Analysis of Linguistic Landscape: Holy Child College of Education Campus

Authors

  • Vivian Addoboah-Bersah
  • Kafui Danku Diaba

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.8(4).2024.17

Keywords:

Bottom-up approach, Holy Child College of Education, Linguistic Landscape, Private shops, Signage, Top-down approach

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyze the linguistic landscape of Holy Child College of Education. Drawing of data from first-hand fieldwork, this paper explores the display of language and multimodal on signage on the College campus. In all, it was found out that English language is prevalent on all types of surfaces (walls, doorpost, buildings, cenotaph, billboard) to aid in the identity of occupants as well as associate identity to the properties of the institution. There were also a few private shops which have names on them. The study employs qualitative and quantitative content analysis of a data of about 74 signages from the College. It looked into issues such as top-down, bottom-up approach as well as symbolic and informational function. It also examined if there are instances of the use of only one language or more than a language on a signage. The theory that supported this investigation was Linguistic Landscape Theory foundered by Landry and Bourhis (1997). This theory has it that the study of linguistic landscapes refers to the visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region. Landry and Bourhis argue that the linguistic landscape of an area can serve as an indicator of the relative power and status of different linguistic communities within that area. This theory suggests that the languages displayed in public spaces can reflect broader social, cultural, and political dynamics, such as the dominance of one language over another, and it can affect the perception of language status and identity among community members.

References

Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. A., & Trumper-Hecth, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case study of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7-30.

Chiluwa, I. (2008). Religious vehicle stickers in Nigeria: A discourse of identity, faith and social vision. Journal of Discourse and Communication, 2(4), 371-387. https://doi.org/20.1177/1750481308091909.

Dejan, I. & Lothering, H. (2009). Multilingualism in Cyber Space. Conceptualising the virtual linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(1), 17-36.

Landry, R. & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Languages and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002.

Shang, G. & Guo, L. (2017). Linguistic Landscape in Singapore: what shops names reveal about Singapore’s multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(2), 183-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1218497.

Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. (2009). Linguistic landscape: expanding the scenery. New York and London: Routledge.

Spolsky, B. & Copper, R. L. (1983). The Language Jerusalem Arabic Jewish relations in the old city. Research report to the ford foundation. Bar-llan, Bar-llan.

Wang, J. J. (2015). Linguistic landscape on campus in Japan: A case study of signs in Kyusha University.

Downloads

Published

2024-09-09

Issue

Section

Articles