Home⇛Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal⇛vol. 13 no. 1 (2025)

The Use of the Focusing Modifier Only in Philippine English and American English: An Intercultural Rhetoric Study

Ivan Dolph Fabregas

Discipline: Linguistics

 

Abstract:

Background: A prescriptive argument holds that the focusing modifier (FM) only should be pre-adjacent to its focus. This study investigates the nonprescriptive usage of only in Philippine English (PhE). It analyzes such an FM in PhE writing, following Huddleston and Pullum’s types of only-construction. In light of Intercultural Rhetoric (IR) research, it also compares the PhE result with the parent variety, American English (AmE). Methods: This study is a corpus-based investigation, using corpora of PhE and AmE. The analysis is done through a concordance tool to reveal the usage of the FM only. Intercoder agreement is employed for the reliability of the findings. Results: Both Englishes dominantly use only within a verb phrase construction, while variations are seen in focus-construction types. This study shows that using the FM only, PhE has not deviated much from AmE, so there is little cultural influence in both Englishes. This suggests a shared grammatical intuition despite the differences in context. Conclusion: This study contributes to the literature on FMs about IR's aim to consider similarities and differences in contrastive studies particularly in the context of the Philippines. It is recommended for future studies to use larger corpora of PhE.



References:

  1. Anthony, L. (2023). AntConc (Version 4.2.4). Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
  2. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
  3. Calderon, J. F., & Gonzales, E. G. (1993). Methods of research and thesis writing. National Book Store.
  4. Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299-315). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  5. Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press.
  6. Connor, U., Ene, E., & Traversa, A. (2016). Intercultural rhetoric. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 270-282). Routledge.
  7. Crespo, E. (2017). Focus adverbs in classical Greek. In F. Logozzo, & P. Poccetti (Eds.), Ancient Greek linguistics: New approaches, insights, perspectives (pp. 133-154). Walter de Gruyter.
  8. De Cesare, A. M. (2015). Defining focusing modifiers in a cross-linguistic perspective: A discussion based on English, German, French and Italian. In K. Pittner, D. Elsner, & F. Barteld (Eds.), Adverbs: Functional and diachronic aspects (pp. 47-82). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  9. Dela Rosa, J. P., Lintao, R. B., & Dela Cruz, M. G. (2015). A contrastive rhetoric analysis of job application letters in Philippine English and American English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 46, 68-88. https://www.pjl-phil.com/article/2015/46/john-paul-o.-dela-rosa%2C-rachelle-b.-lintao%2C-%26-maria-grace-d.dela-cruz
  10. Fuchs, R. (2012). Focus marking and semantic transfer in Indian English: The case of also. English World-Wide, 33(1), 27-53.
  11. Fuchs, R., Gut, U., & Soneye, T. (2013). “We just don’t even know”: The usage of the pragmatic focus particles even and still in Nigerian English. English World-Wide, 34(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.34.2.01fuc
  12. Gotzner, N., & Spalek, K. (2016). Role of contrastive and noncontrastive associates in the interpretation of focus particles. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 638-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1148981
  13. Gotzner, N., Wartenburger, I., & Spalek, K. (2016). The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 59-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.25
  14. Hernandez, H. P., & Genuino, C. F. (2017). A contrastive rhetoric analysis of three court decisions in American, Philippine, and Indonesian Englishes. Journal of English as an International Language Journal, 12(2), 1-31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1250276
  15. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
  18. König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. Routledge.
  19. Lange, C. (2006). Reflexivity and intensification in Irish English and other New Englishes. In H. L. Tristram (Ed.), In The Celtic Englishes IV: The interface between English and the Celtic languages (pp. 259-282). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. https://d-nb.info/1218388587/34
  20. Lange, C. (2007). Focus marking in Indian English. English World-Wide, 28(1), 89-118.
  21. Leone, L. (2023). Multifunctionality of the discourse marker okay in spoken English: A sociolinguistic examination linked to age. Studia Neophilologica, 96(2), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2023.2224831
  22. Liu, M. (2017). Varieties of alternatives: Mandarin focus particles. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(1), 61-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9199-y
  23. Mabuan, R. A. (2017). A contrastive rhetorical analysis of Philippine and Sri Lankan English news commentaries. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 330-340. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4918
  24. McIntosh, K., & Connor, U. (2023). Intercultural rhetoric research in an internationalizing world. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of research on writing (pp. 283-297). Routledge.
  25. Mesthrie, R. (1993). English in language shift: The history, structure and sociolinguistics of South African Indian English. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597893
  26. Munalim, L. O., & Lintao, R. B. (2016). Metadiscourse in book prefaces of Filipino and English authors: A contrastive rhetoric study. Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(1), 36-50. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131388
  27. Sketch Engine. (2013, January 16). Thinning your concordance: A sketch engine demo [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqEoDgSCBYw
  28. Tarrayo, V. N. (2011). Metatext in results and discussion sections of ESL/EFL research: A contrastive analysis of Philippine English, Taiwanese English, and Iranian English. Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(3), 39-52. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071154
  29. van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2007). Only: Meaning and implicatures. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics (pp. 193-224). Elsevier.
  30. Xinghua, L. (2011). Directions in contrastive rhetoric research. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 3, 58-65. https://www.reading.ac.uk/elal/-/media/project/uor-main/schools-departments/elal/lswp/lswp-3/ell_language_7_liu_vol_3.pdf?la=en&hash=2326D0BAC9BC45092B9F714CD8D8DC37

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic