Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

Ours is an information age. However, few of us have everstopped for a moment to

think that information, as represented by system of signs, including icons, symblos and

indexes will never exist independently unless it is placed in the concrete and material

world. This is because all signs, no matter what category they happen to fall into share a

common property of indexicality, through which the abstract meaning of sign is turned

into the actual and lived the meaning of language.

Language as communication and as culture is then products of each other and it

significally carries culture which we perceived ourselves and our place in the world.

Thus, language is inseparable from us as a community of human beings with a specific

form, character, history and relationship to the world.

Linguistic landscape studies have been conducted for over 40 years, but it is

during the last five years that there has been an explosion of publications. Given these

recent developments, it is likely that researchers will want to continue making important

contributions to our understanding of several aspects of societal multilingualism,

language policy, and the use of written languages in urban contexts. Linguistic landscape

is traditionally referred to as the study of public signage (Bolton, 2012). Landscape

public signs are first and foremost used to disseminate messages of public interest, but

they are also the visual representation of the linguistic situation in a particular area. It

may be insignificant for most people, but when one looks deeper into it,
 2

The concept of Linguistic Landscape has been used in several fields in

sociolinguistic context; language function, power relations, language contact and other

linguistic issues in a particular place. (Scollon & Scollon, 2003). It is an attepmt to

produce a quantifiable aand detailed record of urban multilingualism. The study of the

linguistic landscapes has added an innovative and captivating approach to the mapping of

language diversity and multilingualism in urban settings. Linguistic landscapes can be

places where linguistic diversity is displayed but also contested. Some language groups

have more access to being on written display in public sphere than others; majority

languages dominate, but minority languages often struggle for visibility (Marten, Van

Mensel, & Gorter, 2012). In this sense, a multilingual cityscape is the outcome of

particular social processes, and at the same time, the signage can be a display of identities

of certain language groups and not others. Therefore, the regulation of the linguistic

landscape will remain an important issue, not only in terms of which languages are used

but also because of moral, ethical, and legal dimensions. The linguistic landscape seems

to reflect the relative power and status of the different language groups in a specific

context. It mirrors the status of languages, which languages are considered prestigious,

and which are marginalized (Cenoz & Gorter).

The study of Linguistic landscape in the Philippines seems limited. Further, a

considerable amount of research has been done on urban multilingualism (Masip, 2015;

Backhaus, 2005; Huebner, 2006; Dixson, 2015), but only few research studies have

focused on transnational areas such as selected street in commercial and residential space.

The selected streets of Marawi City, the locus of the present study, is known to be a hub

of Bisayan and Maranaw community and a center of trade and commerce. The concept of
 3

the linguistic landscape is more on the language choice in the public signs and the people

convey the language. Examining the coexistence and competition of various linguistic

varieties in a multicultural setting such is of sociolinguistic value. Thus, this study will be

a contribution to the growing research on urban multilingualism in a different context.

Statement of the Problem

This paper focused on the language and its use in public signs. The assumption is

that the status of the language is visible through the linguistic landscape, which reflects

power relations among the linguistic groups of the area. The research questions were the

following:

1. What are the languages used for wider communications along the streets of

Marawi City?

2. Which language plays a predominant role in all linguistic landscape

investigated?

3.What are the impacts of language hierarchy in the society of Marawi City?

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored is anchored on Ben-Rafael et al’s (2006) and Scollon and

Scollon (2003) place of semiotics.

Ben-Rafael et.al (2006) notion of top-down and bottom-up signs was drawn from

Landry and Bourhis’ government-private signs dichotomy. BenRafael et al., (2006)

defined top-down signs as “LL elements used and exhibited by institutional agencies

which act under the control of local or central policies”. It is through these signs that the

language policy of the state is most evident since the state has less control over the
 4

languages used by private signs. Private signs, on the other hand, include commercial

signs and any signs owned by private individuals and business institutions.

Ben-Rafael et al., (2006) defined bottom-up signs as “those utilized by an

individual, associative or corporative actors who enjoy the autonomy of action within

legal limits”. The essential difference between the two broad categories lies in the fact

that top-down signs are expected to conform to the state’s ideology while bottom-up

signs are not restricted and designed according to individual preferences or purposes.

Accordingly, the choice of language(s) in top-down signs indicates that the culture of the

majority is taken into consideration while the preferential use of language in bottom-up

signs would reflect the attitude of the actor or the maker of a sign towards the language in

question.

The study of Linguistic landscape provides information between the official

language policy as reflected in top-down signs and the impact of the policy as reflected in

bottom-up signs. In other words, authorities’ language preference is shown in top-down

flow while bottom-up flow would show whether the policy is followed or accepted by the

populace. It is useful to distinguish between top-down and bottom-up primarily to put

order in the analysis of linguistic landscape (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006). Essentially, this

would also show difference in the examination of the linguistic landscape, e.g., whether

the state and the people have similar or different attitudes or whether the private domain

and the public domain demonstrate similarities or differences on the choice of languages

and how they use it.

Another theory emphasized in this study is theory on Semiotics or the study of

signs and symbols are frequently consulted as the fundamental theory underlying
 5

Linguistic landscape research. Several researchers have noted that it is important to look

beyond the linguistic material with regard to its spatial organization and symbols because

they constitute meaning other than themselves (Akindele, 2011). Given that language

territories are hardly homogenous or coherent in the Linguistic landscape, analyzing

through its symbols could provide information about the sociolinguistic composition of

the linguistic groups in the given territory (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). Meaning making

and emplacement of signs, then, has been an important area of inquiry in the study of

Linguistic landscapes especially in multilingual settings because diversity is frequent in

places where different linguistic groups coexist.

Scollon and Scollon (2003) systematically explored the concept of geosemiotics

or “how language and signs make meaning in relation to where and when they are

physically placed in the world”. It was noted that geosemiotics is primarily focused on

indexicality, which means that signs depend on their context or environment to form

meaning. They introduced the concept of place semiotics as useful in analyzing language

contact in which some principles were drawn from visual semiotics and geosemiotics. In

their framework, they provided key elements of place semiotics namely code preference,

inscription, and emplacement. These are the elements that need to be taken up in

analyzing meaning through languages. In analyzing semiotic signs, code preference may

be exhibited through the following: center-margin, top-bottom, left-right, and earlier-

later, or other semiotic conventions (Scollon and Scollon 2003).

Scollon and Scollon (2003) as cited in De Los Reyes (2014), elaborated code

preference as referring to “how signs represent the geopolitical world through the choice

of languages, their graphic representation, and their arrangement if more than one
 6

language is present” . In signs where there is more than one code used, there must be a

spatial order or arrangement of code, and this is often called spatial organization

(Huebner, 2006). In bilingual and multilingual signs, the dominant language in relation to

the other could be displayed either at the top, on the left, or at the center while the inferior

language may be placed at the bottom, on the right, or on the sides. However, it was

noted that the arrangement of codes may “symbolize something but not necessarily index

a particular group” (Ogasawara, 2005). For instance, English may be shown as the

dominant language in a bilingual sign. However, it does not necessarily mean that the

whole community speaks English. It was suggested, then, that other factors outside the

signs themselves be considered to know whether code preference is based on

“geopolitical indexing or sociocultural associations” (Ogasawara, 2005). It could be a

result of globalization or social and cultural factors that have been shaped by history and

other elements that have influenced the condition of the signs.

Scollon and Scollon (2003) contend that local laws may also dictate the

placement of language in a more preferred position in a sign. Thus, the dominance of a

language may sometimes signify language policies. The second element of place

semiotics, inscription, refers to the materiality of the sign. Language preference could

also be exhibited through its “physical materiality’ or ‘what material signs are made of”

(Ogasawara 2005). This includes fonts, materials, layering, and other state changes.

Finzel (2012) added size, colors, and texture as components of inscription. For instance,

traditional Chinese characters may have an association with the most ancient or the most

modern value. Simplified writing, on the other hand, shows conservative and socialist

values (Ogasawara, 2005). Sizes and fonts are also used in giving emphasis to the more
 7

preferred language. For example, the dominant language could be inscribed in a larger

size. Additionally, the dominant language may be emphasized using bright colors such as

red and neon. The position of sign or the emplacement, asthe third element in place

semiotics, isregarded as the central concern of geosemiotics (Ogasawara, 2005).

Scollon and Scollon (2003) provided three systems emplacement:

decontextualized, transgressive, and situated, which explore the question of whether

emplaced discourse is “socioculturally authorized” (Ogasawara, 2005). Decontextualized

semiotics are described as those which “always appear in the same form no matter what

the context” (Scollon & Scollon 2003) such as brand names like McDonald's, Starbucks,

and other famous brands. Transgressive signs are “signs that are situated in a wrong

place” (Scollon & Scollon 2003). These include unauthorized signs, e.g., graffiti, vandals,

torn notes, and the like. Situated semiotics deals with meaning that depends on the

location of the signs. These include common regulatory signs like those signaling

directions e.g., Entrance, Exit, One Way. Situated semioticsrenders clearer meaning than

decontextualized semiotics but issusceptible to overgeneralization. In analyzing the

contact of languages, the present paper employed place semiotics in determining the

predominant language in bilingual and multilingual signs and in evaluating the semiotic

functions of the languages in the Linguistic landscapes investigated. Needless to say, to

conduct a more thoughtful analysis of the Linguistic landscape in Marawi, this study

employed the two levels of analysis suggested by Ben-Rafael et al.’s (2006) top-down

and bottom-up dichotomy, and Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) concept of place semiotics
 8

Conceptual Framework

Public signs along the street of Marawi City is the main focused of the study. Two

level of analysis were used. First, the top down and bottom up distinctions as expounded

by Ben-Rafael (2006) and secondly the place of semiotics which focused on product

naming, advertisement, place naming and directives by Scollon and Scollon (2003).

Results revealed the linguistic landcape of the selected streets of Marawi City as shown

in Figure 1.

PUBLIC SIGNS

Place of Semiotics
Top Down and Bottom Up Distinctions
a. Product Naming
b. Advertisement
c. Place Naming
d. Directives

Linguistic Landscape along the

Streets of Marawi City

Figure 1. Schematic Presentation of the Study

 9

Objective of the Study

The aim of the research was to investigate the presence of the Meranao language

and other languages in a wider linguistic landscape in the region of Marawi City, where

the Meranao has been historically settled. The main point was to determine the languages

in the public signs along the streets of Marawi and to what extent it is used. The corpus of

data includes all the texts that can be seen and are visible in the streets of the sample

areas.

This notion of space is not only geographical, there is a link with language and

changes and social linguistic phenomenon of borrowing, language contact, language

change and exterbal language change. This just one way of understanding, certain

realities that sociolinguistic variables cannot capture like age, gender and why do

language change internal. This paper is through another mood, signs, announcement or

anything that has space.

Scope and Limitations

This study is descriptive and explanatory in nature. The field work will carried out

with the support of a digital camera and a data collection form. Digital pictures of all the

texts seen in the streets of Marawi City were taken these streets are Sarimanok St;

National Highway Marawi City, Basak Malutlut, Marawi City and Lower Langcaf St;

Brgy Biaba Damag. It also use face to face interview during the key informant interviews

(KIIs), and focused group discussions (FGDs).

Codification of the units required making some methodological decisions, as

reported by previous research in this field (see Cenoz & Gorter 2006, Ben-Rafael et al.,

2006). For the purposes of this research, each text was the unit of analysis and the
 10

following items were included; all texts (on entrances, shop doors and windows including

names), even small ones if visible and readable from the street; temporary texts such as

renting, selling, etc.; road signs and place names; logos with texts. On the contrary, the

following items were not included; texts on products (such as t-shirts, newspapers,

magazines, etc.); short technical texts (such as number of light poles, etc.); texts inside

shops and offices if not readable from outside; unreadable texts; flat-panel displays.

Significance of the study

The results of the study may hopefully serve as basis for the following:

Sociolinguists, this serve as reference, that language change can happen be

externally and not only in internal and of course the Community itself. This serve as a

reminder to enrich the Meranao language and the culture of Meranao. Since language is a

social capital, Traders are also beneficiaries of this study, it serve as enhancer in using

second language because language is also a social capital.

Another beneficiary of the this study are the Students.This study can serve as an

instrument to check oneself on their future profession. And lastly, are the Future

Researchers. For the future researchers, this will help them gather data and related

information about their studies.

Definition of Terms

For a clear understanding of the study, the following words or terminologies are

hereby denotively and operationally denied:

Linguistic Landscape- The language of public road signs, advertising billboards,

street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government
 11

buildings combine to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region or urban

agglomeration (Landry and Bourhis, 1997)

Public Signs- The text language for people in public. In this study, it refers to

sign board, announcement, notice that are displayed publicly, along the street, either in

specific shops, specific area or infront of the store.

Urban-In this study, it is used as any human settlement with high population

density and infrastructure of built environment. 

Visibility-A measure of the distance at which an object or light can be clearly

discerned. In this study, it pertains to the ability of people can see the signs when they

cross the street or along the street