DISCOURSE MARKERS IN PHILIPPINE DRUG TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of the Graduate School
Sacred Heart College
Lucena City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Master of Arts in Education
Major in English

Maria Carmela Rachel G. Esclanda

May 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Title Page …………………………………………………….…………….. i
Table of Contents …………………………………...……………………… ii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………….. iii

I Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................... 5
Scope and Limitation ...................................................................................14
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................15

II Methodology
Research Design ...............................................................................................44
Research Locale ...............................................................................................45
Research Population and Sample .......................................................................45
Corpus of the Study.............................................................................................46
Data Gathering Procedures ................................................................................46
Statistical Treatment ...................................................................................47
Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………...…….49

III Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………87

IV Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………91
V Recommendations ……………………………………………………………..93
VI References …………………………………………………………..…………95

VII Appendices

A. Research Output: Trial Observation Handbook for Discourse

Markers in Philippine Drug Trial Proceedings …………………...... 98
B. Timetable on the Utilization and Dissemination of the
Research Findings and Output ............................................................ 106
C. Letters and Certifications ................................................................... 108
D. Corpus of the Study ........................................................................... 115
E. Gannt Chart ………………………………………………………... 196
F. Biosketch of the Researcher/s (in at least 50 words)………………..
 ABSTRACT

ESCLANDA, MARIA CARMELA RACHEL G. DISCOURSE MARKERS IN PHILIPPINE

DRUG TRIAL PROCEEDINGS. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Sacred Heart College, Lucena
City, May 2019 (Jhonathan S. Cadavido, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser).

This study was aimed at determining the discourse markers in Philippine drug trial
proceedings. The study considered the discourse markers found in Philippine Drug Trials; its
functions; and its structure.
This study employed discourse analysis method using qualitative and quantitative approach
focusing on discourse markers in drug trial proceedings. The quantitative approach was used to
show the number of occurrences of discourse markers in drug trial proceedings. Thus, it used Fung
and Carter’s (2007) Core Functional Paradigm to identify the function of discourse markers and
Knott’s Five Syntactic Category to identify the structure of discourse markers.
As a result of the study, the discourse markers in the spoken text in the Philippine drug trial
proceedings were classified into interpersonal, referential, structure and cognitive is based on Fung
and Carter’s Core Functional Paradigm. Based on the Knott’s (1966) Five syntactic category,
discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial proceedings were analyzed as to
coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive adverbs, prepositional adverbs, phrases which take
sentential complements.
Based on the findings and conclusion, the following recommendations were formulated
referential category obtained the highest frequency. This was because expressions were
noteworthy in legal discourse. Omitting can result to alteration of meaning. Referential category
is followed by structural while referential category and cognitive category does not exist.
Moreover, it is recommended that Law teachers may use the concept of discourse markers
in analyzing the ways on how the learners present their ideas logically and critically as indicated
by the discourse markers use. They also analyzed the speaking skills of the learners in the context
of Philippine English by focusing on how the learners show responses, continue conversations,
open and close topics, mark shared knowledge, summarize topics, provide corrections and
elaborations, show topic shifts, and other ways on presenting their views. Also, Language
researchers may work on a comparative study on the analysis of structures and functions of
discourse markers using other Philippine drug trial proceedings. They may also conduct a study
on the socio-linguistic features of the Philippine drug trial proceedings.
Keywords: discourse markers, functions, coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive
adverbs, prepositional phrases, phrases which take sentential complements
Introduction
Discourse markers are lexicons that serve as a transitional device showing relationship of
one statement to another. It can be found in different contexts such as daily conversations
classroom discussions drug trial proceedings and the like. Everyone use such marker
unconsciously but if discourses are critically analyzed such markers can be identified. Discourse
markers may differ in structure and function depending on the context and speaker.
Discourse markers are expressions like “well”, “but”, “oh” and “y’know” that are one set
of linguistic items that function in discourses of various styles or registers (Li Feng, 2010). The
said markers are already used in everyday conversation but it is not that obvious because people
are already used to the use of these markers. Discourse markers have been studied in a variety of
languages and examined in a variety of genres and interactive contexts, though many scholars do
not agree on how to define them, even what to call them (Shiffrin, 1980). This is a study that
analyzed the use, function and structure of discourse markers.
Shiffrin (1994) explained that discourse markers are expressions like utterance-initial is a
term which is intended to reflect the role that these expressions play in marking, signaling, or
indicating how one unit of discourse is connected to another. Expressions are also classified as
discourse markers. The study aims to analyze the discourse markers used by the presiding judge,
prosecuting counsel, defense counsel, witness and suspect.
Apparently, there is an unequivocally legitimized inequality in the courtroom which is
manifested through language and that language is the most powerful natural weapon used to
effectuate justice in societies (Richard, 2017). Thus, language serves as the main instrument/
method of instruction used in court proceedings. In relation to this, dominance is shown by the
party who is in control of the flow of conversation in court.
Every bit of information are analyzed in court trials that is the main reason why witnesses
must be precise and specific during cross examinations. As it is stated in the Philippine constitution
whenever policemen arrest the accused, they must be able to say their rights. Definitely, the police
always say “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a
court of law. You have the right of an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will provide
for you? With the rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”. This is simply because language
spoken can serve as evidence in the court of law. In fact, every witness in court is under oath
therefore no one is allowed to lie as the oath says witnesses swear that they must say the “Truth
and nothing but the truth so help me God.” If they lie, the crime of perjury is punished here in the
Philippines in accordance with the proviso of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Language is the main weapon used in the courtroom and is explained that legal discourse
is absolutely diverse from the everyday discourse. It is highly structured and strictly follows
dogmas, power relations; dominance, inequality, mind control manifest through discourse
structures. In relation to this, the corpus of the study were the utterances from conversations heard
in drug trial proceedings. Thus, the study was intended to identify discourse markers, examine the
functions of discourse markers, analyze the structure of discourse markers, and tally the discourse
markers found in drug trials proceedings and how it is described in terms of ideational structure,
action structure and exchange structure.
The study was conducted to prove or disprove that discourse markers exist and serve
function in drug trial proceedings. As for instance in the findings of a study in “Discourse Markers”
(Beaugrande, 1980; Brown & Yule, 1983 as cited in Johnstone, 2018) are ways of marking
boundaries of speech. Intonational cues are used to start a new paragraph that is termed as “speech
paragraph” or paratone. This can be gathered through recording of utterances observed.
Gibbons (2003) discusses the discourse strategies used in the courtroom to control less
powerful participants. Strategies may be viewed with the use of discourse markers that can show
relevance and coherence. Thus, discourse markers particularly function as transitional device
during conversations whether it is structured or not. Such study is useful in evaluating drug trial
proceedings here in the Philippines. As a result, a drug trial proceedings handbook can be made to
evaluate the effectiveness of the cross examinations during drug trial proceedings. Such handbook
determines the way non-native speakers of English use discourse markers in structured discourses
as reflected in the corpus of Philippine drug trials. This study aims in providing clarifications on
the significance and role of discourse markers in defining the over-all and exact meaning of the
discourse used in court proceedings. Hence, an analysis of discourse markers found in the spoken
text of Philippine drug trial proceedings.
Statement of the Problem
This study was aimed at analyzing discourse markers used in drug trial proceedings.
Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:
1. What discourse markers were found in drug trial proceedings?
2. What were the functions of discourse markers in drug trial proceedings?
3. How may the discourse markers in drug trial proceedings be described using Knott’s Five
Syntactic Category in terms of the following:
3.1 Coordinators;
3.2 Subordinators;
3.3 Conjunctive Adverbs;
3.4 Prepositional Phrases; and
3.5 Phrases which take Sentential complements?
4. What Trial Observation Handbook for Discourse Markers in Philippine Drug Trial
Proceedings can be suggested that can be used as a guide in evaluating drug trial
proceedings?
Theoretical Framework
In oral discourses, discourse markers are indicators of language in a target language. In
language, discourse markers are basically formed by utterances used in communication in an
unplanned conversation. The presence of discourse markers highlights the significance of
discourse analysis in oral communication activities such as court proceedings.
Discourse markers are said to be debated for coherence purposes on the other hand others
believe that discourse markers are treated under relevance perspectives (Cadavido, 2015). This
issue in discourse analysis is the deficiency of theoretical knowledge, together with a tendency
towards over-interpretation of data.
 In Shiffrin’s (1987) “Analysis of Discourse Markers”, she emphasized that discourse
marker was motivated by several concerns coming from sociolinguistic perspective. It is concerned
in using methods for analyzing language that progressed in variation theory to record the use and
distribution of forms in discourse. Both methodology of using both quantitative and qualitative
methods and underlying models of combining those inherited from both linguistics and sociology
can be used this is to record the use and distribution of discourse markers.
Markers could work at different levels of discourse to connect utterances on either a single
level or across different levels. A word can function differently depending on the sentence structure
and context. Another aspect of the analysis showed that markers display relationships that are local
(between adjacent utterances) and/or global (across wider spans and/or structures of discourse.
The degree to which markers themselves add a meaning to discourse as for example when
“oh!” displays information as “new” or “unexpected” to a listener or reflect a meaning that is
already semantically accessible for example as when “but” reflects a semantically transparent
contrastive meaning or denial.
Schiffrin (1987) attempted a specification of the conditions that would allow a word to be
used as a discourse marker: syntactically detachable, initial position, range of prosodic contours,
operate at both local and global levels, operate on different planes of discourse. Second, she
suggested that discourse markers were comparable to indexicals, or, in a broader sociolinguistic
framework, contextualization cues. It provides a way of breaking down two of the key barriers in
the definitional divide between markers and particles in the field of discourse-marker research.
She explained the two accounts which serve as the barriers first is between the view of displaying
meaning (markers) and creating it (particles) and second whether markers/particles can also
portray speaker stance and attitude. Viewing markers as indexicals allows for both the displaying
and the creating functions, as well as for anchoring the center of deixis on the speaker, therefore
including speaker stance functions.
Schiffrin (1987) proposed that, although markers have primary functions as for example
the primary function of and is on an ideational plane and the primary function of “well” in the
participation framework, their use is multi-functional. It is this multifunctionality on different
planes of discourse that helps to integrate the many different simultaneous processes underlying
the construction of discourse, and thus helps to create coherence. They may also negotiate relations
of speaker to text such as stance discourse markers or such as epistemic discourse markers or other
modal markers.
A marker generally has several different functions, which must be discovered through
careful analysis considering the actions leading up to its use in various contexts. The functionality,
often across realms, that may eventually bring about the grammaticization of discourse markers.
Schiffrin’s approach combines interactional and variationist approaches to discourse to
analyze the role of markers in co-constructed discourse. Considering both function and structure,
it is likely to bring about new results. In any event, basing decisions about marker status on data
analysis has an important consequence: there may very well be different decisions about the marker
status of an expression depending upon the data. This should be neither surprising nor problematic.
If discourse markers are, indeed, indices of the underlying cognitive, expressive, textual, and social
organization of a discourse, it is ultimately properties of the discourse itself which stem, of course,
from factors as various as the speaker’s goals, the social situation, and so on that provide the need
for and hence the slots in which markers appear.

INTERPERSONAL REFERENTIAL STRUCTURAL COGNITIVE

Marking shared Cause: because Opening and closing of Denoting thinking

knowledge: see, you, Contrast: but, yet topics: now, ok/okay, process: well, think, I
you know right, let’s start see and

Indicating attitudes: Coordination: and Sequence: first, Reformulation: self

well, really, I think, Disjunction: or second, firstly, next, Correction: I mean
sort of then

Showing responses: Consequence: so Topic shifts: so, now, Elaboration: like, I

ok/okay, yeah, I see, how about mean
great

Digression: anyway Summarizing Hesitation: well, sort

opinions: so of

Comparison: similarly Continuation of Assessment of the

topics: so listener’s knowledge
about the utterance you
know

Figure 1. Fung and Carter’s (2007) core functional paradigm.

Discourse markers also function in the cognitive level denoting the thinking process in
constructing speeches. Fung & Carter (2007) have categorized a core functional paradigm of
discourse markers. It is categorized as interpersonal, referential, structural and cognitive.
Knott (1996) explained that discourse markers also used a number of syntactically
motivated ‘cue phrases’ in order to build a set of coherence (i.e. rhetorical) relations. There are
five syntactic classes are as follows: Coordinators: these always appear between the clauses they
link; the clauses may occur in separate sentences or in the same sentence. If combined in a
sequence with other discourse cues, coordinators always appear leftmost in the sequence. In
English, typical coordinators include and, but, and or.; Subordinators: these introduce subordinate
clauses in complex sentences. The subordinate clause may occur to the left or the right of the main
clause, but the subordinator is always to the left of the subordinate clause. In English, typical
subordinators include although, because, and if. Conjunct adverbs: these relate whole clauses, and
can appear at different points within them, although there is often a default position for particular
cues. There are also syntactic constraints on exactly which positions conjunct adverbs can occupy:
at the beginning of a clause, between subject and verb, between any auxiliary verbs, between
auxiliary verb and main verb, after a copula if there is one, and before a sentential complement if
there is one. In English, typical conjunct adverbs include as a consequence, however, and thus.;
Prepositional phrases: these often contain propositional anaphora referring back to the previous
clause. In English, typical prepositional phrases include at this point, for these reasons, and in this
respect; and Clauses which take sentential complements: these often introduce a particular
intentional stance with respect to the content of the clause they introduce. In English, typical
phrases of this kind include it follows that and it may seem that.
Theoretical Paradigm

Input
Discourse markers in Functions of discourse Description of Discourse
Philippine Drug Trial Markers in Drug Trial Markers in Drug Trial
Proceedings Proceedings Proceedings

Process
Analysis of the various discourse
markers in Philippine drug trial Analysis of discourse markers,
proceedings functions and description
(Recorded utterances and transcripts of drug trial
proceedings)

Output
Trial Observation Handbook for Discourse Markers in Philippine Drug
Trial Proceedings
Figure 2. Input-Process-Output model of discourse markers in Philippine drug trial proceedings.

Figure 2 presents the paradigm of the study which shows how the researcher reached the
goal of the study through the Input-Process-Output model. The corpus of the study which is 6
recordings and transcripts coming from the Branch 53, RTC Lucena City.
The data gathering procedures were followed by the discourse analysis of the discourse
markers in which different theoretical underpinnings were used to describe the discourse marker.
The theoretical underpinnings were anchored on Fung and Carter’s (2007) Core Functional
Paradigm; but the structure of discourse markers was described in terms of Knott’s (1996) Five
Syntactical Categories of Discourse Markers. The recorded utterances and transcripts of drug trial
proceedings was analyzed together with its functions and description.
Lastly, based on the findings of the study a Trial Observation Handbook for Discourse
Markers in Philippine Drug Trial Proceedings was designed. The output summarizes and adopts
to the discourse markers found in drug trial proceedings which is a more compact form which can
be more readily distributed and used by legal discourse communities.
Scope and Limitation
This study was limited to the analysis of the various discourse markers available in
Philippine drug trial proceedings. The content basically focused on the corpora of drug
proceedings that also includes dialogues composed of activities such as debates and legal cross
examinations.
The discourse markers in the Philippine drug trials were analyzed focusing on the functions
and structures. The functions of the discourse markers were analyzed using Fung and Carter’s
(2007) Core Functional Paradigm. The discourse markers were analyzed and categorized
according to inferential, referential, structural, and cognitive. The corpus came from Regional Trial
Court, Branch 53, Lucena City.
Analysis on the functions (and categorization) of the discourse markers are not limited to
the perspective of Fung and Carter’s Core Functional Paradigm (2007). This model was only used
as the basis of functional analysis.
In terms of use the discourse markers, analysis of discourse markers were through Knott
(1966) discourse model using Knott’s Five Syntactic Category which is categorized as
coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive adverbs, prepositional phrases and phrases which take
sentential complements.

Definition of Terms
The following are the definition of terms used in the title, the statement of the problem
and other variables found in the study.
Audio Recording. Audio recording is an electronic recording of the utterances in drug trial
proceedings which was used as the main corpus of the study.
Cognitive. Cognitive refers to the function of discourse markers focusing on the mental
processes or cognition as to denote thinking, reformulation, correction, elaboration, hesitation, and
assessment of the listener’s knowledge (Cadavido, 2015).
Coordinators. They link the clauses which are equal constituents of a sentence. They
always appear in between the clauses they link. For example: John likes tea and his sister likes
coffee.
Conjunctive adverbs. “They modify the whole clauses, and can appear at different points
within them, although there is often a default position for particular phrases (Knott, 1966)” For
example: I had a cold. Therefore, I couldn’t go swimming.
Defense counsel. Defense attorney or defense counsel is usually hired directly by the
person accused and from that point forward, represents the accused throughout the legal process,
including trial (British Columbia Law Society, 2007).
Discourse Markers. Discourse markers – expressions such as oh, well, y’know, and but –
are one set of linguistic items that function in cognitive, expressive, social, and textual domains
(Tannen et al., 2015).
Discourse. Discourses determine reality, though of course intervening active subjects in
their social contexts as co-producers and co agents of discourses (Cadavido, 2015).
Information state. Knowledge-based causal relationship holds when a speaker uses some
piece(s) of information as a warrant for an inference (a speaker-inference) or when a speaker
intends a hearer to do so (a hearer-inference) (Shiffrin, 1987).
Interpersonal. Interpersonal refers to the function of discourse marker focusing on
marking shared knowledge, indicating attitudes and showing response (Cadavido, 2015).
 Presiding Judge. Justice or Judge shall hold office during good behavior until he reaches
the age of seventy years or becomes incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec 11); once appointed the Ombudsman and his Deputies would serve for
seven years, and the Ombudsman may be removed only by impeachment (1987 Constitution, Art.
XI, Sec.11 and Sec. 2).
Philippine Drug Trials/ Philippine Drug Cases. Certain illicit drugs, such as cocaine and
methamphetamine, are restricted at both the federal and state level. This includes the
manufacturing, cultivation, trafficking, distribution and possession of these substances. Conviction
on drug charges often carries stiff sentences, including prison time, but sometimes prosecutors
offers plea deals to lower-level offenders in exchange for help with a larger case (Reuters, 2018).
Prosecuting counsel. Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and
violations of City or municipal ordinances in the courts at the province or City and therein
discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal actions, subject to the provisions of
second paragraph of Section 5 (RA No. 10071).
Prepositional phrases. “They often contain propositional anaphora referring back to the
previous clause (Knott, 1966)”. For example: She answered the questions without difficulty. From
then on she knew she would pass the exam.
Phrases which take sentential complements. “They often introduce a particular intentional
stance with respect to the content of the clause they introduce (Knott, 1966).” For example: On the
moon, the sky looks black and the sun white. This is because there is no atmosphere.
Referential. Referential is the function of discourse markers focusing on the connections of
words as indicated by the markers focusing on cause, contrast, coordination, disjunction,
consequence, digression, comparison (Cadavido, 2015).
Structural. Structural refers to the function of discourse markers focusing on the structure
as to the beginning, ending, chronological order, topic shifts, summarizing and continuation of
topics (Cadavido, 2015).
Suspect. Suspect, has committed any offense under existing laws in order (Criminal Code
of the Philippines, 2014).
Witness. Answers all questions which are asked of him. He cannot choose which questions
to answer and to answering others (Rule 132 Rules of Court - Presentation of Evidence).

Research Design
This study employed discourse analysis method using quantitative to count the discourse
markers used and qualitative for the analysis of functions of discourse markers in drug trial
proceedings. The quantitative approach was used to show the number of occurrences of discourse
markers in drug trial proceedings. Thus, it identified patterns of discourse that characterize the
narratives of collective subjects about drug trial event and topic. Using methods for analyzing
language that had been developed by variation theory to account for the use and distribution of
forms in discourse by Fung and Carter (2007) and Knott (1966).
This study was descriptive in a way that it attempted to interpret the discourse markers by
categorizing them as to how it is used. The description was needed to achieve understanding
because it showed ways the data were interpreted.
 A common feature of a qualitative research was that it aims to create understanding from
data analysis as the analysis proceeds. This study was also qualitative in nature as this involved
the process, meaning and understanding gained through words and utterances. This study
developed deeply into potential underlying meanings held with expressions of people involved
during drug trials that were gathered during data collection which then its classification were
analyzed.

Research Locale
Lucena City caters wide range of drug cases. Therefore, the researcher decided to choose
it as the locale of the study since the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, Lucena City of
Quezon is also located in Lucena City. As a citizen of Quezon, the researcher chose the locale that
would provide sufficient information to support the study.
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, Lucena City, as the center of Quezon,
accommodates various criminal cases including drug cases presided by Executive Judge Hon.
Dennis Galahad C. Orendain.

Research Population and Sample

The participants of the study were the presiding judge, prosecuting counsel, defense,
suspect and witnesses in the RTC of Lucena City. In general, it was a fine choice as participants
in the study considering their tendency to react on situations were quickly and instantaneously.
Thought some of the transcripts were not observed in actual, an audio recording was provided by
the locale for the researcher. The researcher observed drug trial proceedings and made use of the
accessible population which was the portion of the population to which the researcher has
reasonable access.

Corpus of the Study

The primary corpus used in the study were the recorded utterances of the participants. The
utterances should bear counted repeated expressions to qualify as a part of the corpus of the study.
The recorded utterances were given by the clerk of court which were transcribed for the analysis
in the study. Thus, the occurrences transcribed conversation. There were six audio recording
analyzed with transcripts that served as the corpus of the study.
The secondary corpus of the study were the utterances of participants listed down
personally by the researcher during the three days observation period and two days of data
gathering period. To identify and collect the discourse markers and their communicative purposes,
the researcher made a comprehensive written survey checklist of discourse markers used by the
participants.
The findings and results of the study were utilized by the researcher as a basis Trial
Observation Handbook for Discourse Markers in Philippine Drug Trial Proceedings that could be
used to evaluate drug trial proceedings.

Data Gathering Procedures

To formally administer the study, the researcher sought the approval of the Dean of the
Graduate Studies of Sacred Heart College. After the approval of the letter, the researcher asked the
permission of the executive judge of Quezon.
The researcher personally went to the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City to request an
official transcript and audio-recordings. The Branch Clerk office entrusted to the researcher the
said documents provided that these shall be returned after using them. Then, the researcher orally
explained that the materials needed, i.e., official transcript and audio recordings, would be used in
the study under forensic linguistics—analysis, presentation, and publication—as one of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English.
Then the researcher proceeded to the recording of utterances during drug trials with
permission from the presiding judge, prosecuting counsel, defense counsel, witness and suspect.
The office also explained that the researcher can use the materials and even allowed him to bring
them home for use. The case between the parties had already been settled that made the office
decided to lend the materials to the researcher for academic reasons.
The gathered data was tabulated and statistically treated to determine and describe the
discourse markers during drug trials. The participants were also observed and recorded in the court
proceedings while they were speaking and interacting with each other. The researcher made use
of audio recording of the court trial during the court hearing. A letter was given to the presiding
judge of Branch 53, Regional Trial Court Lucena City. Once approved, recordings were made
using a smart phone. It was known to all that the court proceedings were being recorded and write
down by the court stenographer while being interpreted by the court interpreter.
The participants knew that the case was being recorded because it is the practice in every
hearing. The audio recording was used as the corpus of the study. This study sought the expertise
of three specialists’ informants to validate the results the presiding judge, court stenographer and
court interpreter. They were conscious that the cases observed were being recorder and studied.
Three specialists’ informants were considered as experts in the field. In addition, the researcher
systematically wrote down all identifiable utterances pertaining to discourse markers stated by
each participant. This method helped the researcher to identify speakers’ expressions during the
transcription process. The recorded utterances were transcribed carefully through a number of
stages. During the first stage, the researcher transcribed the recordings and analyzed using the
model of discourse analysis. For ethical standards and considerations, the researcher, however,
made use of the generic name of the accused for its identity security.

Data Analysis
Frequencies of the discourse markers found in drug trial proceedings converted to
percentage. To use confidential informants and specialist informants successfully, the researcher
developed formal and sound informant control procedures during the conduct of the study.
Ethical Considerations
Though the data were covered with the data privacy law, the researcher still asked for the
audio recording with the condition that it was kept confidential. Thus, the main corpus the audio
recording was strictly used for educational purposes only and not for conflict of interest. The names
of the participants were hidden to keep their personality confidential. They were the witnesses
whose names were mentioned.
Ethical Considerations
Though the data were covered with the data privacy law, the researcher still asked for the
audio recording with the condition that it was kept confidential. Thus, the main corpus the audio
recording was strictly used for educational purposes only and not for conflict of interest. The names
of the participants were hidden to keep their personality confidential. They were the witnesses
whose names were mentioned.
Results and Discussion
Based on the analysis of the corpora, the following findings were derived;
1. There were 4 kinds of discourse markers found in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial
proceedings. These discourses had the total of 135 occurrences in the 6 transcripts given by the
Branch 53, Regional Trial Court, Lucena City. Also, there were 106 in referential category and
29 in structural. In the same case the discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug
trial proceedings were also classified into four (4) categories, interpersonal, referential,
structural and cognitive. There were no interpersonal and cognitive discourse markers found.
On the other hand, only the referential and structural category of discourse markers were present
in the corpora.
The referential category obtained a frequency of 106 occurrences of discourse
markers composed of 100 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of
Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: and,
but, because, or.
The structural category obtained a frequency of 29 occurrences of discourse
markers composed of 100 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of
Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: so.

2. There were 6 identified functions of discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug
trial proceedings. All 6 functions were patterned after the Core Functional Paradigm of Fung
and Carter (2007). These functions identified by Fung and Carter (2007) include the following:
coordination (and); contrast (but); cause (because); continuation of topics (so); sequence (then);
and option/provision (or). Based on the Fung and Carter’s (2007) Core Functional Paradigm,
discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial proceedings were analyzed as to:
interpersonal, referential, structural and cognitive category.

Coordination obtained a frequency of 99 occurrences of discourse markers

composed of 73 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug
trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: and;

Contrast obtained a frequency of 2 occurrences of discourse markers composed of

1 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial
proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: but;

Cause obtained a frequency of 2 occurrences of discourse markers composed of 2

percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial proceedings.
The discourse markers under this category included: because;

Continuation of topics obtained a frequency of 29 occurrences of discourse markers

composed of 21 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug
trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: so;

Sequence obtained a frequency of 3 occurrences of discourse markers composed of

2 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial
proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: then:
 Option/Provision obtained a frequency of 3 occurrences of discourse markers
composed of 2 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug
trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included: or;
3. Based on the Knott’s (1966) Five syntactic category, discourse markers in the spoken text of
Philippine drug trial proceedings were analyzed as to: coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive
adverbs, prepositional adverbs, phrases which take sentential complements.
The coordinators category obtained a frequency of 3 occurrences of discourse
markers composed of 15 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of
Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category include the
discourse marker and.
The subordinators category obtained a frequency of 8 occurrences of discourse
markers composed of 40 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text of
Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included:
because, or.
The conjunctive adverb category obtained a frequency of 2 occurrences of
discourse markers composed of 10 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text
of Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included:
but, so.
The prepositional phrase category obtained a frequency of 5 occurrences of
discourse markers composed of 25 percent of the total discourse markers in the spoken text
of Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this category included:
but, so.
The phrase which take as sentential complement category obtained a frequency of
2 occurrences of discourse markers composed of 10 percent of the total discourse markers
in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial proceedings. The discourse markers under this
category included: but, so.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were formulated:
1. Discourse markers in the spoken text in Philippine drug trial proceedings were classified
as to referential and structure.
Referential discourse markers included the following: and, but, because. or. They
were used as connectives in reference to both preceding and succeeding segments in meaning
units in conversation.
Structural discourse markers included the following: so. They were used to signal
topic shifting and turn-taking in the given utterance.
2. The functions of discourse markers in Philippine Drug Trials included the following: cause;
contrast; coordination; option/provision; sequence; and continuation of topics.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and the conclusions in this study, the following recommendations
were made:
A. For the Law Teachers
1. Law Teachers may use the concept of discourse markers in analyzing the ways on how the
learners present their ideas logically and critically as indicated by the discourse markers use.
2. Analyze the speaking skills of the learners in the context of Philippine English by focusing
on how the learners show responses, continue conversations, open and close topics, mark
 shared knowledge, summarize topics, provide corrections and elaborations, show topic
shifts, and other ways on presenting their views.
B. For the Language Researchers
1. Work on a comparative study on the analysis of structures and functions of discourse
markers using other Philippine drug trial proceedings.
2. Conduct a study on the socio-linguistic features of the Philippine drug trial proceedings.
 References

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bhatia, V., K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantic pragmatics of discourse
markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brinton, L., J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse

functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Castro, C., M., Ch. The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction.
Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, accessed 10 November 2014,
available from http:www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=169214144005

Cadavido, J. S. (2015). Discourse markers in spoken tests in Philippines English. Manuel S.

Enverga University Foundation. Lucena City.

Discourse markers in Arabic newspaper opinion articles. PhD dissertation. Washington:

Georgetown University.

Drid, (2010). Discourse analysis: Key concepts and perspectives. Alathar journal. 09. 20-25.

Dylgjeri, A. (2014). The function and importance of discourse markers in political discourse.,
Beder University Journal of Educational Sciences, 1/5:

Feng, L. (2010). Discourse markers in english writing, The Journal of International Social
Research, 3/11: 299-305.

Fraser, B. (1987). Pragmatic formatives. Verschueven, J. & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.) The

Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 179-194.

Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38/4: 19-33.

Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers, Pragmatics, 6/2: pp. 167-190.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31: pp. 931-952.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31: pp. 931-952.
Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in
pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics. 28. 10.1093/applin/amm030.

Hale, S. (1999). Interpreters' treatment of discourse markers in courtroom questions. Forensic

Linguistics-the International Journal of Speech Language and The Law - Forensic Linguist.
6. 57-82. 10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.57.

Ismail, H. M., (2012). Discourse markers in political speeches: forms and functions. Journal of
College of Education for Women, 23/4: pp. 1260-1278.

Jucker A., H. & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kaveifard, E. & Allami H. (2011). Inferential discourse markers in discussion section of

psychology research articles across English and Persian, Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 1/12: 1786-1791.

Mansoor Al-Surmi, Discourse markers and reading comprehension: is there an effect?, Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 1, 12, (2011).

Mulkar-Mehta, R., Gordon, A. S., Hovy, E. & Hobbs, J. (2011). Causal markers across domains
and genres of discourse., ACM Digital Library, pp. 183-184.

Muller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Petukhova, V. & Bunt, H. (2009). Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in

spoken dialogue. 8th International Conference on Computational Science. Conference
materials [Tilburg, January 7-9, 2009]. Tilburg: Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS-8), pp. 157-168.

Reinert, M. (2007). Postures énonciatives et mondes lexicaux stabilisés en analyse statistique de

discours. Langage et société, no 121-122,(3), pp. 189-202. doi:10.3917/ls.121.0189.

Richard and Nwizug. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of courtroom proceedings in Nigeria.
An International Journal of Arts and Humanities. Retried date: December 01, 2018.
Retrieved from: < https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ijah/article/view/163955>

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse: Language as social interaction. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: Revitising “and”, in Fischer, K.
(ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 315-338.

Schifrin, D., Tannen, D. & H. E. Hamilton (eds). (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis.
Schourup, L. C. (1999). Discourse markers, Lingua, 107: 227-265.

Tupper, Kenneth. (2008). Drugs, discourses and education: A critical discourse analysis of a
high school drug education text. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics of Education. 29.
223-238. 10.1080/01596300801966864
 APPENDIX A

Research Output: Trial Observation Handbook for

Discourse Markers in Philippine Drug Trial

Proceedings
 Trial Observation Handbook for
Discourse Markers in Philippine Drug
Trial Proceedings
The concepts of discourse markers are important features of the

Philippine Drug Trials which have to be studied. The idea about discourse

markers discusses that every expresions have a specific meaning that its

meaning, function and structure is inseparable.

. Moreover, this guide will provide clarification on the importance and

functions of discourse markers in determining the total and specific meanings

indicated in the drug trial proceedings transcript.

Discourse markers – expressions such as oh, well, y’know, and but – are

one set of linguistic items that function in cognitive, expressive, social, and

textual domains. (Shiffrin, 2015).

This output was designed mainly for academic purposes through an

analysis of the utterances heard in the courtroom. It is an output of a research

entitled “Discourse Markers in Philippine Drug Trial Proceedings” by Maria

Carmela Rachel G. Esclanda. The output is divided into three parts: Part I - the

Discourse Markers found in Philippine Drug Trials Proceedings, Part II Functions

of Discourse Markers found in Philippine Drug Trial Proceedings and lastly, Five

Syntactic Categories of Discourse Markers found in Philippine Drug Trials

Proceedings.
PART I: DISCOURSE MARKERS FOUND IN PHILIPPINE
DRUG TRIALS PROCEEDINGS

FUNG AND CARTER’S CORE FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM

Discourse markers are important marks and signs in oral or spoken

discourse or communication. In a sense, discourse markers vary depending on

the views of different linguists and theorists. In this analysis of discourse

markers, the concepts on the function of discourse markers proposed by Fung

and Carter (2007), and Shiffrin (1987) were used. The analysis focused on

various functions of discourse markers on Philippine drug trials.

Furthermore, the discourse markers were categorized by Fung

and Carter (2007) as to: interpersonal, referential, structural and cognitive. In

here they are classified discourse markers as to their categories and functions.

Likewise, Shiffrin (1987) and Fung and Carter (2007) shared the same points of

examples and analysis of discourse markers. Discourse markers are words or

phrases like anyway, right, okay, as I say, to begin with. We use them to connect,

organise and manage what we say or write or to express attitude.

 Discourse Markers
Examples

[friends are talking]

 A: So, I’ve decided I’m going to go to the bank and ask for a car loan.

 B: That sounds like a good idea.

 C: Well, you need a car.

 B: Right.

 A: Anyway, I was wondering if either of you would teach me how to drive.

According to Schiffrin’s initial work, defined discourse markers as “sequentially

dependent elements which bracket units of talk”– that is, non-obligatory utterance-initialitems that

function in relation to ongoing talk and text (Shiffrin, 1987).

Remember!

Linguistic expressions that is used to signal the relation of an utterance

to the immediate context with the primary function of bringing to listener’s
attention a particular kind of the upcoming utterance with the immediate
discourse context (Redeker, 1991).

Interpersonal Discourse Markers

Examples

 okay okay. so we'll leave all the controversy (xx) controversy is okay…okay? we're

not (xx) but, we, we gon- we gonna leave it we gonna talk about it later you know,

so save your poin- good points for later. not yet.

 Discourse markers that shows specific functions depending on the context and speaker

structure and function may differ. Discourse markers like well, but, oh and y’know are expressions

that function in discourses of various styles or registers discourse markers particularly function as

transitional device during conversations whether it is structured or not. A word can function

differently depending on the sentence structure and context. Another aspect of the analysis showed

that markers display relationships that are local between adjacent utterances and/or global across

wider spans and/or structures of discourse multifunctionality on different planes of discourse that

helps to integrate the many different simultaneous processes underlying the construction of

discourse, and thus helps to create coherence (Shiffrin, 2008). You know is defined by Östman

(1981) as amarker used by the speaker to encourage the addressee to “accept the propositional

content of his utterance as mutual background knowledge”

Remember!

Interpersonal refers to the function of discourse marker focusing on

marking shared knowledge, indicating attitudes and showing response.

Referential Discourse Markers

Examples

 High level positions are stressful at times, and can be harmful to your

health after Arnold Garcia but they were not able to catch him, ma’am.

According to Heidar and Bria (2011), referential level, conjunctions are repeatedly

used to mark the link between the-already-there discourse units and the upcoming ones.
They actually provide indexical direction to different semantic relations. DMs at this level

provide information about the ways in which units of discourse are sequenced, and how

they are coordinated. They also indicate causal (because), contrastive (whilst, however,

but), consequential (consequently), and disjunctive (or) relations. As exemplified

discoursal links can be demonstrated using this type of referential marker.

Remember!

Referential is the function of discourse markers focusing on the

connections of words as indicated by the markers focusing on cause, contrast,
coordination, disjunction, consequence, digression, comparison.

Structural Discourse Markers

Example

 So that she could keep her job, she didn't complain at all.

 He finished his work as fast as possible so that he could leave early.

 He worked harder for a promotion so he could buy a new car.

Structural emphasis on the functions of discourse markers is clearly manifested this

category. This also value the function of discourse markers in suggesting topical analysis

on starting and ending the discourse. As such the discourse marker, in this category

include the discourse marker so.

Remember!

Structural refers to the function of discourse markers focusing on the

structure as to the beginning, ending, chronological order, topic shifts,
summarizing and continuation of topics.

Cognitive Discourse Markers

 Example

 Well, today I’d like to talk about phrasal verbs.Yes, ma’am.

 I took a shower and, well, then I went to bed.

 Well, how did your doctor visit go?

 Well?

Cognitive aspect of discourse markers is category of discourse markers focuses on

the signs of mental processes on spoken discourse as the speaker/s and listener/s and

vice versa provides explanatory or elaborative view on the topic/s being discussed.

Discourse markers in this category is the discourse marker well. However, other

discourse markers in the cognitive category does not exist such as the following: I think,

I see, I guess, I mean, oh, like and sort of.

Denotating thinking process helps the speaker and the hearer (another speaker) to

signify and identify the on the cognitive aspect of the utterance or conversation (Fung and

Carter, 2007). This function also marks a clear value on the principle indicating the period

of thinking--or simply, thinking process.

Remember!

Cognitive refers to the function of discourse markers focusing on the

mental processes or cognition as to denote thinking, reformulation, correction,
elaboration, hesitation, and assessment of the listener’s knowledge
 Remember

INTERPERSONAL REFERENTIAL STRUCTURAL COGNITIVE

Marking shared Cause: because Opening and closing of Denoting thinking

knowledge: see, you, Contrast: but, yet topics: now, ok/okay, process: well, think, I
you know right, let’s start see and

Indicating attitudes: Coordination: and Sequence: first, Reformulation: self

well, really, I think, Disjunction: or second, firstly, next, Correction: I mean
sort of then

Showing responses: Consequence: so Topic shifts: so, now, Elaboration: like, I

ok/okay, yeah, I see, how about mean
great

Digression: anyway Summarizing Hesitation: well, sort

opinions: so of

Comparison: similarly Continuation of Assessment of the

topics: so listener’s knowledge
about the utterance you
know

Fung and Carter’s (2007) core functional paradigm.

PART II: FUNCTIONS OF DISCOURSE MARKERS

FOUND IN PHILIPPINE DRUG TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
 There were eight (8) identified functions of discourse markers in spoken text.

These functions included the following: coordination; contrast; cause; summarizing

options; continuation of topics; sequence; denotating thinking process and

option/provision. A marker generally has several different functions, which must be

discovered through careful analysis considering the actions leading up to its use in

various contexts. The functionality, often across realms, that may eventually bring

about the grammaticization of discourse markers.

 Cause

Example

 Because he was unhappy, he asked to be transferred, vs. He asked to be

transferred, for he was unhappy, vs. • For he was unhappy, he asked to be

transferred.

Cause helped the speaker in the conversation to indicate the reason or cause why a

particular thing happened or occurred (Fung and Carter, 2007). It also provided the mark

in an utterance or an argument showing how important was marked as ideational

subordinate. Suchlike, Fung and Carter (2007) compared the use of English DMs by Hong

Kong speakers and native British English speakers, and found that Hong Kong learners

displayed a frequent use of referential markers (and, but, because/cause, ok, so, etc.),

but a more restricted use of interpersonal markers (yeah, really, say, sort of, I see, you

see, well, right, actually, you know, etc.). They suggested that this result reflected that the

learners were exposed to traditional grammar-centered pedagogy and hence focused on

the semantic meanings of words rather than their pragmatic use in spoken language.

Remember!

The cause markers because and since differ in whether they mark the
following information as given or not; the German cause markers weil and denn
differ in the illocution type of the conjuncts (proposition versus statement).

Contrast

Example

 Main verb explicitly negated (not dis-) or negative pronoun (nobody, nothing,..)

o John didn’t participate in the festivities. Instead, he just watched.

 o Nobody listened to him. Instead, they all chattered aimlessly.

 Contains a negative adverb (few ,hardly ever, rarely, seldom, never,…)

o Mary rarely goes shopping. Instead, she stays at home and knits.

 main verb may imply negative message to follow (anticipate, expect, hope,…)

o He expected to win easily. Instead, he lost by a large margin.

 However, the researcher believed that climate change was having an adverse

effect on the weather."

 Contains positive conditional modal (could, might, should, ?would)

o I should have tried to help the boys. Instead, I simply ignored them

Contrastive Discourse Markers (CDM) has a major subclass consisting of in-

stead/instead of (doing that), rather, rather than (doing that). Class (Fraser, 1998).

Remember!

The Contrastive Discourse Marker on the other hand creates the sequence
interpretation of “contrast of alternative actions” because of what it signals, per
se, and does not rely on the interpretation of the segments to contribute to the
sequence interpretation. Since but, however, signals only simple contrast, the
interpretation of the segments must provide the “alternative” specification when
but is the CDM (Fraser, 1998).

Coordination

Example

 "Until his aunt died, he worked at the Harrison Bakery on 44th Street."
 "When his aunt died, he worked at the Harrison Bakery on 44th Street."
Sometimes, discourse markers may also be coordinate or subordinate conjunctions,
so always be on your toes. The discourse marker you choose can change the meaning
of a sentence, or it can change the grammatical structure.
Remember!

Only some discourse markers can act as conjunctions. Let's use that same
sentence and look at more examples:

Example 3: "After his aunt died, he worked at the Harrison Bakery on 44th
Street."

This sentence is perfectly fine because "after" is a subordinating conjunction.

 Option/Provision

Example

 There are two reasons why I think it’s a bad idea, a because it’ll cost too much
money, and b because it’ll take such a long time.

Option/Provision provided view of discourse markers functioning to provide options or

choices for the speaker or the hearer in the utterance. It pointed several aspects to be pointed in the

utterance.

Remember!

We can use the letters of the alphabet (a, b and c), to list reasons or
arguments for something.

Sequence

Example

 I don’t think so, Caroline. For a start, she has all the money that her aunt gave

her. What’s more, she has a good job and she seems to have a good lifestyle.
 We also use discourse markers to order or sequence what we say. Some of the

common words and phrases which we use for this are:

and in general second to sum up

and then in the end *secondly what’s more

first (of all) last of all so well

*firstly next lastly a…b

for a start on top of that third(ly)

Remember!

As we talk, we monitor (or listen to) what we are saying and how our listener is
responding to what they hear. We often rephrase or change what we say
depending on how our listener is responding. We use words and phrases such
as well, I mean, in other words, the thing is, you know, you know what I mean,
you see, what I mean is.

Continuation of topics

Example

 I just had to leave early. What I mean is I hated the show. It just wasn’t funny.

 You exercise regularly, you have a good diet and you don’t have too much stress.

In other words, I think you have nothing to worry about. Your health seems very

good.

 I think I’ve found a house I’d like to buy. Well it’s an apartment actually. It’s ideal
for me.
 Sometimes, as we talk, we add phrases to show our listener that we are going to

rephrase, repeat or change what we are saying. These discourse markers help to make

what we say clearer for the listener:

Remember!

See also:

 Actual and actually

 I mean

 Well
PART III: FIVE SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES OF DISCOURSE
MARKERS FOUND IN PHILIPPINE DRUG TRIALS
PROCEEDINGS

Five syntactic category, discourse markers in the spoken text of

Philippine drug trial proceedings were analyzed as to coordinators,

subordinators, conjunctive adverbs, prepositional adverbs, phrases which take

sentential complements.
COORDINATORS

Example

John likes tea and his sister likes coffee.

COORDINATORS: these always appear between the clauses they link; the

clauses may occur in separate sentences or in the same sentence. If combined in a

sequence with other discourse cues, coordinators always appear leftmost in the

sequence. In English, typical coordinators include and, but, and or.; Subordinators: these

introduce subordinate clauses in complex sentences.

SUBORDINATE CLAUSE

Example

Unless he is paid an appearance fee.

Harry will not go Unless he is paid an appearance fee

Mary but more to the point Jane, read for four hours.

SUBORDINATE CLAUSE may occur to the left or the right of the main clause, but

the subordinator is always to the left of the subordinate clause. In English, typical

subordinators include although, because, and if.

CONJUNCT ADVERBS

Example

Farmers went bankrupt as a result of considerable flooding.

 CONJUNCT ADVERBS: these relate whole clauses, and can appear at different

points within them, although there is often a default position for particular cues. There are

also syntactic constraints on exactly which positions conjunct adverbs can occupy: at the

beginning of a clause, between subject and verb, between any auxiliary verbs, between

auxiliary verb and main verb, after a copula if there is one, and before a sentential

complement if there is one. In English, typical conjunct adverbs include as a

consequence, however, and thus.

PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES

Example

Mary is angry with you because you ran over her cat with your car.

PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES: these often contain propositional anaphora

referring back to the previous clause. In English, typical prepositional phrases include at

this point, for these reasons, and in this respect.

CLAUSES WHICH TAKE SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

Example

I want to go to the movies tonight. After all, it’s my birthday.

CLAUSES WHICH TAKE SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS: these often introduce

a particular intentional stance with respect to the content of the clause they introduce. In

English, typical phrases of this kind include it follows that and it may seem that.
 APPENDIX B

Timetable on the Utilization and Dissemination

of the Research Findings and Output

ACTIVITIES PERSONS INVOLVED TARGET DATE

1. Present research output Researcher, Oral June 2019
to the Oral Examination Committee
Examination
Committee
2. Present the research Researcher July 2019
findings in a research
plenum
3. Utilize research output Researcher, Ratifiers August 2019
upon approval of the
ratifiers
4. Evaluate the research Researcher September 2019
output
6. Revise parts of the Researcher October 2019
research output
7. Submit for Publication Researcher November 2019
 APPENDIX C

Letters and Certification

 APPENDIX D

Corpus of the Study

 cvvccv

cvvccv

cvvccv

cvvcc
vcv
cvvccvcv

cvvccvcv
 vcv
vcv
vcv

vcv

vcv

vcv
vcv

vcvv
vcvv

vcvv

vcvv

vcvv
 APPENDIX E
Gantt Chart
ACTIVITIES 2018 2019
 M A
S
O N D J F A p
E
C O E A E R R
P
T V C N B C
T
H
1. Seeking approval of proposed title
2. Submission of Chapter 1 for endorsement to
assigned Thesis Adviser
3. Working on Chapters I-III
4. Submission of Chapter I-III for Oral
Proposal Defense
5. Revision of Chapters I-III
6. Submission of Revised Chapter I-III
8. Seeking approval to the members of the Oral
Examination Committee to administer the
research instrument
9. Securing of permits to conduct the study
11. Data retrieval, tabulation, analysis and
interpretation
12. Working on Chapter IV
13. Crafting of research output
13. Working on Chapter V and other parts of the
paper
14. Finalization of completed manuscript
15. Submission of final copy of the manuscript to
the Graduate School Office for Final Oral
Defense
16. Final Oral Defense
17. Revision of paper
18. Review of the revised paper by the members
of the Oral Examination Committee
2018 2019

2018 2019

19. Review of the revised paper by the Dean

of Graduate School
20. Submission of the revised paper to the
printing press for hard binding
21. Submission of thesis in hardbound
copies to the Graduate School
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Maria Carmela Rachel G. Esclanda

Nickname: Mela
Age: 25
Address: Sampaguita St., Sitio Pilaway,
Brgy. Polo, Mauban, Quezon, 4330
Birthday: December 09, 1992
Birthplace: Lucena City
Civil Status: Married
Father’s Name: Eufemio Bantayan Gazil
Mother’s Name: Virginia Padua Cabuyao

Educational Background
Graduate Studies : Master of Arts in English (MAEd)
Graduate School
Sacred Heart College
Lucena City
2016-Present

Tertiary : Bachelor of Secondary Education

Major in English
Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban (PKM)
Brgy. Polo, Mauban, Quezon 4330
2011-2015

Secondary : Mother Perpetua Parochial School (MPPS)

Brgy. Lual, Mauban, Quezon 4330
2005-2009

Elementary : Mother Perpetua Parochial School (MPPS)

Brgy. Lual, Mauban, Quezon 4330
1998-2005

Professional Eligibilities

Licensure Examination for Teachers

September 2016
License No. 1412360
Employment Background

Classroom Teacher Sisters of Mary School (SMS) - Adlas, Inc.

Brgy. Adlas, Silang, Cavite

Classroom Teacher Sampaloc National High School (SNHS)

Brgy. Banot, Sampaloc, Quezon

Awards and Recognition

3rd Place Best in Classroom
Sampaloc National High School
Sampaloc, Quezon
SY 2017-2018

Affiliations
Member Quezon English Language Teacher (QUELTA)
Division of Quezon, Quezon, Province, Philippines
May 2017 to present
Seminars/Trainings/Workshops Attended/Conducted
A. Regional Level
Participant Teachers Induction Program Module 1
DepEd CALABARZON
Sevilla’s Hotel and Resort
Lucena City
October 27, 2018

MARIA CARMELA RACHEL G. ESCLANDA

Researcher