From Linguistic Landscapes To Teaching Resources: A Case of Some Rural Areas in The Province of Quezon

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 2 Issue 1: 23-44
From Linguistic Landscapes to Teaching Resources: A Case of Some Rural

Areas in the Province of Quezon
Persieus S. Balog1 and Emmanuel S. Gonzales1

1Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines
Abstract: The study of linguistic landscape (LL) is a sociolinguistic approach that could be used
to understand the diversity and power relations in a multilingual context. In the Philippines, there
is a growing body of literature on describing the LL of certain local areas. However, the potentials
of this LL as teaching resources have not yet been explored. This is one of the research goals of
this study. Using Ben-Rafael et al.’s (2006) notion of top-down and bottom-up categorization of
signs, Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) concept of place semiotics and Borg’s (2009) teaching
cognition theory, this paper examines the LL of two rural areas in Quezon province and the
underlying beliefs of teachers in the utilization of LL as teaching resources. Findings reveal that
English occupies a hegemonic position in the LL of two rural areas in Quezon province. It indicates
that both the government and private sectors give more value to English which poses challenges
to the country’s national language. Furthermore, the interview responses of teachers reveal positive
and important insights in the utilization of LL as teaching resources. Overall, the linguistic
landscape reflects the need to learn English to function in some rural areas in the province of
Quezon.
Keywords: Linguistic landscape, signs, multilingualism, place semiotics, teaching cognition
1. INTRODUCTION
English as a global language “has unprecedentedly spread and steadily become entrenched in
different parts of the world” (De Los Reyes, 2014, p. 25). The dominance of English in the
Philippines has a very long history, particularly when the country has generally embraced a
bilingual policy in which the languages of the government, education, media, and commerce are
Filipino and English. In addition, Martin (2012) presents that Filipino, although widely perceived
as Tagalog, is considered as a language of unity and a symbol of national identity, while English
is not only recognized by Filipinos as global language but is also deeply rooted in their past as the
language of colonial America (as cited in De Los Reyes, 2014). Hence, the linguistic landscape
of the Philippines would be dominantly, “bilingual” (Landry &Borhis, 1997, p. 26), since the
studies of Lock (2003),Curtin (2009), Lanza and Woldermariam (2009), Rosendal (2009), Stroud
and Mpendukana (2009), Lin (2010),Papen (2012), Taylor-Leech (2012) reveal that the use of
English in linguistic landscapes may be robust, but the dominant local languages in the focused
areas in these studies also show “active competition” with English (De Los Reyes, 2014).
The implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) and K-

12 Curriculum in 2012 has created dilemmas to teachers’ instructional practices. There had been
Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

Published by IJASE 23
https//ijase.org
several debates in the Philippines as to whether it is justifiable to revise the basic education
curriculum.
The “disadvantages” (Alberto, Gabinete, & Ranola, 2014) of the implementation of the
MTBMLE are all linked to the scarcity of instructional materials which hinder the enhancement
of the teaching of the macro-skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) of the learners. These
instructional materials are teaching resources that may include not only textbooks utilized inside
the classrooms, but also “out-of-school texts” (Hewitt-Bradshaw, 2014). Linguistic Landscapes
can be sources of these “out-of-school” texts as they are found everywhere and include language
used in a community – the heard and spoken word, as well as the represented and displayed
(Shohamy & Gorter, 2009, as cited in Hewitt-Bradshaw, 2014). As Hewitt-Bradshaw (2014)
discusses that “incorporating linguistic landscapes… in the process of education provides diverse
opportunities to link language and culture, and indigenize educational resources to motivate and
extend student learning (p. 172).
1.1 Linguistic Landscapes in the Philippines
Few studies have contributed to the existing literature on the dominance of English in the
Philippines through a nuanced understanding of the position of the language in the country using
conceptual lenses of linguistic landscape (LL) studies.
Ambion (2013) studied the linguistic landscape of Amadeo, a place in Cavite known as the
Coffee Capital of the Philippines. His analysis revealed that English was prominent in the LL of
Amadeo, and it was used alongside Amadeo dialect, Tagalog and Spanish. Further, people use the
combination of Tagalog, Spanish and English in their product labels to attract not just the locals,
but also the international markets. This practice gives sophistication to the coffee brand of
Amadeo. Moreover, Ambion (2013) concluded that the use of Amadeo dialect in the signs and
products is a way to preserve the town’s culture.
Furthermore, De Los Reyes (2014) investigated the LL of two train stations in Metro
Manila. Findings reveal that English is used to exact two forms of “order” one that makes readers
“follow order” such as proper behaviors in train stations, and another that encourages readers to
“make order” like buying of food in commercial establishments in the areas. The effectiveness of
English in purporting these “orders” (p. 44) among Filipinos may be explained by the positive
attitude of Filipinos toward Americans.
Additionally, Astillero (2017) investigates the LL of one public secondary school in Irosin,
Sorsogon, Philippines. The study reveals that the high preference of English in the school top-
down signs is shown by capitalizing, highlighting and using vivid inks or paints as well as using
durable materials for long lasting presence of English in the linguistic landscapes. Though
evidences show that there are spaces for bilingual and mixed languages in the schoolscape, the
findings reveal that the general institutional infrastructure and the stakeholders through their
language practices do not fully support and strengthen the multilingual speakers of the area as well
as the general goal of language policy on multilingualism promoted by the Department of
Education.
By the same token, Magno (2017) explored and analyzed the LL of five universities
offering communication programs in Cebu City, Philippines. Analysis shows that despite the use
of bilingual signage, English dominates the LL of the five institutions, hence creating a more
reserve and formal ambiance.
https//ijase.org
Moreover, Jazul and Bernardo’s (2017) study which examined the LL of Binondo,
Manila’s Chinatown found that English occupies a hegemonic position in the LL of Binondo
Chinatown, and this dominance challenges the presence of Filipino, the National Language.
Additionally, the use of Chinese is not primarily for communication but for commercial purposes
to engender some sense of authenticity and cultural identity in relation to the Chinese culture, thus
creating a transnational space for Binondo Chinatown to function as a cultural destination.
Correspondingly, Eclipse and Tenedero (2018) investigated the LL of Manila Central Post
Office. Findings reveal that despite the existence of Executive Order 335 mandating the use of
Filipino language in government offices, English remains the dominant language of the signs.
Therefore, researchers suggest the need to revisit the government language policy.
Based on the mentioned studies, it is suggested that future undertakings in the LL of the
Philippines could observe those residential areas where LL research is limited. It would be of
great interest to do a comparative study as the investigation of LL in the Philippines is still fertile.
1.2 Linguistic Landscape as Teaching Resources
Due to several studies conducted in LL, researchers have been interested in investigating how
LL can be used as teaching resources in language learning.
Hewitt-Bradshaw’s (2014) paper applies aspects of the concept of LL to Caribbean Creole

language environments, and discusses a range of texts that can inform teacher classroom pedagogy
and the design of teaching resources in language and literacy education. More specifically, the
paper explores how public, out-of-school texts can be utilized in school settings to develop
students’ critical language awareness and increase their communicative competence. An important
part of the process is a pedagogical approach that allows students to recognize public space as an
arena in which different players, such as advertisers, politicians, and businessmen, exercise
influence in ways that are often hidden or covert.
Moreover, Aladjem and Jou’s (2016) paper describes an approach for contextual informal
foreign language learning supported by mobile devices and social media. The findings suggest
that this approach holds the potential to increase learner awareness of language learning
opportunities, thus supplementing formal learning and encouraging continuous learning. They
discuss that using the linguistic landscape as a learning space, may facilitate language learning.
Mahemuti’s (2018) study examined the impact of LL on international students, and
students’ perceptions of their own and other cultures, motivation and needs. It was found that
international students are aware of the multilingual LL around them, and believe it can be used as
a tool to increase their language awareness, improve social interaction, and represent their
identities. Lastly, it was discovered that multilingual LL has a positive impact on the students in
an educational setting.
Furthermore, Dumanig (2015) examined the use of LL as pedagogical resource in teaching
and learning English in Al Buraimi, Oman. Findings show that classroom activities specifically

https//ijase.org
learning English can be extended to the streets of the learners’ community because learning does
not only happen within the four corners of the classroom.
Ahmad (2016) discussed how LL can be used in teaching linguistic diversity. In his paper,
he explained how ordinary public signs collected by some students and teachers can be used as
teaching resources in discussing linguistic diversity, socio-cultural aspects of language and
language policies. He highlighted that the use of LL in teaching could help in creating a student
centered learning environment and enhance the critical thinking skills of the students.
Additionally, Barrs (2020) investigates how Japanese linguistic landscape could help in
learning English and generating topics for a graduation thesis. Framed within Project-Based
Learning Approach to education, students were engaged directly in examining critically their LL.
Results of the study showed that students became more aware of their LL and its use in their pursuit
of language learning. Barrs (2020) concluded that LL offers a rich learning space beyond the walls
of the classroom.
In the Philippines, there is a growing body of literature on describing the LL and functions
of a language in certain local areas. However, the potentials of LL as teaching resources have not
yet been explored. This is the research gap that the present study would like to address.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
In order to address the research questions in this study, this paper employed the notion of Top-
Down and Bottom-up signs distinguished by Ben-Rafael et al. (2006). According to Ben-Rafael et
al. (2006), all government signs are considered as top-down signs; whereas commercial signs are
classified as bottom-up signs (p. 10).
Moreover, this study utilized Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) Notion of Place Semiotics in
examining the signs in the chosen area. This framework is constituted by some key elements, i.e.,
code preference, inscription, and emplacement.
Code preference may be exhibited through the following—center-margin, top-bottom,

left-right, and earlier-later, or other semiotic conventions (Ogasawara, 2005). Furthermore,
inscription refers to the “physical materiality” (Ogasawara, 2005, p. 4) of language including the
fonts and materials. Additionally, emplacement deals with the place where signs or images are
located.
To determine the potentials of LL as teaching resources, Borg’s (2009) Teaching

Cognition Theory was applied. Teacher Cognition framework is divided into four parts—
schooling, professional work, contextual factors, and classroom practice including practice
teaching. These factors play a pivotal role in teachers’ life, mainly because teachers are decision
makers responsible for learning processes inside the classroom (Borg, 2005). Drawing from this
theory, the present study seeks to determine teachers’ language teaching resources and familiarity
with linguistic landscape and its potential in language teaching. This is done by interviewing some
teachers in a private school Quezon.
1.4 Research Questions

https//ijase.org
This study seeks to investigate and examine the potentials of linguistic landscapes as
resources in English Language Teaching in some rural areas in the Province of Quezon.
Specifically, this study attempts to answer the following questions:
1. What language is dominant in the signs found in the public space of two rural areas in
Quezon?
2. What are the underlying beliefs of teachers in some rural areas in Quezon in the utilization
of linguistic landscapes as teaching resources?
II. METHODOLOGY
Study Locale
Lucena Grand Central Terminal and Atimonan Feeder Port are the study locale of the
present research. Lucena Grand Central Terminal is located in Barangay Ilayang Dupay Lucena,
City. It is home to several lines of buses that carry commuters over Quezon Province and
neighboring towns and cities in the CALABARZON and Bicol regions (Lucena Grand Central
Terminal: Transport and Fares, 2019). Atimonan Feeder Port is located in Atimonan, a coastal
municipality of Quezon Province, and it is home to several shipping lines that carry commuters in
different parts of the country (FindGlocal, n.d.).
These two places have been purposively chosen as the locale of the study due to the fact
that they are considered as the melting pot of the area where local and foreign tourists and natives
interact. Due to thousands of commuters and tourists arriving and leaving, it makes the bus station
and seaport populated everyday and people in turn are exposed to the LL of the areas. More so,
Quezon Province has more Tagalog language speakers than the nearby provinces, hence making
it an interesting place to investigate regarding the language hegemony in LL.
Research Design
This study employs quantitative and qualitative method in analyzing the data. The primary
data for this research are photos of public signs in the bus terminal and sea port in Quezon and the
teachers’ answers from the interview. The quantitative aspect focuses on the number and frequency
distribution of signs based on the language use. Meanwhile, the qualitative approach is used in
content analysis of the signs and answers of some teachers from the interview.
Data Gathering

https//ijase.org
The public signs from the two rural areas (bus terminal and port area) in Quezon were
photographed. A total of 30 signs were collected. To systematize the data collection, the following
criteria for choosing the signs were followed: (1) the signs are posted at a location where a passerby
could see; (2) the signs are in area in a standard definable signs or could be easily seen; (3) if same
signs are posted in different locations, they will be counted as one. Additionally, following Cenoz
and Gorter’s (2006) categorization of commercial establishments, commercial establishment is
taken as one unit of analysis regardless of the number of sings posted.
Interviews are vital in determining the teachers’ underlying beliefs on the utilization of
linguistic landscapes as teaching resources. Therefore, the researchers seek the permission to
conduct an interview in International School for Better Beginnings located near Lucena Grand
Central Terminal. Prior to interview, a letter of request for interview was provided. The
respondents of the interview were English teachers who have been in teaching profession for
several years.
Data Analysis
To answer the first research question, the collected signs were categorized according to
top-down and bottom-up following Ben-Rafael et al.’s (2006) distinction, i.e., government or
official for the former and private, nonofficial, commercial signs for the latter. After categorizing,
they are classified according to the languages used: Filipino Only, English Only, and English-
Filipino Codemixing. It should also be noted that all Roman script with English lexicon, syntax,
and orthography are considered English.
The second categorization of signs was according to their textual genre or type of sign and
was classified according to language used. This was done to identify what language is often
attributed to each type of text. Then, the signs were evaluated using Scollon and Scollon’s (2003)
Place Semiotics. The predominant language and secondary language in English-Filipino
Codemixing signs were identified and subsequently counted according to the number of
occurrences.
Furthermore, to answer the second research question, the sample linguistic landscapes were
shown to the teachers, and they were asked about their familiarity with linguistic landscape,
language teaching resources, and underlying beliefs about linguistic landscapes as teaching
resources in English Language Teaching in some rural areas in the Philippines.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the language used evident in the signs in two rural areas, i.e., bus terminal and
port area, in Quezon Province is presented. Additionally, it shows the findings on the underlying
beliefs of teachers in the utilizations of linguistic landscapes as teaching resources.
3.1 Language used in Top-down and Bottom-up Signs

https//ijase.org
The overall frequency of language used evident in the signs in two rural areas in Quezon
is presented in table 1.
Table 1
Language used in signs in two rural areas in Quezon Province
Category Top-Down Bottom-Up Total

Filipino Only 2 1 3
English Only 12 8 20
English-Filipino Codemixing 4 3 7
Total 18 12 30
Table 1 shows that the frequency of top-down signs is slightly higher than the bottom-up
signs. This may indicate that the government and private sectors almost share the same amount of
power in the LL. Nevertheless, despite the minimal differences between the frequencies of top-
down and bottom-up signs, it could be inferred that government sector still emerges as more
powerful than private sectors as shown in table 1. This is probably due to the fact that the
government still has to manage rules and regulations in bus terminal and sea port investigated in
the study to keep the peace and order. Correspondingly, the significant frequency of bottom-up
signs may be due to the fact that within the bus station and sea port, there is much space for
commercial establishments that sell foods and refreshments providing the needs of hungry people
in the area which is evident in Picture 1.

https//ijase.org
Picture 1
Moreover, results of the study reveal that English is the most preferred language used both
in top-down and bottom-up signs in the LL of Quezon, which are also reflected in the related local
studies (Ambion, 2013; De Los Reyes, 2014; Astillero, 2017; Magno, 2017; Jazul& Bernardo,
2017; Eclipse & Tenedero, 2018). Additionally, table 1 shows that English-Filipino codemixing
signs ranked second, while Filipino only signs ranked third. The dominance of English in bottom-
up and top-down signs indicates that English holds a hegemonic position in the LL. It is not a
surprise because English has been part of Filipino culture and educational system since the country
had been colonized by the Americans.
Furthermore, the analysis shows that English in top-down signs has been used in giving
instructions, reminders and announcements, thus creating a more formal and serious tone in the
LL. This is evident the pictures below.
Picture 2

https//ijase.org
Picture 3

https//ijase.org
Picture 4
In pictures 2, 3 and 4, English is used to convey important messages to the readers or

audiences of the LL. In picture 2, the no smoking sign is accompanied by EO No. 26 highlighting
the law and penalty. By the same token, picture 3 shows a memorandum from Lucena Grand
Terminal Inc. stipulating the Government’s campaign on Smoke-free environment. Lastly, picture
4 shows the exact date when the sea port in Atimonan Quezon was inaugurated. In the given
samples, they show that English is deemed as the language of the government and a powerful tool
to give order and inform people. Findings of the analysis yield the same results with the studies of
De Los Reyes (2014), Astillero (2017), Magno (2017), Eclipse and Tenedero (2018) where they
highlighted the power of English in giving instructions and reminders.
In addition, English is deemed as the preferred language in bottom-up signs which can be
seen in pictures 5 and 6. Perhaps, the owners of commercial establishments would like to use the
function of English to attract possible local and foreign customers. Ambion (2013) stated in his
study that many entrepreneurs use English in marketing and advertisements purposes to add
sophistication to their products (p. 225). This may explain the dominance of English in bottom up
signs in Quezon Province.
Picture 5
Also, it is interesting to note the presence of Philippine English (PE) in picture 6 where it
says CR or comfort room, the local term of toilet in the Philippine variety of English. The presence
of PE in bottom up signs reflects how English evolves in Philippine soil. In many years, Filipinos
embraced English and created their own variety to adapt to their own context. Hence, PE emerged
which is evident in the LL of Quezon Province.

https//ijase.org
Picture 6
Furthermore, English-Filipino codemixing sign is also present in top-down and bottom-up

signs which ranks second to English only signs as presented in table 1. The occurrence of bilingual
signs is common in countries where English is one of the official languages such as the Philippines
(Jazul & Bernardo, 2017). Examples are given below.
Picture 7

https//ijase.org
Picture 8
Additionally, analysis reveals that Filipino is the least preferred language in top-down and
bottom-up signs. This may indicate that both the government and private sectors give much
importance to English than Filipino. This can be seen in the given pictures below.
Picture 9
It says taking a shower and washing of feet are not allowed.

https//ijase.org
Picture 10
Picture 10 displays the name of some famous Filipino foods – Goto (Filipino version of
Congee, Mami (Filipino noodle soup), Lugaw (Filipino porridge).
3.2 Place Semiotics
To further analyze the language preference in the LL of two rural areas in Quezon, Scollon and
Scollon’s (2003) place semiotics was used.
Analysis of code-preference reveals that English is given much importance in top-down

and bottom-up signs not just in English only signs, but also in English-Filipino codemixing signs.
In English only signs, English words, phrases and sentences are written in the center and almost
cover the entire signs. Moreover, the preference of English is also present in English-Filipino
codemixing signs where English words dominate the Filipino words in terms of number of words
and placement of words in the signs. By the same token, the analysis of inscription, i.e., “physical
materiality” (Ogasawara, 2005), shows that English is the preferred language both in the English
only signs and English-Filipino codemixing signs where English words are written in different
colors, big font sizes and bold letters (See Pictures 5,6,7,8). In terms of materials used, most of
English top-down and bottom-up signs were made of tarpaulin, plastic and metal. The use of
durable materials in English only signs indicates that these signs are intended to be displayed for
a long period of time. However, when it comes to bulletin boards where memos and news are to
be displayed (See Picture 3), they only use papers. Hence, they can easily change the information
in bulletin boards for some updates. In terms of emplacement, most of the English only signs and
some English-Filipino codemixing signs are placed in conspicuous locations. This shows the
dominance of English in the LL of bus terminal and sea port in Quezon.
https//ijase.org
Divulged by Bangayan- Manera ( 2020), on the other hand, most of the Filipino only signs
are written in papers, cartons and other short-lived materials. Additionally, they are posted in
inconspicuous places such as toilet and table alongside foods (See Pictures 9 and 10), thus making
Filipino language appear less important in the LL.
Overall, results of the study reveal that English dominates the LL of two rural areas in
Quezon Province. Since the two areas investigated are considered as melting pot, where local and
foreign tourists and natives interact, the use of English in bottom-up and top-down signs is needed.
This indicates that the linguistic landscape reflects the need to learn English to function in some
rural areas in the province of Quezon especially when dealing with local and foreign tourists due
to its global power (Tupas, 2008). Nonetheless, this phenomenon poses challenges to Filipino, the
country’s national and official language, as it appeared to be “devalued and undermined” (Jazul &
Bernardo, 2017) in the LL of two rural areas of Quezon. This is evident in the low frequency,
material used and location of signs written in Filipino.
Two factors could be cited to explain the language hegemony of English. The first is the
bilingual policy of the country making Filipino and English as the official languages of the
government, education, media and commerce (De Los Reyes, 2014). The second is President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s English-only bill to make English as the primary medium of
instruction in all schools (Jazul & Bernardo, 2017). These two language policies may have
strengthened the position of English in the country; hence, the dominance of English is evident not
just in the LL of Quezon province, but also in other parts of the country as stated in the related
literatures cited in this study. At present, the government has implemented the Mother-Tongue
Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) to empower local languages in the Philippines
(Malone, 2007). With its implementation, there could be a possibility that other local languages
will be given equal opportunity or position with English in the LL of the country in the coming
years.
3.3 Underlying Beliefs of Teachers in some Rural Areas in Quezon in the Utilization of
Linguistic Landscapes as Teaching Resources
Drawing from Borg’s (2009) Teaching Cognition Theory, the present study seeks to
determine teachers’ language teaching resources and familiarity with linguistic landscape and its
potential in language teaching. This is done by interviewing some teachers. The first question
asked was to determine teachers’ familiarity with linguistic landscape. Below are the responses of
teachers.
Teacher 1
The English language has been considered as the universal language of the world, thus
making a large proportion of the planet to be either bilingual or multilingual. As a
language teacher, the term linguistic landscape is new to me. It is a new face of language
acquisition.
Teacher 2

https//ijase.org
I am not very familiar with the use of Linguistic Landscape in teaching language. Maybe I
am using it already, but I am not labeling it as teaching resource.
Teacher 3
I am not that familiar with linguistic landscapes. However, reading your background of
the study and some related literature, I think that it has something to do with the use of
English language in various landscapes/settings in the community which somehow cross-
over with their cultural understanding.
Teacher 4
Linguistic landscapes are signage, especially, in public places, wherein we use translations
for easy understanding.
Teacher 5
I’m not that familiar with linguistic landscapes. Maybe, I’m using it already, but I don’t
know that I’m using it.
Teacher 6
I am not really familiar with Linguistic Landscapes. This is the first time I heard of these
terms. From what I have read, linguistic landscapes refer to the use of the English language
as the medium of signs inside and outside the classroom.
The given answers of teachers show that they are not familiar with LL. All of them heard
this concept for the first time. As stated by De Los Reyes (2014), Jazul and Bernardo (2017), and
Eclipse and Tenedero (2018), the concept of LL in the Philippines is relatively new. This could
explain the reason why teachers are not familiar with LL.
The second question asked was to know the sources of their language teaching, e.g.
textbooks, research articles, internet data, and other teaching resources. Answers are given below.
Teacher 1
Teaching the language is a very tasky job for it requires a lot of preparations. There are
many sources that a teacher may utilize in order to present the topic. It could either be in
a form of written texts like textbooks or magazines or multimedia like video clips or audio
clips.
Teacher 2
The sources of my language teaching are textbooks, seminars, research articles, internet
sources, authentic resources, videos and other multimedia.

https//ijase.org
Teacher 3
I am teaching the English language using textbooks, research journals, texts coming from
the media, and other materials such as newspaper and magazine.
Teacher 4
I am using textbooks and internet data.
Teacher 5
Textbooks, seminars and workshops.
Teacher 6
I use as much as every source I have because I believe that I’m still not a master of the
English language.
All respondents stated that they use textbooks, research journals, internet, multimedia, and
other teaching resources available to them. No one mentioned LL as teaching resources.
Correspondingly, the third question asked was whether they use LL as linguistic resources or not
and their underlying beliefs regarding the utilization of LL as teaching resources.
Teacher 1
I may (unconsciously) or may not (I have actually no idea what it is though.) use it inside
the classroom. However, I believe that using LL as linguistic resources would be really
helpful for my students.
Teacher 2
I believe it can be a good way to teach language and nowadays it can be easily adapted by
teachers and learners. “Multilingualism” is an essential tool in learning language and
culture within locality. I may not be aware that I’m using it already.
Teacher 3
I don’t think I am already using it because I am not that familiar with linguistic landscape.
However, I believe that it can be a good resource to teach the English language for it may
provide contextualized knowledge among the learners based on their setting/situational
context.
Teacher 4
Just for few times since I started teaching last 2017. But I think LL is an effective way to
teach language to students.
https//ijase.org
Teacher 5
No. I’m not that familiar, but I’m willing to learn and use LL in my classes. It has a lot of
potentials.
Teacher 6
I may use the LL unconsciously, but I am not familiar with the term. I’d like to learn more
about LL and use it as linguistic and teaching resources.
The answers of teachers from first to third questions are consistent. It shows that they have
limited knowledge of the concept of LL. In the third question, some teachers said that they might
have already used it; however, they were just not conscious or aware of it. Nevertheless, based on
the interview, teachers have positive insights regarding the utilization of LL as teaching resources.
Teacher 2 emphasized that LL could be a good way to teach language because it can easily be
adapted in school setting. She further explained that multilingualism in LL could help in learning
language and culture in a specific context. Additionally, teacher 3 highlighted the potentials of
using LL as teaching resources, for it may provide contextualized knowledge among the learners
based on their setting.
Multilingualism and contextualized knowledge were given emphasis in the responses of

some teachers. They are important in teaching, so that students may have authentic learning
experiences in their classes. Furthermore, the responses of teachers indicate that despite having
limited knowledge of the concept, these teachers are aware of the potentials of LL as linguistic and
teaching resources. Based on Borg’s (2009) Teaching Cognition Theory, the positive view of
teachers regarding the utilization of LL in language teaching is important mainly because teachers,
being thinking decision-makers, play a pivotal role in planning and designing their lessons in class.
Hence, teachers may adopt the concept of LL and use it in planning the lessons and activities for
their students which may also address the “disadvantages” (Alberto et al. 2014) of the
implementation of the MTBMLE that are linked to the scarcity of instructional materials
specifically designed for the students’ context.
Furthermore, several studies (Hewitt-Bradshaw, 2014; Dumanig, 2015; Aladjem & Jou,
2016; Ahmad, 2016; Mahemuti, 2018; Barrs, 2020) have shown the potentials and significance of
LL as linguistic and teaching resources. They have stated that learning a language particularly
English is not limited in four corners of a classroom. Activities may be extended to the streets of
the learners’ community for them to be able to have contextualized knowledge of the target
language or L2 that they are learning and expose themselves to multilingualism present in their
context.
Similarly, to show how students can learn and benefit from signs posted in their area,
Hewitt-Bradshaw (2014) elucidates in her paper the significance of LL as language learning and
literacy resources. According to her, (a) LL as an educational tool engages students in authentic
literacy activities that extend beyond the classroom; (b) the use of environmental print and signage
https//ijase.org
is classrooms has the potential to increase effectiveness of programs aimed at improving literacy
levels on national scale; (c) it fosters a culture of inquiry and innovation in teaching contexts where
indigenous languages compete with global language such as English; (d) LL helps the students
learn to understand their history and culture, of which their indigenous language is a part; (e) it
develops students awareness of the role that different languages or dialects play in the social
communication network; and lastly, (f) it helps the students develop their critical thinking skill.
In addition, teachers may use language awareness approach in their classes to help students
learn and benefit from signs posted in their environment. According to Hewitt-Bradshaw (2014),
“language awareness refers to the consciousness about language form, structure, and function” (p.
162). This approach may help students be conscious about the language diversity and hegemony
in their community. Perhaps, what teachers can do to use language awareness approach in their
classes is they may ask their students to take pictures of signs in their community and give students
divergent questions that would require them use their higher order thinking skills. In this regard,
students could develop not just their language skills, but also their analytical and critical thinking
skills.
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, results of the study reveal that English occupies a hegemonic position in the LL of
two rural areas in Quezon province. It indicates that both the government and private sectors give
more value to English which poses challenges to the country’s national language. More so, the
linguistic landscape reflects the need to learn English to function in some rural areas in the province
of Quezon. Furthermore, the interview responses of teachers reveal important insights in the
utilization of LL as teaching resources. Despite having limited knowledge of LL due to the fact
that this concept and area of research are relatively new in the Philippines, teachers recognize its
potential as linguistic and teaching resources.
Nonetheless, the findings of the study have some limitations. Results of the analysis would
have been better, if there had been more teachers participated in the study. In this research, only
six teachers were interviewed primarily because preparation for school accreditation was ongoing
when the interview was conducted. Perhaps, bigger number of participants and the use of survey
questionnaire for statistical treatment of data may be considered for the future study. Hence, more
varied insights could be elicited to enrich the discussion.
Findings of the study may have some implications to language policy and planning, ELT
in the Philippines, and teacher education. In using LL as a resource for multilingual schemes of
language policies, the language management agencies may be informed about contemporary
methods in using public signs as an educational resource. Also, using LL as a pedagogical resource
may also be instructive in determining the direct educational values of the public signs as well as
their implicative nature in embodying the language policies. Further, some practical realizations
that can be drawn from the study may present some implications in developing language teaching
strategies. Lastly, language experts and curriculum designers may collaborate in designing and

https//ijase.org
integrating LL in the curriculum of college and university students pursuing language education
and linguistics, so that they will have more knowledge on how to use LL as language and teaching
resources in their classes.
This study shows that there is a need to further explore the use of LL as language and
teaching resources in wider and bigger scale. In addition, ELT practitioners not just in Quezon
province, but also in other parts of the Philippines, may start incorporating LL as teaching
resources in their classes to examine the multilingualism and language hegemony in their
environment. Hence, they may use this data for future studies using the lenses of LL and apply
the results of their research to improve the language education in their area.
References
[1] Ahmad, R. (2016). Teaching linguistic diversity though linguistic landscape. Language and
Language Teaching, 5(9), 1-7.
[2] Aladjem, R., & Jou, B. (2016). The linguistic landscape as a learning space for contextual
language learning. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5.
[3] Alberto, Rosario and Gabinete, Sunny and Rañola, Vanessa, Issues and Challenges in Teaching
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in Grades II and III: The Philippine
Experience (April 22, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=22768558 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2768558
[4] Ambion, L. J. (2013). The linguistic landscape of Amadeo: A study of the presence of different
languages in the public space. Humanities and Social Sciences Review, 2(2), 223-238.
[5] Astillero, S. F. (2017). Linguistic schoolscape: Studying the place of English and Philippine
languages of Irosin Secondary School. Retrieved from
http://www.vnseameo.org/TESOLConference2017/materials/11_Susan%20Fresnido%20
ASTILLERO_LINGUISTIC%20SCHOOLSCAPE.pdf
[6] Bangayan- Manera, A. (2020) Doodle: Towards a Hermeneutical Appreciations of Jacques

Derrida’s Deconstruction. The Asian EFL Journal. 24( 4.2) 191-204
[7] Barrs, K. (2020). Learning from the linguistic landscape: A project-based learning approach to
investigating English in Japan. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 17(1),
7-15.
[8] Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M., &Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic
landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International
Journal of Multilingualism,3(1), 7-30.
[9] Borg, S. (2009). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved from

https//ijase.org
http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/research/files/145.pdf
[10] Borgs, S. (2005). Teacher cognition in language teaching. In K. Johnson (Ed.) Expertise in
second language learning and teaching (pp. 190-209).
[11] Butac, S. (2021). A Comparative Study of Faculty Communication Satisfaction, Job
Satisfaction and Productivity of Sectarian and Nonsectarian Private HEI’s in Manila. International
Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 1(1), 29–41. Retrieved from
https://www.ijase.org/index.php/ijase/article/view/4
[12] Calanoga, MC et al.(2020). English Performance of Students and their Participation to Extra
Curricular Activities: Bases for Intervention Programs. The Asian EFL Journal. 27 (5.1), 415-429.
[13] Cenoz, J., &Gorter, D. (2008). The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in
second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 46, 267-287. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2008.012
[14] Curtin, M. L. (2009). Language on display: Indexical signs, identities and the linguistic
landscape of Taipei. In E. Shohamy, E. & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape:
Expanding the scenery (pp. 221-237). New York, NY: Routledge.
[16] De Los Reyes, R. (2014). Language of “order”: English in the linguistic landscape of two
major train stations in the Philippines. Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS). 2, 24-
51.
[16] DepEd Order 16, S. 2. (2012). Guidelines on the Implementation of Mother Tongue-Based
Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). Retrievedhttps://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/02/17/
do-16-s-2012-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-mother-tongue-based-
multilingual-education-mtb-mle/
[17] Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Linguistic landscape as pedagogical resource in learning English as

a foreign language. Oman ELT Conference.
[18] Eclipse, A. N., &Tenedero, P. P. P. (2018). The linguistic landscape of Manila central post
office: A macro-linguistic analysis. Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS),
6, 157-176. Retrieved from https://ajels.ust.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/6-The-
linguistic-landscape-of-Manila-Central-Post-Office....pdf
[19] Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 190-212.
[20] Hewitt-Bradshaw, I. (2014). Linguistic landscape as a language learning and literary resources
in Caribbean Creole contexts.Caribbean Curriculum, 22, 157-173.
[21] Jazul, M. E. M.A., & Bernardo, A. S. B. (2017). A look into Manila Chinatown’s linguistic

https//ijase.org
landscape: The role of language and language ideologies. Philippine Journal of

Linguistics. 48.
[22] Landry, R., &Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An
empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(23), 23-49.
Doi:10.1177/0261927X970161002
[23] Lanza, E., &Woldermariam, H. (2009).Language ideology and linguistic landscape.In E.

Shohamy, E. & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp.189-
205). New York: Routledge.
[24] Lin, P. (2010). Dissecting multilingual Beijing: The space and scale of vernacular
globalization.
Visual Communication, 9(67), 167-190.
[25] Lock, G. (2003). Being international, local and Chinese: Advertisements on the Hong Kong
Mass Transit Railway.Visual Communication, 2(2), 195-214.
[26] Lucena Grand Terminal: Transport and Fares. (2019). Retrieved from
http://www.lucenahin.com.ph/lucena-grand-central-terminal-transport-and-fares/
[27] Magno, J. M. (2017). Linguistic landscape in Cebu city higher education offering
communication programs. Asian Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(1), 94-
103. Retrieved from http://www.apjmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/APJMR-
2017.5.1.2.11.pdf
[28] Mahemuti, M. (2018). Linguistic landscape on campus: Asian college students’ perceptions
of multilingual learning environments. MA Thesis.State University of New York, Fredonia.
[29] Malone, S. (2007). Mother tongue-based multilingual education: Implications for education.
Retrieved from https://www.sil.org/sites/default/files/files/mtbmle
_implications_for_policy.pdf
[30] Martin, I. P. (2012). Diffusion and directions: English language policy in the Philippines. In
E.Low & A. Hashim (Eds.) English in Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language in use (pp.
189-206). Doi: 10.1075/veaw/g42.16mar
[31] Maryline, D. (2021). Enhancing The Reading Comprehension Skills Of Grade 4 Through
Sandwich Approach. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 1(1), 1–14. Retrieved
from https://www.ijase.org/index.php/ijase/article/view/3
[32] Ogasawara, N. (2005). Review: Discourse/applied linguistics: Scollon&Scollon (2004).

linguist.org. Retrieved from http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2276.html

https//ijase.org
[33] Olivera, L. C. (2021). Code-Switching In English Class: A Strategy In Boosting Learners’

Confidence And Engagement. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 1(1), 15–28.
Retrieved from https://www.ijase.org/index.php/ijase/article/view/10
[34] Papen, U. (2012). Commercial discourses, gentrification and citizens’ protest: The linguistic
landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(1), 56-80.
[35] Rosendal, T. (2009). Linguistic markets in Rwanda: Language use in advertisements and on
signs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(1), 19-39.
[36] Scollon, R., &Scollon, S. (2003). Discourse in place: Language in the material world.
London: Routledge.
[37] Stroud, C., &Mpendukana, S. (2009). Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape:
Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African township.Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 363-386.
[38] Taylor-Leech, K. (2012). Language choice as an index of identity: Linguistic landscape in

Dili, Timor-Leste.International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(1), 15-34.
[39] Tupas, R. (2008). Bourdieu, historical forgetting, and the problem of English in the
Philippines.Philippine Studies, 56, 47-67.

https//ijase.org

From Linguistic Landscapes To Teaching Resources: A Case of Some Rural Areas in The Province of Quezon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Linguistic Landscapes To Teaching Resources: A Case of Some Rural Areas in The Province of Quezon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education

ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 2 Issue 1: 23-44

From Linguistic Landscapes to Teaching Resources: A Case of Some Rural

Persieus S. Balog1 and Emmanuel S. Gonzales1

Keywords: Linguistic landscape, signs, multilingualism, place semiotics, teaching cognition

The implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) and K-

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

1.1 Linguistic Landscapes in the Philippines

1.2 Linguistic Landscape as Teaching Resources

Hewitt-Bradshaw’s (2014) paper applies aspects of the concept of LL to Caribbean Creole

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

1.3 Theoretical Framework

Code preference may be exhibited through the following—center-margin, top-bottom,

To determine the potentials of LL as teaching resources, Borg’s (2009) Teaching

1.4 Research Questions

Specifically, this study attempts to answer the following questions:

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Language used in Top-down and Bottom-up Signs

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

Language used in signs in two rural areas in Quezon Province

Category Top-Down Bottom-Up Total

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

In pictures 2, 3 and 4, English is used to convey important messages to the readers or

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

Furthermore, English-Filipino codemixing sign is also present in top-down and bottom-up

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

It says taking a shower and washing of feet are not allowed.

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

3.2 Place Semiotics

Scollon’s (2003) place semiotics was used.

Analysis of code-preference reveals that English is given much importance in top-down

Linguistic Landscapes as Teaching Resources

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

I am using textbooks and internet data.

Textbooks, seminars and workshops.

Multilingualism and contextualized knowledge were given emphasis in the responses of

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

[6] Bangayan- Manera, A. (2020) Doodle: Towards a Hermeneutical Appreciations of Jacques

[9] Borg, S. (2009). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved from

[17] Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Linguistic landscape as pedagogical resource in learning English as

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

landscape: The role of language and language ideologies. Philippine Journal of

[23] Lanza, E., &Woldermariam, H. (2009).Language ideology and linguistic landscape.In E.

[32] Ogasawara, N. (2005). Review: Discourse/applied linguistics: Scollon&Scollon (2004).

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

[33] Olivera, L. C. (2021). Code-Switching In English Class: A Strategy In Boosting Learners’

[38] Taylor-Leech, K. (2012). Language choice as an index of identity: Linguistic landscape in

Corresponding author: persieus1989@gmail.com

You might also like