guess I ll just have to wait until I have more funds or until St. Scho hooks up.
<W1B-013#28>
(27) I think the government is also in panic because they probably are deciding on how to cut
the traffic jam in our country. <W1A-011#64>
(28) I mean I believe it s really lust it s not love <S1A-043#159>

Note that these clausal disjuncts can also be paraphrased using -ly disjuncts and the
meanings are relatively unaltered. For instance, probably can replace I guess in (26);
apparently for I think in (27); and personally for I believe in (28).

Syntactic features of disjuncts in PhilE

While disjuncts can appear at almost any place in a clause, the typical positions for
most disjuncts are initial (I) and final (F), more than medial (M) as noted earlier.
Additionally, disjuncts are syntactically more detached and usually commas set them
off from the rest of the clause to mark the peripherality of their function in the
sentence. This is, however, more evident in writing.
(29) Apparently, someone in his senior moment forgot to give you the corrected direction...
<W1B-014#108>
(30) Pizza, apparently, has already found her true calling and career in life. <W1B-006#101>
(31) Well it s been it s been functioning as a hotel also uh apparently <S1B-038#60>

The disjunct apparently appears in I position, as in (29), M, as in (30), and F, as in

(31). Note that the syntactic realization of the disjunct does not affect the meaning of
the utterance. In what follows, the original utterance (32) is rephrased where the
disjunct surprisingly is moved to the initial position in (32a) and to the final position
in (32b). These two versions can be argued to be semantically equivalent with (32).
(32) Paris is surprisingly even cheaper. <W1B-004#87>

(32a) Surprisingly, Paris is even cheaper.

(32b) Paris is even cheaper, surprisingly.

A disjunct can appear in various M points in the clause. For one, it appears before the
verb phrase, as in (33) and (34):
(33) Now the soft compensation unfortunately was not inputted into this bases uh agreement. .
. <S1B-039#65>
(34) . . . which type of singer or singers and audience, and other such elements which broadly
speaking, constitute the folk singing context. <W2A-010#24>

It also appears in split infinitives, as (35) and (36):

(35) Uhm the only way to detect dengue is to basically have a uh blood test done <S1B045#54>
(36) Uh they uh have the skills to basically identify uh which children uh have uh a high risk
or a high prospect for for dengue . . . <S1B-045#62>

Or after function words:

(37) With only P13.3 billion worth of real estate in its books, there obviously wont be enough
to pay off the company s &peso;18-billion debt. <W2C-009#76>

Or before conjunctions:
(38) There will be nobody else fortunately or unfortunately like you <S2A-050#43>

Strangely, though, a disjunct can also appear within a noun phrase:

(39) And the big thing that has developed here is because because these two universities
which became co-educational some time in the seventies have now accepted that women
are part definitely of the halftime palabas and I think rightfully so <S2A-007#61>

The position of definitely in (39) is rather unusual as it separates the head noun from
its prepositional post-modifier. It should be noted that the disjunct definitely evaluates
the whole NP part of the halftime palabas. In other words, what is definite is women
being part of the halftime palabas and not of the halftime palabas only. Hence, a more
acceptable syntax of the clause would have been
(39a) . . . that women are definitely part of the halftime palabas. . .

Although disjuncts are classified as adverbials (by virtue of their function as

evaluative items of the whole clause), it is also possible that an adjective can occupy
the supposed position of a disjunct, as in (40):
(40) Strange, orientals seeking in the cold tomes of the West their kindest, truest guidance?
<W2B-009#87>

Since the utterance above is lifted from a literary work, it sounds a bit figurative.
However, if it were an ordinary utterance, it could be loosely translated to:
(40a) Strange, orientals seek in the cold tomes of the West their kindest, truest guidance?

Note that the adjective strange can be substituted by the disjunct adverb strangely and
we can say that they are comparable in substance.
(40b) Strangely, orientals seek in the cold tomes of the West their kindest, truest guidance?

Compare (40) with (41) and (42):

(41) Strangely, the globalization factor, including the threat it brings, is missing from the
Philippine initiative to reinvent government and reengineer the bureaucracy. <W2A019#34>
(42) Strange as it may seem on the same day August twenty-eight nineteen ninety-nine
another person using the same name Eleuterio Tan opened a savings account this time
with another bank Westmont Bank Mandaluyong branch under savings account number
two zero one one zero zero seven seven two dash seven <S2A-063#43>

Examples (40)-(42) use strange as the base word of the disjuncts in italics. Whereas
(40) uses an adjective base for a disjunct function, (41) and (42) use the -ly adverb
and adverbial phrase, respectively. These two can be reduced to strange and the
meaning of the clause does not change.
PhilE also demonstrates some variations in the syntactic realization of disjuncts.
Quirk et al. (1985) mention some constraints on adverbial co-occurrence such as two ly disjuncts appearing in the same clause. The following examples illustrate these
deviations.
(43) No everything actually has been basically mapped out for the ano I mean we re just wai
we re just working kasi with you know suppositions <S1A-070#215>

The co-occurrence of two -ly disjuncts in the same utterance is a bit awkward as it
suggests tautology. It is even clumsier if the same form is repeatedly used in the same
utterance, as in the following:
(44) Hopefully, I told Lizzie that I hope C P will be his her last and Lizzie is hoping too <S1A042#199>

Quirk et al. (1985) suggest that if adverbials of different classes will have to be
juxtaposed, it is ideally done at end position and the order would be: adjunct
conjunct disjunct.
Hence, the sentence The old lady declined to see me last night [Adj], however
[Con], unfortunately [Dis] (Quirk et al., 1985:651) would be comprehensible. To
illustrate a variation in PhilE, consider the example below:
(45) And so [Con] I think [Clausal Dis] basically [Dis] these are the uh the things that we have
done over the years [Adj] <S1B-030#135>

An attempt to restructure the order of the adverbials will definitely alter the meaning
intended and thus make the sentence incomprehensible.

The semantics and pragmatics of disjuncts in PhilE

Quirk et al. (1985) explain that disjuncts basically express an evaluation of what is
being said either with respect to the form of the communication or to its meaning (p.
440). Data reveal that the prototypical function of disjuncts is a comment on the
accompanying clause, as exemplified in the following:
(46) Honestly, I was so shocked to hear whatever he told us all throughout that two-hour
symposium <W1A-001#41>
(47) Interestingly, the public schools of the country were operated by the army for a period of
more than two years <W2A-001#38>
(48) Frankly, I found the talk on Post-Modernism boring <W1A-001#64>

The transcripts likewise uncover various tasks of disjuncts in PhilE, aside from the
usual commentary function. For one, they contribute to cohesion, which
corroborates Thompson and Zhous (2006) analysis. In what follows, the disjuncts
clearly illustrate how they help pull together ideas in the clauses or sentences where
they appear.
(49) Accordingly economics is now described as the continuation of power by other means.
Admittedly security dilemmas and territorial disputes persist in the developing parts of the
globe such as ours. <S2B-036#72-73>
(50) Still we persevered achieving gains that admittedly continue to fall short of the galloping
needs of a fast growing population but real gains nonetheless <S2B-027#60>

In (49) and (50), admittedly encodes a cohesive function in the sentences. The
speakers use of the disjunct signals concession as he admits or gives in to the
truth value of the proposition made earlier. The removal of the disjunct admittedly in
(49), for instance, would result in some sense of incoherence. Aside from concession,
disjuncts also relate to expectations, as in (51) and (52), or to counter-expectations, as
in (53).
(51) Truly, this searching of the Self, prompted by Impy 's own search for transcendence and
tranquility, results only in the elimination of the Outside, and the rediscovery of the
Inside. <W2B-008#97>
(52) We got lost only twice on the way back, and fortunately, we were able to retrace our way
with very little delay. <W1B-003#32>
(53) But in my fourth year I thought I don't have any opponent but unfortunately I have but
and I lost <S1A-033#177>

In the examples above, an attempt to eliminate the disjuncts would seriously impair
the meaning of the utterances. Hence, it is reasonable to surmise that some disjuncts
have the ability to evaluate and conjoin the clauses that they appear in.
Additionally, disjuncts also express doubt or uncertainty:
(54) This apparently is something that never happens in Japan for the very simple reason that
before the stockholders meetings the bosses talk to the hoodlums who come to the
stockholders meetings so that if anybody gets rowdy he gets surrounded and very gently
taken out of the premises <S2A-029#48>

They also express actuality of reality:

(55) That, essentially, is what ecological concern is all about. <W2A-008#7>
(56) Well I was in fact the life of the party <S1A-088#51>

It appears as though some disjuncts also have the capacity to become mitigating
devices, as in (57). The clausal disjuncts have reduced the degree of force to a
considerable extent. Contrast (57) with (57a) with the omission of the two clausal
disjuncts in the latter.
(57) Uhm I guess I know but I I think I forgot <S1A-035#91>
(57a) Uhm I know but I forgot.

In (58), the addition of the disjunct at the end gives a softening effect to a rather
strong claim put forward early on. Apparently, the speakers realization of the
possible repercussions of the harsh comment was a bit delayed and the use of the
disjunct saved the speaker from any responsibility as he expressed some degree of
doubt afterwards.
(58) Well it s been it s been functioning as a hotel also uh apparently <S1B-038#60>

PhilE disjuncts are also seen to exhibit some degree of intensification in that they
accentuate climactic effect, as in (59).
(59) I said well Joey Reyes always makes good movies so this is gonna be a good movie [very
very frankly] [I really really think] it is so much better than I expected it to turn out <S1B046#262>

We can see here how the two sets of disjuncts escalated the admiration expressed.
There was a conscious effort by the speaker to come up with a longer, and hence,
heavier structure before placing the focus of the sentence at the final position.
With two sets of adjuncts juxtaposed, and with duplicated amplifiers for each, it is
evident that the speaker is trying to strengthen the intensification of appreciating Joey
Reyes here. Compare the utterance if the disjuncts are omitted:
(59a) it is so much better than I expected it to turn out

Also worth noting is the fact that disjuncts used in spoken registers are sometimes
inappropriately used, which does not normally happen in written registers. Consider
the following examples:
(60) Well I think I could have but ideally I wanted to work with my friends <S1B-026#129>
(61) Ideally, a screening audiometer should include both air conduction and bone conduction
testings. <W2A-036#32>

In (60), the use of ideally is inappropriate since what the speaker is trying to express
is not clear. As can be deduced from the transcript, the thoughts expressed were
incoherent. The speaker must have been meaning to say that working with my friends
is ideal but the disjunct just came out of hand. Conversely, the use of ideally in (61)
is fitting as the sentence expresses something that is really ideal.
Another conspicuous characteristic of PhilE disjuncts is their being juxtaposed
with other disjuncts and pragmatic markers, as illustrated in (62)-(64). Brinton (2008)
defines a pragmatic marker as a phonologically short item that is not syntactically
connected to the rest of the clause and has little or no referential meaning but serves
pragmatic or procedural purposes (p. 1). Prototypical examples of this class in
present-day English include well, okay.

(62) Well definitely this is not being shared with you to impress you with the things that I ve
done because frankly speaking this was not done by me you know <S2A-045#43>
(63) Well obviously it s your well I shouldnt even have said it because it s obvious if you
wont ask me to find it if you re not losing it so <S1A-096#158>
(64) Well I have. . . I have. . Lots. . Lots . . Of plans. . . Uh okay. . Seriously speaking <S1A086#257-264> (Note that I have combined into one utterance unit the nine units in the
original.)

The examples reveal that another distinct feature of PhilE disjuncts is being a
discourse filler more than an evaluative remark. Consider the following examples.
(65) [There] [you know] [it s [basically] the fact that] you have freedom of speech now
freedom of the press and all these things are reported in the press who do not know really
what happened in the Marcos regime <S1B-040#13>
(66) [So] [one thing that we are trying to do now] [actually] [in fact] [it seems] my
interpretation of Tish s lecture is that finally we are trying to find the problems in search
of a solution <S2A-038#62>
(67) [Well] [anyway] [in my [in my own [in my opinion]]] [I would say that] uh I might be the
same with what you think that there is no one of them who is capable of running for
presidency because almost everyone of them has been proven to be corrupt to be
something like that to be <S1A-021#22>
(68) I needed it [I mean] [my point is] [actually] it s not the money e it s five thousand so I
told her Can you just give me a post-dated check because I also need it <S1A-004#310>

The clustering of adverbials, especially in the initial position, as in examples (65)(68), seems to suggest that disjuncts behave as discourse fillers more than as
evaluative words. It would be reasonable to construe that the speakers in these
transcripts are trying to organize their thoughts and that they are groping for words to
be able to say something logical.
Triple juxtaposition of peripheral items such as pragmatic markers, discourse
fillers, and adverbials evokes a rather atypical function.
(69) [So that] [I would say that] [generally speaking] the N P A people now uh who have uh
turned away from the government can easily be uh urged to come back to the fold of the
law by giving them the proper incentives uh giving them livelihood <S1B-054#27>
(70) She 's gonna ask them to to park in front of the neighbor s house so that when Mama [I
think] [I think] [I think] Mark arranged uhm for the association Remi to invite to to have a
meeting that day <S1A-014#141>

In (69), the utterance of the first conjunct was followed by a self-repair, this time, by a
finite clause I would say that. Apparently, the phrasal disjunct generally speaking
serves to fill in the utterance until the speaker has organized his thoughts on the issue
at hand. Item (70) likewise exemplifies how disjuncts can be utilized as discourse
filler especially when the right expressions appear to be elusive at the time when they
are needed. The versatility of disjuncts is evident since they do not impinge on the
idea of the succeeding utterances. Note the clumsiness in their use, as in (70),
especially when the items show outright incoherence.
(71) [So] [I guess], [hopefully] I ll, someone would come along, sooner or later hopefully
sooner <S1A-040#111>

In (71), the disjunct hopefully comes after the conjunct so and a finite clause disjunct I
guess. It appears as though the speaker here was about to continue her previous
statement as a typical resultative so would signal. However, she realized that the
utterance was something indeterminate; thus, uttering I guess instead. Finally, she

realized that her next utterance was something that she hoped to happen anytime soon,
which is reiterated towards the end of the statement.
Also noticeable in the corpus is the fact that only actually (of all the -ly disjuncts)
is used in code-switches. Apparently, this item can freely co-occur with Tagalog
lexicon but not any other disjunct. Consider the following examples:
(72) Actually kasya nga ang eyeglass e <S1A-004#244>
(73) Actually sa T V mukhang hindi ganun kalaki no pero pag katabi ninyo silang nag-aantay
kayo ng bus diyan sa labas mukha kaming mga dwende kahit sa women s side ano
<S2A-019#53>
(74) Actually pareho tayo no swack tayo dun nagagalingan tayo sa mga setters dito <S2A019#213>
(75) Yeah actually kasi Jullie ang orientation natin nagsimula tayo sa opposition na yon
<S1B-030#94>

Concluding remarks
The aim of the paper has been to describe disjuncts used in PhilE within the different
levels of grammar. As for the forms of disjuncts, I have highlighted the leading
single word -ly adverbs, the different forms of phrasal disjuncts, as well as those that
take the form of a clause.
It is noteworthy that PhilE speakers are inclined to use disjuncts in their ordinary
speech, as evidenced in this study. Note, however, the limitation of their lexical
repertoire in that the most popular expressions they use in spicing up their
conversations are no extraordinary items. As Gonzalez (2005) notes, Filipinos
generally speak the way they write, in a formal style based on Victorian models (p.
439).
The syntactic realization of disjuncts in PhilE also reveals deviations from the
restrictions set by Quirk et al. (1985) such as the rules of co-occurrence and
juxtaposition of adverbials.
Finally, some interesting characteristics of PhilE disjuncts have been outlined in
this paper, among which are as cohesive and mitigating devices, means of
intensification, pragmatic markers, discourse fillers, among others.
The discussion so far has been an attempt to show the grammar of disjuncts for
synchronic analysis. In future studies, it would be interesting to investigate the
emerging patterns in the use of disjuncts in PhilE. More importantly, a more thorough
investigation on the grammaticality of disjuncts is necessary to see where PhilE
disjuncts fit in Traugotts (1995) cline:
clause-internal adverbial > sentence adverbial > discourse particle

Notes
1. For a detailed introduction to ICE-PHI, see Bautista in this volume.
2. A comprehensive classification of adverbials has been presented in Hasselgard
(2010: 22), where four grammars have been compared: Quirk et al. (1985), Biber
et al. (1999), Huddleston and Pullum (2002), and Halliday (2004).

References
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S. (2004) The verb in Philippine English: A preliminary
analysis of the modal would. World Englishes, 23: 113-28.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan,
Edward (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow,
England: Pearson Education Limited.
Biermeier, Thomas (2008) Word Formation in New Englishes: A Corpus-based
Analysis. Regensburg: Anglistik/Amerikanistik.
Borlongan, Ariane M. (2008) Tag questions in Philippine English. Philippine Journal
of Linguistics, 39: 109-34.
Brinton, Laurel J. (2008) The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and
Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English: A
Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written Grammar and Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dalisay, Butch (January 5, 2009) The top 10 irritating Pinoy expressions. Retrieved
from http://blogs.gmanews.tv/butch-dalisay/archives/33-unknown.html
Dita, Shirley N. (December 2008) Frankly, how do we use disjuncts?: A corpus-based
study of adverbial disjuncts in Philippine English. Paper presented at the 14th
International Association of World Englishes (IAWE) conference, Hong Kong,
SAR, China.
Dita, Shirley N. (October 2009) Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in
Philippine English. Paper presented at the 15th International Association of
World Englishes (IAWE) conference, Cebu City, Philippines.
Gonzalez, Andrew (2005) Philippine English. In Concise Oxford Companion to the
English Language. Edited by Tom McArthur. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 438-440.
Greenbaum, Sidney (1996) Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London :Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London:
Edward Arnold.
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hundt, Marianne (2006) The committee has/have decided: On concord patterns with
collective nouns in inner- and outer-circle varieties of English. Journal of English
Linguistics, 34(3): 206-232. (Reprinted in this volume.)
Kachru, Braj B. (1986) The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of
non-native Englishes. Oxford & New York: Pergamon Institute of English.
Kachru, Braj B. (Ed.). (1992a). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.).
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Nelson, Gerald (2003) Modals of obligation and necessity in varieties of English. In
From Local to Global English: Proceedings of the Style Council 2001/2. Edited
by Pamela H. Peters. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, Dictionary
Research Centre, pp. 25-32.
Nelson, Gerald (2005) Expressing future time in Philippine English. In Linguistics
and Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond: A Festschrift in Honor of

Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. Edited by Danilo T. Dayag and J. Stepehen Quakenbush.

Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 41-59.
Platt, John, Weber, Heidi, & Ho, Mian Lian. (1983). Singapore and Malaysia.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan (1985) A
comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York:
Longman Group Limited.
Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.) (1997) Englishes Around the World. Vol. 1: General
Studies, British Isles, North America. Vol. 2: Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Australasia.
Studies in Honour of Manfred Gorlach. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Schneider, Edgar W. (2004) How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in
world Englishes. World Englishes, 23: 227-49.
Schneider, Edgar W. (2005) The subjunctive in Philippine English. In Linguistics and
Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond: A Festschrift in Honor of
Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. Edited by Danilo T. Dayag and J. Stepehen Quakenbush.
Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 27-40.
Thompson, Geoff and Zhou, Jianglin (2000) Evaluation and organisation in text: The
structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In Evaluation in Text. Edited by Susan
Hunston and Geoff Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121-41.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (August 1995) The role of the development of discourse
markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th
International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester.

Authors address:
Dr. Shirley N. Dita
Assistant Professor
Department of English and Applied Linguistics
De La Salle University
2401 Taft Avenue, Manila
Philippines
e-mail: shirley.dita@dlsu.edu.ph