Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Amiel Jansen Demetrial
Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics
Summary
public places” (Ben-Rafael & Shohamy, 2015). According to Ben-Rafael & Shohamy
“to describe and identify systematic patterns of the presence and absence
of languages in public spaces and to understand the motives, pressures,
ideologies, reactions and decision making of people regarding the creation
of LL in its varied forms” (p. 1).
LL, in short, focuses on the meaning of language found in communal spaces and
how it affects those who interact and consume such kinds of language. Further, LL also
explores the relationship between such kinds of language and their implication on “society,
In response, Brown and Duguid (as cited by Scollon & Scollon, 2009) stated that
there is a danger to be attached to the act of ignoring the “placeness” of signs existing in
the material world since they imply power relations in a particular place.
Furthermore, according to Brown and Duguid (2002, as cited by Scollon & Scollon,
2009), ‘information and individuals are inevitably and always part of rich social networks’.
This means that people can never escape the power relations imposed by various
institutions through language anywhere they go since “language indexes the world”
Aside from the ability of language to “index” the world, “language also indexes who
and what we are in the world as we use it” (Scollon & Scollon, 2009). This points to the
fact that language defines who we are in many social situations. Take for example Matias’
(2017) study about the codes and jargons used by FX drivers of Robinsons’ Novaliches
to Trinoma Mall trip. Those who can understand and use the codes and jargons—
presumably only those who are members of the drivers’ association of the route—may be
indexed as “insiders” in the social exchange of the group while those who cannot use and
Consequently, since language in the public space not only take the form of road
signs, LL has also been applied to placards displayed during organized protests in the
Philippines. Take Monje’s (2017) study on the linguistic landscape of protest in the
Philippines during the height of the issue on former dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ burial in
the Libingan ng mga Bayani. She analyzed the placards used by protesters and the
relation of the language used in these placards to explore the nature of “fixed” and “mobile”
vitality” in the Philippines (Landry & Bourhis, 1997, as cited by Monje, 2017).
In order to conduct such kinds of social experiments concerning signs and symbols
found in public spaces, Scollon & Scollon (2009) cited Gunther Kress’ and Theo Van
Leeuwen’s visual semiotic framework as basis for the analyses of “signs and pictures
“much of the meaning structure of signs and pictures derives from the more fundamental
systems of indexicality of the social interaction order.” Take the following for example:
“There are just three ways a sign such as a word, a sentence, a picture, a
graph or a gesture can have meaning in semiotic theory. It can be a picture
of the thing in the world. In that case we call it an icon. The little picture of a
happy face made by email users out of a colon and the right parenthesis
( :) ) is an icon. It shows us a schematic picture of a smiling face. A sign can
also be a completely arbitrary representation of the thing in the world. In
that case we call it a symbol. A green traffic light means we can continue
driving. There is nothing inherent in the color green that ‘means’ move
ahead or keep going. It is an arbitrary association. Finally, a sign means
something because of where and when it is located in the world. In this case
it is called an index. An arrow pointing one direction down a street is an
index which shows the exact direction in which traffic should go” (p. vii).
This shows how we can encode various signs and symbols existing in the real
“In the era of multimodality semiotic modes other than language are treated
as fully capable of serving for representation and communication. Indeed,
language, whether as speech or as writing, may now often be seen as
ancilliary to other semiotic modes: to the visual for instance. Language may
now be ‘extravisual’. The very facts of the new communicational landscape
have made that inescapably the issue” (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001, p. 46).
On the other hand, Geosemiotics or “the study of the meaning systems by which
researches in LL. This includes a system for analyzing the code preferences, “when there
are two or more languages or codes used in a picture”; a system for analyzing inscription,
“the material substance of signs”; and a system for analyzing emplacement, the locational
and temporal aspects of the language as seen in the material world (Scollon & Scollon,
2009).
“emerged as a dynamic and active field of research” in recent years (Shohamy, 2015).
The focus of such researches were varied. A large number of LL studies focused on the
(Ben-Rafael & Shohamy, 2015). Take for example the representative research conducted
by Robin Atilano De Los Reyes in 2014 about the LL of two major train stations in the
Philippines.
Analysis
De Los Reyes’ (2014) research dealt with the 76 signs found in the LL of Light Rail
Transit (LRT) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT) stations in Metro Manila, Philippines. He used
Ben-Rafael, et al.’s (2006) notion of Top-Down and Bottom-Up signs and Scollon and
Scollon’s (2003) concept of Place Semiotics to “determine the languages used, the way
these languages are used, and the possible explanations to the ways these languages
De Los Reyes’ (2014) findings suggest that majority of the signs used the English
language in ‘keeping order’ in the train stations. Further, signs written in combination of
the Filipino and English language were found to favor the English language based on the
placement of the English translations in the signs, either on the center, top, and left of the
Filipino translation. The layout of the text also indicated the preferential use of the English
According to Scollon & Scollon (2009), it is also important to look at “how and
where those words are placed, the letterforms of those words, and the materials out of
which they were made” because they are important parts of “their sociopolitical meaning.”
De Los Reyes (2014) concluded that “the dominant use of English in the signs in
the train stations supposes that Filipino LRT and MRT commuters will obey these signs
or ‘orders’ as doing so is beneficial not only for the self but also for all.” This is supported
by Lorente (2007, as cited by Delos Reyes, 2014) by attributing it to “the positive attitude
of Filipinos towards Americans. Use of English has not only been associated with the
The data gathering procedure of the research indicated that the researcher did not
pursue the actual implications of the language these signs used on the commuters and
According to Landry and Bourhis (1997), “the prevalence of the in-group language
on public signs can symbolize the strength of one’s own language group on the
demographic and institutional control front relative to other language communities within
the intergroup setting.” This symbolic representation of the strength of language is called
ability to behave and survive as a distinct and active collective entity within multilingual
settings.” Landry and Bourhis (1997) further stated that “these factors were grouped
under the categories of demography, institutional support, and status, which correspond
to the underlying concepts of number, power, and status.” Moreover, Landry and Bourhis
said:
In short, the exclusion or the implicit preferential use of the English language in the
signs found in the two major train stations in the Philippines serve to oppress those who
are not indexed as “insiders.” This causes the “outsiders” to lose their “distinct
ethnolinguistic collectivity” as they assimilate traits related to the “insiders” in the social
situation.
This seems to be a research gap that must be addressed in the study of LL and
the study presented above. There must be a thorough examination of the implications of
in order to avoid the idea that they are “in spaces that are in some ways not [their] own”
(Scollon & Scollon, 2009). Furthermore, to solve the unpredictability of the methodology
Conclusion
not only to examine the language we see around us but also understand the
consequences of the existence of these languages in particular locales and temporality
disadvantaged sector is necessary in the study of LL in order to call out the cultural and
identifying and ruminating on the semiotic properties of signs and symbols found in public
spaces only serve the elitist and anti-poor purposes of research and does nothing to uplift
the oppressed. After all, all researches, not only concerning linguistic studies, must
address institutionalized oppression, expose it, and act as an instrument for the liberation
Literature Cited
Ben-Rafael, E. & Shohamy, E. (2015). Linguistic landscape: A new journal. Linguistic
Landscape, 1(1), 1-5.
Bloomaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity, and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles
of complexity. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Giles, H., et al. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H.
Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations, 307-348. London:
Academic Press.
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996), Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual
Design. London and New York: Routledge.
Landry, R. & Bourhis, R.Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An
empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23-49.
Matias, G.S. (2017). The study of English codes and jargons used by FX drivers of
Robinsons’ Novaliches to Trinoma Mall trip. Selected Proceedings of the
International Conference, 59-76.
Monje, J. (2017). “Hindi bayani/Not a hero”: The linguistic landscape of protest in
Manila. Social Inclusion, 5(4), 14-28.
De Los Reyes, R. (2015). Language of ‘order’: English in the linguistic landscape of two
major train stations in the Philippines. Asian Journal of English Language
Studies, 2, 24-49.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (2009). Discourse in place: Language in the material world.
London: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2015). LL research as expanding language and language policy.
Linguistic Landscapes, 1(1/2), 152-171.