IJLRES - International Journal on Language, Research and Education Studies
ISSN: 2580-6777 (p); 2580-6785 (e)
DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020
Page: 1 - 17

A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS OF PREPOSITIONS OF TIME AND LOCATION
IN FILIPINO STUDENTS’ WRITTEN ESSAYS

Rafael Michael O. Paz
Polytechnic University of the Philippines

rmo.paz@pup.edu.ph

Abstract:. One of the gremlins in ESL pedagogy are prepositions, specifically at, in, and on that
direct nominal groups to general or specific moments and locations. In the Filipino language, at,
in, and on is equivalent to only one preposition: sa. This makes the prepositions of time and
location at, in, and on difficult for Filipino students to learn, and more difficult for Filipino
teachers to teach. Using a corpus of written essays in English, this study described the ways
Filipino students use prepositions of time and location at, in, and on. The analysis revealed that
there is limited room for diversity and localization and idiosyncrasy in Filipino students’ utility
of prepositions of time and location at, in, and on. Results of the study, however, may be used as
models in teaching prepositions of time and location at, in, and on to further strengthen Filipino
students’ proficiency in using these lexical items in written communication.

Keywords: Philippine English, prepositions of time and location, corpus-based analysis

INTRODUCTION

English is an Asian language (Kachru, 1998) as much as it is an ASEAN language.

The ‘transplantation’ (Gonzalez, 2008) of English in the continent had been long enough

(Kachru [1998] estimates this to be ‘almost 200 years’ in various parts of Asia) to consider

that it is not just a language that is in Asia with an immigrant status, but it is a language

of Asia. Kachru (1998: 91) writes,

… English, in one way or another, has indeed a presence
in the most vital aspects of Asian lives – our cultures, our
languages, our interactional patterns, our discourse, our
economies and indeed in our politics. But above all, in
transforming our identities, as individuals and societies,
and the identities of our languages.

Likewise, in Southeast Asia, the English language serves as the sole working

language of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (“Article 34,” The

ASEAN Charter, 2008: 29) since its foundation in 1967. ASEAN is composed of ten

member-states: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore,

mailto:rmo.paz@pup.edu.ph

Rafael Michael O. Paz

Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The role of English in the region endures even

with its 1,234 living languages (Simons and Fennig, 2017; however, the section on

“South-Eastern Asia” languages include East Timor that is not a member of the ASEAN

[East Timor has 21 languages: 20 of these are living and 1 is extinct]). Sagoo, McLellan,

and Wood (2015:7) claim that the status of English-as-official-language in the ASEAN is

ascribed to its ‘colonial heritage,’ as well as the ‘political alignment’ and economic

conditions of its member states.

Among the ten member-states of ASEAN, English functions as an official

language in at least four contexts: Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines.

These countries were formerly colonized by either Great Britain or the United States of

America. However, it is notable that even among ASEAN member-states that were not

former colonies of English-speaking superpowers, English exercises its importance.

Cambodia, started learning English in 1989, while Thailand, the only ASEAN member

without a colonial past, started much earlier in the seventeenth century (Sagoo,

McLellan, and Wood, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2010). English is likewise taught to

schoolchildren in Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam.

The role of English is the ASEAN is incontestable such that during the 50th

ASEAN Summit held in Manila in November 2017, English was utilized in ‘all the

proceedings’ (E. Cortez, Assistant Regional Director of Philippine Information Agency,

National Capital Region, personal communication, 5 December 2017). However, it is

quite noticeable (observed through television program coverages of the ASEAN Summit

in Manila broadcasted in Philippine channels) how Southeast Asian multilinguals

‘negotiate’ (Kirkpatrick, 2014:426) with the different varieties of English within and

beyond the region.

One of these varieties is the English language specifically used in the Philippines

where the ASEAN Summit 2017 was held. The variety, called Philippine English

(abbreviated PE or PhilE in literature), is described by Gonzalez (2008:14) as a

‘transplanted variety of the language [English]… with its distinctive pronunciation, its

style of academic writing and an emerging Philippine literature in English.’ For Bautista

and Bolton (2008:4), Philippine English is ‘associated with a distinct accent, a localized

vocabulary, and even a body of creative writing by Philippine writers in English.’

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

The scholarship of Philippine English is quite extensive with both Filipino and foreign

scholars writing about its phonology (Flores, 2016; Tayao 2008, 2004; Bautista and

Gonzalez, 2006; Gonzalez, Jambalos, and Romero, 2003; Gonzalez, 1997; Llamzon, 1997;

Gonzalez, 1983; Gonzalez and Alberca, 1978; Alberca, 1978), lexis (Salazar, 2013; Dayag,

2008; Bautista and Butler, 2000; Bautista, 1997; Cruz and Bautista, 1995; Tabor, 1984;

Gonzalez, 1983), and syntax and discourse (Gonzalez, 2008, 1997, 1983; Gonzalez,

Jambalos, and Romero, 2003; Bautista and Gonzalez, 2006; Bautista, 2000; 1997; Cruz and

Bautista, 1995; Llamzon, 1969) across geographical, sociohistorical, and sociolectal

domains.

Among studies on Philippine English grammar, a topic that receives much

attention is the use of prepositions, especially the prepositions of time and location at,

in, and on (Bautista and Gonzalez, 2006; Bautista, 2000, 1997; Cruz and Bautista, 1995;

Gonzalez, 1983). Gonzalez (1983: 177) writes that even for American English speakers,

the use of prepositions does not always follow the doctrine [if there is such],

The most frequent lexical items which seem anomalous to an
American English speaker are prepositions, including verb
plus preposition combination (two- and three-word
verbs). In many cases, the anomalies arise from the fact
that until TESOL came to the Philippines in the late 1950s,
these combinations were never formally included in the syllabi
and had to be learned by most Filipinos on their own. [Emphasis
mine]

Studies on prepositions in Philippine English (both oral and written) would often

show variation even among the educated elite or acrolect variety speakers (see Llamzon,

1997 for three types of Philippine English speakers: acrolect, mesolect, and basilect

variety speakers) such that scholars like Bautista (2000: 79) would note that

‘prepositional choice will probably be idiosyncratic in Standard Philippine English,’ and

Gonzalez (1983:179) would claim that ‘…prepositional usage, collocations and verb plus

preposition combinations seem to be quite arbitrary and are not predictable from the

semantic features of the root; … here, there is room for diversity and localization.’ Martin

(2016) claims that teaching such prepositions to Filipino students would often pose a

challenge because of the interference of the local languages. The prepositions at, in, and

on is, in fact, equivalent to only one Filipino preposition, ‘sa’. More often, instances of

Rafael Michael O. Paz

variation in using prepositions at, in, and on in Philippine English do not significantly (if

not at all) affect effective communication.

This study intends to provide empirical data (through corpus-based analysis) to

assess these claims by describing the ways Filipino students use the prepositions of time

and location at, in, and on in a corpus of written essays in English. The following sections

will provide details through a brief review of available literature on Philippine English,

and prepositions in Philippine English; a description of the research data and

methodology; analysis and interpretation of data; and conclusions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Central to the study of the diffusion of English in the world is Braj B. Kachru’s

World Englishes paradigm. The term ‘World Englishes’ (WE henceforth) was initially

used by Kachru and Larry E. Smith in 1985 while editing a journal that bears the same

name until today. WE, defined by Smith (2014), pertains to ‘the different forms and

varieties of English used in various sociolinguistic contexts in different parts of the

world.’ It argues for the multiplicity and pluricentricity and inclusivity of the English

language. Not very long after its birth, scholarship in, on, and for WE have exploded in

the world that in literature, it is perceived as a discipline ready for ‘direct and productive

interaction with linguistic theory’ (Flippula, Klemola and Sharma, 2017: 3).

Kachru’s WE framework (in his work in 1988) is presented using three

overlapping circles of varying sizes: the smallest circle, or the inner circle, represents

contexts where English is spoken as a first language (Great Britain, United States,

Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and are norm-providing; the mid-size circle, the outer

circle, is where English-as-a-second-language contexts are found (Singapore, Malaysia,

India, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc.) and are norm-developing; the largest circle, the

expanding circle, are English-as-a-foreign-language contexts (Cambodia, Thailand,

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc.) and are norm-dependent. The size of the circles shows

the distribution of the number of speakers of English in the world.

While Kachru’s (1988) ‘concentric circles’ model still enjoys its authority and

influence in the scholarship of the linguistic variation of Englishes in the world, scholars

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

have started to extend the boundaries of the framework applying more critical lenses

and perspectives (see Bruthiaux. 2003; Tupas and Rubdy, 2015, inter alia).

Philippine English

Conveniently located in the outer circle of Kachru’s (1988) ‘concentric circles’ model is

the Philippines where English has played an important role in politics, business,

education, mass media, and the Filipino life in general since its ‘transplantation’

(Gonzalez, 2008) in the Philippine soil since 1898.

One of the earliest accounts on Philippine English (Filipino English in this work)

is Llamzon’s (1969) attempt to describe what he then called ‘Standard Filipino English.’

He described this as ‘the type of English which educated Filipinos speak, and which is

acceptable in educated Filipino circles’ (Llamzon, 1969: 15). Llamzon (1969), however,

abandoned this quest (in Gonzalez, 2008: 21; also in Gonzalez, 1997: 206) later in his

scholarship and proceeded to maintaining his lectal variations in Philippine English

(acrolect, mesolect, and basilect varieties) that he (1997) adapted from an earlier work of

Platt, Weber and Ho (1984). For Llamzon (1997), speakers of Philippine English differ

phonologically, with the acrolect variety speakers remaining close to the ‘Standard

American English’ norms, and the basilect variety speakers farthest because of the

influence of the ‘ethnic tongue[s]’. His work was followed by other scholars who further

described Philippine English phonology such as Tayao (2004, 2008), Flores (2016), among

others.

Bautista (1997), on the other hand, identified the processes involved in the

development of Philippine English lexicon. Bautista’s (1997) categories ranges from

normal expansion, extensions of meaning, neologisms, up to lexical borrowing. These

categories were used in Bautista’s contribution to Susan Butler’s Macquarie’s Asian

English Dictionary around 1996. Philippine English lexicons (such as ‘kilig’) has been

adapted by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as well. In 2015 alone, about 40 Filipino

words and expressions has started to appear in OED.

Locally, dictionaries on Philippine English begun as early as the late 20th century

with Tabor’s (1984) Filipino-English mini-dictionary, Cruz and Bautista’s (1995)

Dictionary of Philippine English, and Bautista and Butler’s (2000) Anvil-Macquarie

Dictionary of Philippine English for High School.

Rafael Michael O. Paz

Works on Philippine English grammar started as early as the late 20th century

with Gonzalez (1983) describing the distinctive features of the variety in terms of word

order; negation; tense-aspect usage; agreement; categorization and subcategorization of

nouns and verbs; and article or determiner system. Bautista (2000), on the other hand,

describes subject-and-verb agreement; pronoun-antecedent agreement; articles; tenses;

prepositions; and other items such as placement of adverbs, comparison statements, and

mass and count nouns in Philippine English. Both Gonzalez (1983) and Bautista (2000)

and many other works on Philippine English grammar (such as those published by

Bautista and Gonzalez, 2006; Bautista, 1997; Cruz and Bautista, 1995) investigated

prepositions in Philippine English.

Prepositions are interesting and quite complex elements of English grammar.

Biber, et al. (2007) define prepositions as ‘links which introduce prepositional phrases’

most typically complemented by noun phrases. This means that prepositions usually

function as ‘connectors’ of noun phrases to other grammatical structures. Biber, et al.

(2007) classified two types of prepositions: free and bound. Free prepositions are free

from the context where they appear and likewise hold independent meanings. The

choice of bound prepositions, on the other hand, is dependent on some of the words on

the sentence where they appear. Forms, such as two-word, three-word, up to four word

prepositions (simple and complex prepositions in Quirk, et al., 1985) do not matter in

this distinction. By rule of thumb, bound prepositions are usually preceded by, or within

a dependent clause, while a free preposition is often preceded by, or within an

independent clause. Although less common, the function of prepositions can become

like that of a noun, like ‘ins and outs’ (Brinton, 2000).

Gonzalez (1983) writes that prepositions are one of the most ‘anomalous’

elements of English [in the Philippines] since these items hardly appear in the contents

of English courses in the Philippines and are often learned by experience. Even when

these items are formally taught, however, Filipinos have trouble in using prepositions,

Martin (2016) postulates that these may be brought by the interferences of the local

grammars. For instance, the Filipino preposition ‘sa’ is one of the most productive

Filipino prepositions since it translates to several English equivalents: among, to, into,

with, at, in, on. Two-word Filipino prepositions are founded on ‘sa’ as well, for instance,

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

Table 1. The Filipino Preposition ‘sa’ and Some English Parallels

Filipino/Tagalog

prepositions

English

prepositions

tungkol sa about

sa itaas above

sa kabila across

laban sa against

sa paligid around

sa likod ng behind

sa ibaba below

sa ilalim beneath, under, via

sa tabi beside

sa pagitan ng between

sa pamamagitan ng by, through

sa kabila ng despite

sa panahon ng during

para sa for

mula sa from

sa loob inside, within

malapit sa near

sa labas outside

mahigit sa over

ayon sa according to

dahil sa because of, due to

malapit sa close to

maliban sa except for

malayo sa far from

sa loob ng inside of

sa halip ng instead of

sa tabi next to

sa labas ng outside of

Data from Tagalog Prepositions (2015)

The use of ‘sa’ extends up to some three-word prepositions like ‘sa harap ng’ that is ‘in

front of’ in English; and ‘sa ibabaw ng’ is ‘on top of’.

Studies on prepositions in the Philippines and in other ESL contexts often pay

close attention to prepositions of time and location at, in, and on (as seen on the works of

Gonzalez, 1983; Bautista, 2000, 1997; Bautista and Gonzalez, 2006 among Filipino

scholars; and Arjan, Abdullah, and Roslim, 2013; Loke, Ali, and Anthony, 2013; and

Rafael Michael O. Paz

Onen, 2015 in other contexts). The interest in these prepositions come from the difficulty

in using these prepositions (Carillo, 2009, in Arjan, Abdullah, and Roslim, 2013) on one

hand, while highlighting their significance in both oral and written discourses (see

previous paragraphs).

Simply put, rules in using prepositions of time and location at, in, and on are often

illustrated using an inverted pyramid to indicate the degree to which each pertain to

specific items (nouns) in the sentence. For instance, in that appears within the largest

segment of the inverted pyramid is used for more general items such as countries, cities,

and districts, and contained objects (place) and centuries, decades, years, months, weeks,

seasons, and parts of the day other than noon, night, and midnight (time); on located

within the middle segment of the inverted pyramid is used for more specific items such

as streets and avenues, and surfaces (place), and days (time); and at located within the

bottom of the inverted pyramid is used for general vicinities (place) and hours of the day

(time) (Berry, et al., 2017).

This study investigated how Filipino students use prepositions of time and

location at, in, and on from the lenses of the World Englishes paradigm, invoking

Nelson’s (2011) framework for intelligibility (that she adapted from the tri-partite model

of Smith, 1992, in Nelson, 2011: 21) and Bautista’s (2000) categorical and variable rules

in Philippine English.

Nelson’s (2011: 23) ‘intelligibility-in-general’ framework begins with

‘understanding’ in the level of pronunciation – intelligibility. Successful communication

often begins when interlocutors make sense, if not share, of each other’s ways of

pronouncing words in a language. For example, the ‘attenuation’ (Gonzalez, 1997: 23) of

some vowel sounds in Philippine English, i.e. [i] versus [ɪ], may be unintelligible among

speakers of other varieties of English, and may even appear funny even among speakers

of the same variety. The second level, comprehensibility, pertains to understanding in the

level of lexis. Successful communication also relies on the ways interlocutors define the

meanings of the lexes used in conversation. For example, some lexes in Philippine

English are defined differently compared with their exact counterparts in other varieties

of English. A classic example, salvage, means ‘to murder in cold blood’ in Philippine

English, very far from its ‘to save’ definition in other varieties of English. Finally,

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

successful communication likewise considers the ‘motivations or purposes of utterances’

(Nelson, 2011: 24), or the interpretability of utterances. Philippine English, for example,

would answer the casual greeting ‘How are you?’ very seriously, often discerning for

the appropriate answer, whereas, ‘How are you?’ in other varieties of English, or other

contexts, will simply mean ‘Hello’ that does not really require anything longer than

‘Fine’ as response. Through this framework, Nelson (2011, and Smith as well) was able

to clearly show the complexity of the notion of ‘understanding,’ especially in linguistic

variation.

Bautista (2000), on the other hand, distinguishes between categorical rules and

variable rules in Philippine English. Some variations, like the phonemic distinction

between [ɔ] and [Ʊ], or rules for subject-and-verb-agreement, in Philippine English,

when flouted, may cause misunderstanding among interlocutors. Therefore, categorical

rules that involve the previous examples must be given enough attention in English

language teaching. Variable rules refer to aspects of variation that do not necessarily

impede comprehensibility and interpretability, and in fact, may open room for diversity

and localization (Gonzalez, 1983).

It is through these frameworks that Bautista’s (2000) claim on the idiosyncrasy of

prepositional choice in Philippine English, and Gonzalez’ (1983) claim for diversity and

localization in prepositional usage, limited into prepositions of time and location at, in,

and on in Filipino students written essays in this study, are investigated. Specifically,

this study answered these questions:

1. How do Filipino students use prepositions of time and location at, in, and on in

written essays?

2. What is the extent to which common departures from specific parameters in

using prepositions of time and location at, in, and on creatively used by Filipino

learners of English impede intelligibility of written discourse?

METHODOLOGY

The shift in the system of basic education in the Philippines from the old Ten-

year Basic Education System to the new K-to-12 Basic Education Program (via Republic

Act 10533 of the ‘Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013’) brought numerous structural

changes in the ways English language is taught to Filipino students. For example, the

Rafael Michael O. Paz

additional two years of basic education, grades 11 and 12, or senior high school (SHS),

added three English courses: Oral Communication, and Reading and Writing in grade

11, and English for academic and professional purposes in grade 12 across tracks and

strands. However, English courses in the tertiary level, from an average of nine units,

was reduced to three, i.e. Purposive Communication/Malayuning Komunikasyon (that

may be taught in either English or Filipino, the national language, according to

Commission on Higher Education [CHED] Order No. 20, series of 2013 – the

implementation of the latter means there will not be any English courses in the tertiary

level). Education experts rationalize this condition by pointing out that enough English

courses are offered in the SHS. Whether this will contribute to the decline in English

language proficiency among Filipinos is yet to be observed as the first batch of K-to-12

graduates will begin tertiary education in June 2018.

In the future, structures of English language teaching in the Philippines will no

longer be a local issue but a concern of the whole ASEAN region. For example, the

implementation of the policies of ASEAN Integration that will allow the free flow of

students and skilled workers in the region (Gutierrez, 2017) will likely be directly

affected by the English proficiency of the ASEAN member-states.

This study aimed to provide baseline data for English teachers in the SHS and

tertiary levels in reviewing basic English grammar to their students using the lenses of

World Englishes. The output of this research addresses the limited time, and even

absence of a specific grammar skills class, in any of the mandated English courses in the

SHS and university-level instruction. This study used a researcher-compiled learner

corpus gathered from written essays of the pioneer batch (Academic Year 2016-2017) of

grade 11 students in the course Reading and Writing in a state university in Manila,

Philippines that offers the following tracks: (a) Academic Track that includes General

Academic Strand (GAS); Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

strand; Accountancy, Business and Management (ABM) strand; and Humanities and

Social Studies (HUMSS) strand; (b) Arts and Design Track (ADT); (c) Technical,

Vocational and Livelihood Track (TVLT) that includes Tourism, Home Economics;

Industrial Arts; and Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The corpus

running size is 301,524 words from 715 essays divided in 18 datasets gathered across all

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

tracks and strands. All the teachers assigned to teach Reading and Writing were

distributed letters of request to participate in this study, however, not everyone shared

copies of their students’ final written output in the course. The students and their

teachers were no longer required to fill out and affix signatures on ethics forms since no

direct contact between the researcher and the participants took place. At the same time,

the teachers were assured of the strict nondisclosure of their identities and that of their

students on any portion of this paper.

This study was limited to the analysis of how Filipino students use prepositions

of time and location at, in, and on, in written essays. However, the corpus generated from

this study can serve to investigate other aspects of Philippine English grammar in the

written domain like subject-and-verb agreement, tense aspect and sequence, cohesion,

among others. Furthermore, results of this study, as well as other studies that will use

the corpus made for this research, may be applied to curriculum design, materials

design, and classroom methodology (Botley and Dillah, 2007) in both SHS and tertiary

English instruction.

The prepositions of time and location at, in, and on in the corpus was processed

using AntConc, a freeware concordance program developed by Prof. Laurence Anthony

of Waseda University in Japan. Parameters for the functions of prepositions of time and

location at, in, and on followed the descriptions of Berry, et al. (2017) discussed

previously. The parameters are presented in the following sections as follows:

Table 2. Parameters for Prepositions of Time and Location at, in, and on

at in on

Parameter

1 (time)

More specific

times like hours of

the day, and noon,

night, and

midnight;

holidays without

the word ‘Day’

General, longer

periods of time

such as centuries,

decades, years,

months, weeks,

seasons, and parts

of the day (except

noon, night, and

midnight)

Days (including

weeks and

months), dates,

holidays (with the

word ‘Day’)

Parameter

2 (place)

More specific

places (exact

General places

(countries, cities,

Streets and

avenues

Rafael Michael O. Paz

addresses,

intersections)

districts,

neighborhoods)

Parameter

3 (place)

Points Contained objects Surfaces

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The corpus generated the following occurrences of prepositions of time and

location: at with 578 occurrences; in with 5,716 occurrences; and on with 1,599

occurrences. A sample screenshot of AntConc showing the keyword, the preposition in,

in context (or KWIC that means keyword in context) is shown below.

Figure 1. Sample KWIC Screenshot from AntConc

Using corpus data, however, does not always necessarily require the analysis of

all datasets at once. Therefore, for this paper, analysis was limited only to essays written

by students enrolled in one strand. The researcher selected the essays written by the

students enrolled in the HUMSS strand (117 essays or 16.36% of the datasets; 13.16% of

the corpus). Students in this strand are more likely to enroll in teacher education

programs (for ESL and/or EFL instruction), degrees in the humanities and the arts, and

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

communication studies in the tertiary level, thus the significance of examining the

language performance of these students.

The selected section of the corpus (HUMSS dataset, thereafter) yields 67

occurrences of the preposition at (11.59% of all occurrences); 730 occurrences of the

preposition in (12.77% of all occurrences); and 232 occurrences of the preposition on

(14.51% of all occurrences). However, not all of these occurrences of the prepositions at,

in, and on were used in the HUMMS dataset to refer to time and location. Among the 67

occurrences of the preposition at, only 30 refer to time and place: 11 refer to specific

moments and 19 were used for locations. The remaining occurrences of the preposition

at function as discourse markers like ‘at the same time’ (three occurrences), ‘at first’

(three occurrences), ‘at any rate’ (one occurrence), etc.; or idiomatic expressions like ‘at

the end of the day’ (two occurrences). The distribution of the preposition at examined

against the parameters is presented below:

Table 3. Distribution of the Preposition at in the HUMMS Dataset

time place

f % f %

Parameter 1 9 30.00%

Parameter 2 10 33.33%

Parameter 3 3 10.00%

Beyond the parameters 2 6.67% 6 20.00%

TOTAL 11 36.67% 19 63.33%

30 = 100%

The phrase ‘beyond the parameters’ was used to refer to the occurrences of the

preposition at that refer to time and place but do not apply any of the parameters set

previously (see table 2). These occurrences are possible instances where Bautista’s (2000)

claim on the idiosyncrasy of prepositional choice in Philippine English, and Gonzalez’

(1983) claim for diversity and localization in prepositional use may apply.

Meanwhile, there are 287 out of 730 occurrences of the preposition in that refer

to time and place. Occurrences of the preposition in that do not function at a marker of

time and place are often discourse markers such as ‘in my own opinion’ (five

occurrences), ‘in fact’ (four occurrences), ‘in conclusion’ and ‘in generalization’ (five total

occurrences). There are idiomatic uses as well like ‘in a higher place’ (referring to power

Rafael Michael O. Paz

or authority), ‘in the right path,’ ‘in the right side’ (appropriate or desirable), etc. Table

4 shows the distribution examined against the parameters.

Table 4. Distribution of the Preposition in in the HUMMS Dataset

time place

f % f %

Parameter 1 67 23.34%

Parameter 2 144 50.17%

Parameter 3 63 21.95%

Beyond the parameters 4 1.39% 9 3.14%

TOTAL 71 24.73% 216 75.26%

287 = 100%

Finally, out of 232 occurrences of the preposition on, only 30 refer to time and

place: 23 were used to identify location, and seven were used to indicate time. Among

the three prepositions of time and location, on scores the most when lexical creativity is

considered. For example, phrases such as ‘should be imposed on’ or ‘but when they are

on the hiring’ that require zero preposition still appear with the preposition on. There

were also occurrences of verb plus preposition combinations such as ‘pertains on,’ ‘due

on,’ ‘[when it] come on’ included in what Gonzalez (1983) claimed to be anomalous use

of prepositions. Still, other occurrences not included in the tally are discourse markers

such as ‘on the other hand’ (seven occurrences), and the more creative ways to use

language like ‘on the flip side’ and ‘on my own definition’ (three occurrences for the

latter). The following table shows the distribution of the preposition on used to indicate

time and place:

Table 5. Distribution of the Preposition on in the HUMMS Dataset

time place

f % f %

Parameter 1 5 16.67%

Parameter 2 0 0.00%

Parameter 3 11 36.67%

Beyond the parameters 2 6.67% 12 40.00%

TOTAL 7 23.34% 23 76.67%

30 = 100%

CONCLUSION

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

While many other outcomes may appear using the other datasets in the

researcher-compiled learner corpus used in this study, at least for the HUMMS dataset,

there may be little room for diversity and localization and idiosyncrasy in using

prepositions of time and location at, in, and on in Philippine English. Data gathered and

collated from the HUMMS dataset reveal Filipino students’ ability to apply parameters

in using prepositions of time and location at, in, and on, and the ample chance to master

the parameters in written discourse to facilitate clear communication across contexts.

This study likewise shows that even though prepositions such as the items analyzed in

this study pose a challenge in ESL instruction (Martin, 2016), there is still much to

celebrate in Filipino students’ possession of the English language evident not only in the

occurrences of prepositions of time and location that fall within certain parameters but

likewise the instances of creative uses that break normative perspectives on language

use, making English truly an Asian and a Philippine language.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberca, W.L. (1978). The Distinctive Features of Philippine English in the Mass Media.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Manila: University of Santo Tomas.

Arjan, A., Abdullah, N.H., and Roslim, N. (2013). “A Corpus-Based Study on English
Prepositions of Place, in and on.” English Language Teaching 6(12). 167-174.
Canadian Center of Science and Education.

Bautista, M.L.S. (2000). Defining Standard Philippine English: Its Status and Grammatical
Features. Manila: De La Salle University Press, Inc.

Bautista, M.L.S. (1997). “The Lexicon of Philippine English.” In Bautista, M.L.S. (Ed.),
English is an Asian Language: The Philippine Context. 49-72. The Macquarie
Library Pty Ltd., and Manila: De La Salle University Press, Inc.

Bautista, M.L.S. and Bolton, K. (Eds.) (2008). “Introduction.” In Philippine English:
Linguistic and Literary Perspectives. Aberdeen: Hong Kong University
Press.

Bautista, M.L.S. and Gonzalez, A. (2006). “Southeast Asian Englishes.” In Kachru, B.B.,
Kachru, Y., and Nelson, C.L. (Eds.). The Handbook of World Englishes. 130-
144. Malden, Oxford, and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bautista, M.LS. and Butler, S. (2000). Anvil-Macquarie Dictionary of Philippine English for
Philippine High School. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Berry, C., Brizee, A., Angeli, E., and Ghafoor, M. (2017). Prepositions for Time, Place, and
Introducing Objects. OWL Purdue Online Writing Lab. Retrieved on 29
September 2017. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
resource/594/01/

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (2007). Longman Grammar
of Spoken and Written English, 6th impresion. Essex, England: Pearson
Education Limited.

Rafael Michael O. Paz

Botley, S. and Dillah, F.H.D. (2007). Investigating Spelling Errors in a Malaysian Learner
Corpus. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research 3. 74-93. Retrieved from
www.melta.org.my

Brinton, L.J. (2000). The Structure of Modern English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.

Bruthiaux, P. (2003). “Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide.”
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2).159–177.

CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, series of 2013. “General Education Curriculum: Holistic
Understandings, Intellectual, and Civic Competencies.” Manila,
Philippines.

Cruz, I.R. and Bautista, M.L.S., and Gamos, A.E. (1995). Dictionary of Philippine English.
Pasig City, Metro Manila: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Dayag, D.T. (2008a). “Philippine English.” In Low, E. and Hashim, A. (Eds.), English in
Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language in use. 91-99. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, B.V.

Filppula, M., Klemola, J, and Sharma, D. (2017). “Introduction: World Englishes and
Linguistic Theory.” In Filppula, M., Klemola, J, and Sharma, D. (Eds.). The
Oxford Handbook of World Englishes, 3-13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flores, E.R. (2016). “Phonological Features of Basilectal Philippine English: An
Exploratory Study.” Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress 4. Manila:
De La Salle University.

Gonzalez, A. (2008). “A favorable climate and soil: A transplanted language and
literature.” In Bautista, M.L.S. and Bolton, K. (Eds.), Philippine English:
Linguistic and Literary Perspectives. 13-27. Aberdeen: Hong Kong
University Press.

Gonzalez, A. (1997). “Philippine English: A Variety in Search of Legitimation.” In
Schneider, E.W. (Ed.). Englishes Around the World Volume 2 Caribbean,
Africa, Asia, Australasia: Studies in honour of Manfred Görlach. 205-212.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gonzalez, A. (1983). “When Does an Error Become a Feature of Philippine English?” In
Noss, R.B. (Ed.). Varieties of English in Southeast Asia. 150-172. Singapore:
RELC Anthology Series Number 11.

Gonzalez, A., Jambalos, T.V., and Romero, M.C.S. (2003). Three Studies on Philippine
English Across Generations: Towards an Integration and Some Implication.
Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines/De La Salle University
Press, Inc.

Gonzalez, A. and Alberca, W. (1978). Philippine English of the Mass Media. Manila: De La
Salle University.

Gutierrez, Natashya. (2017, April 26). “Why should you care about ASEAN integration.”
Rappler. Retrieved on 18 January 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/167942-why-
care-asean-relevance-citizens

Kachru, B.B. (1998). English is an Asian Language. Links & Letters 5. 89-108.
Kachru, B.B. (1988). “The sacred cows of English.” English Today 4(4). 3-8. DOI

10.1017/S0266078400000 973
Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). “English in Southeast Asia: Pedagogical and policy implications.”

World Englishes 33(4). 426-438. DOI: 10.1111/weng.12105

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Prepositions of Time and Location in Filipino Students’
Written Essays

DOI: 10.30575/2017/IJLRES-2020010401

Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multlingual Model. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Llamzon, T.A. (1997). “The Phonology of Philippine English.” In Bautista, M.L.S. (Ed.),
English is an Asian Language: The Philippine Context. 41-48. The Macquarie
Library Pty Ltd., and Manila: De La Salle University Press, Inc.

Llamzon, T.A. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Manila: Ateneo University Press.
Loke, D.L., Ali, J., and Anthony, N.N.Z. (2013). “A Corpus Based Study on the Use of

Preposition of Time ‘on’ and ‘at’ in Argumentative Essays of Form 4 and
Form 5 Malaysian Students.” English Language Teaching 6(9). 128-135.
Canadian Center of Science and Education.

Martin, I.P. (2016, April). The social dimension of English language testing in the
Philippines. Plenary presentation at the Linguistic Society of the Philippines
National Conference and General Meeting 2016. Dumaguete City.

Nelson, C.L. (2011). Intelligibility in World Englishes: Theory and Applications. New York
and Oxon: Routledge.

Onen, S. (2015). “The Use of Prepositions in English as Lingua Franca Interactions:
Corpus IST-Erasmus.” Journal of Education and Practice 6(5). 160-172.
www.iiste.org

Platt, J.T., Weber, H., and Ho, M.L. (1984). The New Englishes. Massachusetts, Victoria,
and Oxon: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of
the English Language. New York: Longman Group Limited.

Sagoo, K., McLellan, J. and Wood, A. (2015). “Introduction.” In Bigalke, T.W. and
Sharbawi, S. (Eds.). English for ASEAN Integration: Policies and Practices in
the Region. 7-11. University Brunei Darussalam.

Salazar, D. (2013). “Beyond boondocks: Pinoy words in the Oxford English Dictionary.”
Pinoywords: Observations on Philippine English and the 100+ languages
Filipinos speak. Blog. Retrieved on 4 September 2017. Retrieved from
http://pinoywords.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/ beyond-
boondockspinoy-words-in-the-oxford-english-dictionary

Simons, G.F. and Fennig, C.D. (Eds.). (2017). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 20th ed.
Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Retrieved 3 September 2017. Online
version http://www.ethnologue.com

Smith, L.E. (2014). “World Englishes.” Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue 34. Retrieved
from http://centerforinter culturaldialogue.org

Tabor, M.G.A. (1984). “Filipino-English mini dictionary.” In Johnson, L. (Ed.). Mini-
Dictionaries of Southeast Asian Englishes. 63-84. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.

Tagalog Prepositions. (2015). MyLanguages. Retrieved on 29 September 2017. Retrieved
from http://mylanguages.org/tagalog_prepositions.php

Tayao, M.L.G. (2008). “A lectal description of the phonological features of Philippine
English.” In Bautista, M.L.S. and Bolton, K. (Eds.), Philippine English:
Linguistic and Literary Perspectives. 157-174. Aberdeen: Hong Kong
University Press.

Tayao, M.L.G. (2004). “The evolving study of Philippine English phonology.” World
Englishes 23:1. 77-90. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Rafael Michael O. Paz

The ASEAN Charter. (2008). The Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Jakarta: ASEAN
Secretariat.

Tupas, R. and Rubdy, R. (2015). “Introduction: From World Englishes to Unequal

Englishes.” In Tupas, R. (Ed.). Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today. 1-20.

Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.