Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Linguistic Landscapes: Geosemiotics in the Philippines

By
Amiel Jansen Demetrial
Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics

Summary

The study of Lingustic Landscapes, sometimes referred to as LL or LLS, refers to

the “presence, representation, meanings and interpretation of languages displayed in

public places” (Ben-Rafael & Shohamy, 2015). According to Ben-Rafael & Shohamy

(2015), the main goal of LL is:

“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,

people, politics, ideology, economics, policy, class and identities, multilingualism,

multimodalities…” (Ben-Rafael & Shohamy, 2015).

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”

(Scollon & Scollon, 2009).

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

understand the codes and jargons are indexed as “outsiders”.

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”

LL as “indices of the linguistic composition of cities, linguistic diversity, and ethnolinguistic

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

themselves as semiotic structures.” Moreover, according to Scollon & Scollon (2009),

“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

world into the system of language used in visual semiotics. Further:

“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

language is located in the material world” is a method used to systematically conduct

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).

Since written language is to be seen anywhere we look, the research on LL

“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

existence of hybridized languages and multilingualism in public spaces, while some

investigated “representations, motives for and reactions to display of different languages”

(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

are used” (De Los Reyes, 2014).

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

language in that the English translations were emphasized by underlining, circling,

capitalizing, or highlighting them.

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

‘progressive’ American ideals of ‘enlightenment,’ ‘democracy,’ and ‘self-governance’ but

also with anything that is ‘good’ for the Filipino people.”

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

only focused on the semiotic properties of the LL he examined.

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

Ethnographic Vitality, sometimes referred to as EV.


Giles, et al. (1977) defined EV as “the sociocultural factors that affect a group’s

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:

“Exclusion of the in-group language from public signs can convey a


message to the effect that one’s own language is not valued and has little
status within the society. Further, such exclusion conveys the notion that
the in-group language is of little use for conducting public affairs, thus
reinforcing diglossic situation to the advantage of the dominant language”
(p. 28).

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

the dominance of a particular language in a public space on the linguistically marginalized

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

in addressing such kinds of issues, researchers must conduct “close ethnographic

inspection of the minutiae of what happens in communication” (Bloomaert, 2013).

Conclusion

Linguistic Landscape is a promising research method in linguistics as it allows us

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

to us who experience and encounter them.

Moreover, an ethnographic immersion addressing the needs of the linguistically

disadvantaged sector is necessary in the study of LL in order to call out the cultural and

institutional oppression imposed by linguistic landscapes in the Philippines. Simply

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

of those who are indexed as “outsiders.”

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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și