Northwestern University

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Laoag City

Title: Narrative Linguistic Cues and Dominant Oral

Structure of Senior Ilokanos

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the subject Structure of English and Other Languages

Rodolfo B. Lucero Jr.

MAEd-Language and Literature Teaching

Jurlita U. Basuel, Ph.D.

Professor

December, 2018
 CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

Narrative and the broader field of storytelling has become a keen focus of attention in

many academic and literary disciplines. Labov and Waletzky (1968) demonstrated that the effort

to understand narrative is amenable to a formal framework, particularly in the basic definition of

narrative as the choice of a specific linguistic technique to report past events.

The classic image of the story-teller is someone who can make something out of nothing,

who can engage our attention with a fascinating elaboration of detail that is entertaining,

amusing and emotionally rewarding. From the first lines of such a narrative, we know that we are

in the presence of a gifted user of the language.

The American Heritage Dictionary defined the word vernacular as

everyday language spoken by a people as distinguished from the literary language. It also

defined the word as the specialized vocabulary of a particular trade, profession, or group.

Chomsky (1958) argued that language is a unique evolutionary development of the

human species and is unlike modes of communication used by any other animal species. He

therefore argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of

socio-cultural differences.

The language framework developed for oral narratives of personal experience proved to

be useful in approaching a wide variety of narrative situations and types, including oral memoirs,
traditional folk tales, avant garde novels, therapeutic interviews and most importantly, the banal

narratives of every-day life.

It gradually appeared that narratives are privileged forms of discourse which play a

central role in almost every conversation. Our efforts to define other speech events with

comparable precision have shown us that narrative is the prototype, perhaps the only example of

a well formed speech event with a beginning, middle, and an end.

With this assumption, the researcher is therefore driven to understand about the narrative

structure of people in the locality and what are the dominant linguistic cues they use when

connecting stories and events, how often these cues were used in changing the phase of their

narrations and how age, environment, gender and profession give difference with the way the

two Ilocanos speak and use cues in their narrations.

The researcher conducted an interview in two separate events but same place of two

senior Ilokanos in which they were strive to narrate certain issues and experiences.
 CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research design, research locale, the participants, and the data

gathering procedure.

Research Design

The descriptive research is designed for the purpose of the study of discovering Narrative

Linguistic Cues and Dominant Oral Structure of Ilokanos.

Research Locale

The study was conducted in Ilokano context specifically at the researcher’s home,

Barangay 9 San Lucas, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.

Participants

This study involved two (2) senior Ilokanos, one (1) male and one (1) female, who are

fluent Iluko speakers. Based on the observation of the researcher, the participants have their own

share of life’s experiences with regard to their age, gender, profession/social status and location

of their home/environment. Thus, these gave the researcher an idea to make them narrate certain

experiences and issues to identify narrative linguistic cues, to discover the presence of the

elements of narrative structure (Labov), to know the effects of voice variation in narration and to

bring out the linguistic, sociological or cultural significance and meanings of these.
 CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents data collected during the research procedure, results and discussion

of data. The data gathered were treated with qualitative discussion.

a. Narrative linguistic cues dominantly used by the subjects

Linguistic Cues Frequency Count Functions

 The use of this

1. Adda ibagak 10 term signals the arising

of a new topic in the

conversation.

 It is also is

used by the relative

when she inserts a

topic while a person is

still speaking.

2. Ay apo!/apo! 4  In Iluko

dialect, the word “apo”

is used as noun.
  But in the first

convo, Ay apo and apo

are terms/expressions

used to show

excitement or disgust.

3. Ammom 9  A word used

by the speakers when

they want to insert

certain topics they

remembered which is

connected to the

present topic in the

conversation.

• The use of

“Ammom ” in the first

conversation is when

the relative gives an

advice or share

wisdom.
  This is also

used when the

previous topic in the

conversation ended to

bring about a

continuation of the

conversation.

4. Ay 7  “Ay” is used to

show excitement or the

condition of being in a

wonderful situation

5. Eh ket 5  It is use for

transition or use to

give an explanation

about something.

6. Santo 5  Like “eh ket”

and “santo” is also

used for transition

especially when the

speaker wants to add

another idea or

continuation on a
 concluded topic in the

narration.

7. Mm-hmmm 5  This expression

is used by the female

subject when she

agrees with the idea in

the conversation with

the researcher.

8. Ah-huh 3  Another

expression used by the

female subject when

she adheres with the

idea or topic in the

conversation.

The following are the transcriptions from the conducted interviews with both of the

subjects in which the dominant linguistic cues were used.

Legend:

A: Researcher

B: Subject 1; Subject 2

C: Corroborator

Conversation with Subjects

Subject 1:
 1. Adda ibagak

(First occurrence of the linguistic cue)

B: Adda ibagak, malagipmo idi ag-repair nak iti badbadom?

(I have something to say, do you remember when I repaired your dress?)

A: Wen, malagip ko didiay.

(Yes, I remember.)

C: Tinukapan na’t sabali nga tela didiay.

(She covered it with different cloth.)

The expression serves as a transitional term used to start a new topic. In addition, when

speaker 1used it in the first transcription (Adda ibagak, malagip mo idi ag-repair nak iti

badbadom?) it is used to narrate a past event.

(Second occurrence of the linguistic cue)

B: Adda ibagak, aggimung tayo ton bigat ket awan pagabuloy tayo.

(I have something to say, we’ll attend church tomorrow and we don’t have

money for offering.)

A: Isu ngarod met ti panpanunutek awan met pagabuloy ko.

Awan ngata kwartan papa?

(Yes that is what I am thinking about, I don’t have any either. Does dad have

money?)
 B: Sika’t makisarita ah.

(You ask him.)

In this transcription, “Adda ibagak” is used by the subject when she remembered

something during the conversation and wanted to remind it to the researcher.

2. Ay apo!/Apo!

(First occurrence of the linguistic cue)

B: Apo! Nagganas nagluganak pay inta lugan da ka Joan,

naglamiis jay aircon.

(Wow! It feels so good to ride in sister Joan’s car, it’s so cold)

A: Dakdakayo lang awan kadwa yo?

(Were you the only ones? Do you have companions?)

B: Wun, tallo kami lang kenni lakay na.

(Yes, there are only three of us including her husband.)

(Second occurrence of the linguistic cue)

A: Uhm. Ag-separate to pay ti ited mo kenni nanang ken tatang mo,

sabalin to pay ti ited mo kanyak

(Uhm, you’ll give it separately to your mom and dad, you’ll also give

something to me.)
 B: Apo! Iselsel na latta ta bagi na. Di ka la mabain nu agasawa ka,

makidikket ka pay lang kadakami?

( My God! You’re forcing yourself to us. Are you not ashamed that you’ll still

be with us when you’ll be married?)

(Third occurrence of the linguistic cue)

C: Apay ngamin kasadot mo la lukatan ta baba na.

(Why are you so lazy to open that)

B: Ay apo! Para taltalon lang detoy, imbag la mapadalanan.

(My God! It will only be used for the farm! A simple sewing will do.)

A: T-shirt lang, deta lang ti in-ana na?

(Is that the only one she gave?)

In these transcriptions, the expression “Apo/Ay apo!” functioned in three different ways.

It was translated into “My God” because both are used to express strong emotion whether it is

negative or positive.

In its first occurrence, it served as an expression of happiness/satisfaction (nagganas/it

feels good). In its second occurrence, it is already an expression of disgust and in the last

transcription it serves as an expression to reason out.

3. Ammom

(First occurrence of the linguistic cue)

 B: Ammom, talaga nga uray kuma tay ina-una na ti napaturpos na…

Awan latta serbi ti kinagaget na. Adda kuma met latta nakakitan ti

rigrigat na

(You know, if only she only had her eldest to go to college…

Her dedication is useless. She should have seen where all her efforts go.)

A: Sabali latta kunam ah.

(It would have been different.)

B: Siyak, diyak imaginen nga mapaturpos kayo.

(Me, I could not even imagine that I made you a college graduate.)

(Second occurrence of the linguistic cue)

B: Ammom ti pakapobrian ngamin nga agabroad, barok,

ibagak latta kenka. Detay mahilig ka nga gumatgatang idiay ti imported.

(You know the reason why OFWs still run out of money, my son,

let me just tell you. Those who are fond of buying imported goods.)

C: Apo imported pela ngamin ket adda lang ngaruden…

(My God! Imported when there are already…)

If translated in English language, “Ammom” is “you know what”. It is used in the first

transcription to give an idea that something should have happened if only someone did the right

thing.

In the second transcription, it is used to start an advice given to the corroborator.

4. Ay

(First occurrence of the linguistic cue)

B: Ay, im-imaginek detoy nga balay, nu agbalin. Nanakem laketdi ni adding

mo.

(Ay, I imagine this house if it will be done. If only your brother will be

reponsible)

A: Aglalo nu aggagaget isuna.

(Especially if he’ll be hard-working)

(Second occurrence of the linguistic cue)

B: Ay, Agyamanak kenni Amang banal nga ni Ka Joan ti nakiluganak kunak

man.

(Ay, I am grateful to God that I was able to ride on Ka Joan’s car.)

A: Ti ammok ni Ka Joseph itay ti nagluganam.

(I thought it was Brother Joseph’s car.)

B: Haan.
 (No.)

There is no equivalent translation for the expression “Ay” but based from the

transcriptions, its function is likened to “apo” in a way that it also expresses emotion but it is

lighter compared to “apo”. In both transcriptions given, “Ay” serves as a cue for a positive

statement. The first transcription “Ay” at the beginning to express hopes or aspirations while in

the second statement, it followed the expression of gratefulness.

5: Mm-hmmm

(First occurrence of the linguistic cue)

A: Sikan sa pay ti nagaramid ti supot ti pungan da ka Bryan?

(Were you also the one who sewed the pillow case of Brother Bryan?)

B: Mm-hmmm, dinait ko.

(Mm-hmmm, I sewed it.)

(Second occurrence of the linguistic cue)

A: Ken ammom dagitay badbado yo idi idiay picture mo idi nagbasa ka inta

bantay?

(And do you know your outfits in your picture when you were in high school?)

B: Mm-hmmm

(Mm-hmmm)

A: Nagpipintas dagidiay.
 (Those were beautiful)

6. Ah-huh

A: Kaslang saan aya nga isu idi.

(He does not look like that long time ago.)

B: Ah-huh

(Ah-huh)

C: Kasla Potpot!

(He look likes Potpot!)

A: Ibulbully’k pela idi.

(I even bullied him last time.)

The usage of the linguistic cues, “Mm-hmm” and “Ah-huh” expresses adherence to an

idea or statement. But it is also a symbol for disinterest. It is noticeable in the transcriptions

above that the subject does not give further statement about a certain topic; instead just agree

with the flow of conversation by uttering the expressions. The subject does not even add or

continue the conversation but just agreed with what were being said, the corroborator and the

researcher are more actively involved in the conversation.

B. Conversation with Subject 2

1. Ay

A: Wen in-message didiay ubing ko, ma’am adda didiay pintan kuna na.
 (Yes, my student told me, ma’am I already have the paint he said.)

B: Ay mapapintas to didiay.

(Ay, it will be beautified)

A: Naparamanan ta met ti pintan.

(We already applied paint to it)

In this transcription, Subject 2 used the expression “ay” in the beginning of a positive

statement just like the how Subject 1 did (Ay mapapintas to didiay). It is used to highlight an

amazing event that will take place in the future.

2. Eh, ket

B: Awan unay wiring didiay classroom na.

A: Ket ana ngaruden?

(And so, what happened?)

B: Eh, ket napan ko nga inaramid.

(Eh, so I did it.)

A: Dapat lang ah.

(That’s right.)

Ket if translated in English language is “and so” or “so”, its function like its function in

the English language signals an outcome from a past action/event or reason.

 Reason: Nababa didiay blackboard na

Outcome: Eh ket napan ko inaramid.

3. Ammom

A: Adu’t matmatay inta Bangui nu disgrasya. Mas kuma pay nga expekem nga

adu madisgrasya ditoy ayan tayu kasi adut lugan.

(A lot died in Bangui because of accidents. It would be more expected that

a lot of people are involved in accident here because there are more cars.)

B: Ammom ti problema? Didiay nadungpar idi last week, intaray da Ospital,

detoy ti rigat na ikikkaten dat side mirror.

(Do you know the problem? Those who were hit last week, they were brought

to the hospital, the hard part is that they remove their side mirrors.)

In this transcription, the word “ammom” is used to give reason why a phenomenon

occurred. Subject 2 used it to give information based from what he saw/experienced. Unlike

speaker 1 who used it to narrate past events.

B. Presence of the Elements of Narrative Structure (Labov)

Classifying and delineating story patterns are a vast field of study. One of the most

influential theories written by Labov (1972) helps us understand how people encode information

about the world on a personal level. Much of it is applicable to narrative discourse, especially the

short story, though not necessarily in this order. The more we understand the nature of

narrative, the more we understand ourselves. His research essay "The Transformation of
Experience in Narrative Syntax" isolates recurring narrative features in face-to-face

storytelling: Each of these categories serves to address a hypothetical question about narrative

structure: Abstract, (How does it begin?) Orientation, (Who/what does it involve, and

when/where?) Complicating Action, (Then what happened?)

Resolution, (What finally happened? Evaluation, (So what?) Coda, (What does it all mean?)

A. First conversation:

Question: Sinnot nakasursuruam a nagdait?

Abstract: Isunat magdadait pajama mi. (How does it Begin?)

Orientation: Ni Lola yo idi ubingak. (Who/What does it involve & Where/When?)

Complicating Action: Ti diak malipatan, adda pay munmonyeka’k idi, awan bado

na . (Then what happened?)

Resolution: Makaayayatak idadaitan na ti bado. (What finally happened?)

Evaluation: Isu nakasursurwak . (So what?)

Coda: Nakasursurwak ta buybuyaek agdait. (What does it all mean?)

Jumbled structure:

Question: Sinnot nakasursuruam a nagdait?

Orientation: Ni Lola yo idi ubingak. (Who/What does it involve & Where/When?)

Abstract: Isunat magdadait pajama mi. (How does it Begin?)

 Complicating Action: Ti diak malipatan, adda pay munmonyeka’k idi, awan bado

na . (Then what happened?)

Resolution: Makaayayatak idadaitan na ti bado. (What finally happened?)

Evaluation: Isu nakasursurwak . (So what?)

Coda: Nakasursurwak ta buybuyaek agdait. (What does it all mean?)

The first conversation has Labov’s narrative structure in a way that two parts are not

arranged in a way that it is arranged in the structure. In the first conversation, Orientation came

before the Abstract because the question given by the researcher’s question (Sinnot

nakasursuruam a nagdait?) needs an answer that is found from the Orientation (Who is

involved?).

Though two elements from the narrative structure interchanged, it still has all elements

and still makes sense even if you organize the structure in its original arrangement.

Second conversation:

Question: Adu’t matmatay ta Bangui aya nga madungdongpar?

Abstract: Saan ammom ti problema? Ahm, kanya-kanyang diskarte.

Orientation: Daydi nadungpar idi lastweek nga naospital, nga ni

Dr. Samonte iti naka-duty,

Complicating action: Daytoy ti rigatna, mapanda ikikkaten ti side mirror.

Nakasignal, agpayso nakasignal-dina met kitkitan ti side mirror na.

 Resolution: Highway deta, maymayat koma no inpaigidna nga immuna, sana kinita

iti likod no adda napardas nga agtartaray.

Evaluation: Saanna nga inkasdiay, nagsardeng dita. Eh ket kasano, dinungpar na.

Coda: Kasla kanyak inta high-way, ag-give-giveway nak latta kadagita dadakkel, ta

nu inkaso nga adda agover-take, maala ak.

Unlike in the first conversation, Labov’s narrative structure is arranged in its

chronological order in the second conversation. This is because the question given by the

researcher (Ado’t matmatay ta Bangui aya nga madungdongpar?) requires an answer that

falls on the first element (Abstract)

Labov’s narrative structure is present in a conversation in a way that it is just one part of

it. It does not cover all the time of the conversation. The given transcriptions above show that the

narrative structure covers one topic from both conversations. Since conversations jump from one

topic to another, the structure could not be found throughout the whole conversation. And the

question given to start in the topic in the conversation greatly affects the arrangement of the

elements in the structure.

The speaker in the first conversation used simpler words compared to the relative in the

second conversation because the first speaker is several years younger that the second speaker.

The older speaker spends a lot of time in the rural place where he works. So he acquired more of

their way of speaking. His local dialect is more archaic than the first speaker.
Example:

Speaker 1:

“Ay nakapudpudaw, no haan kanto agwalwala idiay,

ti adda ta panunot mo immayak ditoy tapno makaurnongak.”

(Your brother will be so fair, if he will behave there and will have

the mindset of staying there to save money.)

. “Inasitgannak ni Ka Joan itay, kunak ta nakem ko

“Adda pagluganak, Nagbongga aircon!”

(Sister Joan approached me a while ago, I said to myself

“I have a ride, it is so nice, aircon!”)

Speaker 2:

“ Mapmapan kami ken Vic idiay karayan, diay nagbaetan ti baybay

ken deta sabangan.”

(Vic and I go to the river, in between the ocean and the end of the river)

“Nakalinlinak ta baybay, kadagitoy.”

(The ocean is peaceful this time)

 The second speaker also narrates in a more descriptive way and he also uses body

language and hand gestures in narrating.

Example:

Speaker 2:

1. “Agasem daydi, diak malipatan, nadurdor ti gurong na.”

(Can you believe it? I can’t even forget it, his leg was crushed)

2. “Detoy, nagsina detoy, sa nadurdor detoy, manipud toy aginggad ta.

Sa dayti naala,aginggat dita.”

(This and this part, then this part was crushed, from here until there. And the affected

part was until here)

3. “Apagbiit lang sadiay iskwela,santo agmalmalem nga agininana idiay,

santo mapan diay baybay ti malem.”

(He stays in school for a while, then he’ll stay there until afternoon

and he’ll stay in the beach.)

It is noticeable that Speaker 2 uses a lot of Iloko adjectives and his narration is more

detailed compared with speaker 1. In the first example of his statement, he narrates what

happened to the victim of the accident and how he could not forget what he saw making him

described what the victim looks using gestures to give justice to his usage of Iloko Demostrative

pronouns (Detoy and Dayti) which if translated in English would be “this and that”.
 Also his third statement, he narrates a happening in a logical way. He follows a

beginning-middle-end way of completing his narration.

c. The use of different voices by the subjects

Subject 1:

a. Related

Since Subject 1 is relatively closer to the researcher, her words are more informal and

more affectionate. Subject 1 also used one profanity for several times but the researcher and

corroborator did not mind it because they are both keenly closed to Subject 1 and since she is

staying in the urban area, she does not use words which have deeper meanings. Her words are

simpler making the corroborator and the speaker elongate the time of conversation as they share

ideas and throw more questions.

b. Consistent

Subject 1 is consistent in her narrations because they are all connected. She narrates past

experiences which are supplementary to the topic making it more interesting.

c. Effective

Subject 1 is an effective speaker because she made a more conversational way of

narrating experiences, making other conversationalists involved. There isn’t any air time/dead air

and the conversation is very lively.

d. Important

The conviction of Speaker 1’s voice gives importance to what she is narrating. There are

only three topics talked about and they are interconnected and she included past experiences for

the corroborator and the researcher to be more interested in the topics she is elaborating.

Furthermore, topics revolve around family and education matters. Subject 1’s way of narrating is

like story telling that gives lesson at the end of narration.

Subject 2:

a. Related

Though the second subject is older than first subject, his topics are more formal than the

first subject. One of his topics followed the narrative structure of Labov with all elements

arranged accordingly. While the first subject, though has related ideas had the narrative structure

with two elements interchanged.

b. Consistent

There are more airtime/dead air. It is calmer than the first conversation. It is monotonous. It is

shorter than the first conversation since there aren’t exciting topics.

c. Effective

With the use of hand gestures and descriptive words, speaker 2 is an effective speaker.

He made his narration more imaginative and believable because he gives details in more specific

way.
d. Important

Speaker 1’s way of narration is important because it includes topics about social and

professional issues. Though some of his vernacular words are deep, it adds meaning to what he

says, it made the conversation more meaningful.

***

Similarities of the two conversations:

1. The voices of the two relatives in the two different conversations change depending on

the topic or issue being discussed.

2. When the topic is just a usual day-to-day happening the voice is calm. If the topic is

about a good experience then the relative tends to speak louder and sometimes

accompany her narration with hand gestures. But if the person gossips, the manner of

speaking becomes slower and the voice is almost a whisper.

First speaker:

“Ammom, usto tay kunam sika nga nabasam inta internet nga one year ti

ana... Kitam met ti itsura na agkakapoy.”

“You know , what you said about what you read from the internet is true that

one is..Look at him he looks frail.”

(Issue on someone’s health)

Second speaker:

“Naipulong idiay Laoag, idiay kapitolyo nga adu kanu ti arogante

nga nurse.”

“It was reported in laoag, in the capitol that there are many arrogant nurses.”

(Issue on co-workers)

***

The first conversation has lines from the relative that shares her inside thoughts. The

relative is not ashamed to say to the person she is talking to that she sometimes talks to herself.

The sample transcribed conversations on the first parts of this chapter showed that the first

speaker uses “Mm-hmm” and “Ah-huh” on a certain topic, this shows how the relative agrees to

what is being said even though the topic becomes uninteresting already. In this conversation, it

proves that a woman uses these terms as a sign that she is listening. The first conversation even

have boisterous laughter because the topics being discussed are more entertaining for the

researcher and the corroborator.

The conversation with the second speaker has more dead air because he takes time in

answering questions, the more time he thinks the more interesting the stories he narrates because

they contain more descriptive sentences. It is calmer than the first conversation. It is more

monotonous than the first one because it does not contain more responses from the researcher. It

is shorter than the first conversation since there are lesser topics.
 CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings in the study and the conclusions

drawn.

Summary

This study focused on narrative as the choice of a specific linguistic technique to report

past events. The narratives that form the focus of this work were normally told in the course of a

sociolinguistic interview. This study was also conducted primarily to find out the linguistic cues

and narrative oral structure of Ilokanos The researcher conducted interviews with two senior

Ilokano speakers which served as means of achieving the goals of this study

Moreover, this study aimed to answer the following questions:

a. What are the narrative linguistic cues dominantly used by the subjects?

b. Are the elements of narrative structure by Labov properly sequenced in both

conversations?

c. How is the variation of voice affects the narration?

d. Is there a linguistic, sociological or cultural significance and meanings of

these?
Conclusion

Studying the structure helped the researcher understand how Ilokano people encode

information from past experiences, social and professional issues in different levels.

Firstly, through this linguistic analysis, the researcher concludes that Senior Ilokanos

dominantly used the linguistic cues: “Adda ibagak”, “mm-hmm”, “Ay apo”,“Ah-huh”,

“Apo!”,“Ammom”. “Eh ket” and “Ay” in conversation to achieve a smooth flow of narration.

Secondly, the place where the person lives, his gender, kinship to the person he is talking

to affect the flow of his conversation to another person.

In addition, the topic in the conversation affects the loudness of the voice while speaking,

the more sensitive the topic, the more tense the conversation, the more minimized the voice.

Furthermore, silence is present in a conversation when the topic is not so interesting. A

woman is more responsive in a face-to face conversation than a man.

Lastly, Labov’s narrative structure can be present in a conversation in a way that it is just

one part of it. It does not cover all the whole conversation.
 BIO-DATA

Name: Genevic G. Duldulao

Age: 50

Address: Brgy. 9 San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte

Sex: Female

Date of Birth: July 2, 1966

Civil Status: Married

Religion: Iglesia ni Cristo

Height: 5’3

Weight: 80 kg.

Occupation: House keeper

Citizenship: Filipino

Ethnicity: Ilocano

Educational Attainment: High school graduate

 BIO-DATA

Name: Sotero Benedicto Pascual

Age: 56

Address: 49-B Raraburan, Laoag City

Sex: Male

Date of Birth: April 20, 1961

Civil Status: Married

Religion: Roman Catholic

Height: 5’5

Weight: 75 kg

Occupation: Hospital Utility/Maintenance worker

Citizenship: Filipino

Ethnicity: Ilocano

Educational Attainment: College graduate

Appendix