Wika sa Pampublikong Espasyo: Isang Pag-aaral sa Tanawing Pangwika ng Maynila
Authors: Nibalvos Ian Mark 
Published: October 2022

This research used descriptive approach to illustrate the Linguistic Landscape of the city of Manila as a center of commerce andmulticulturalism. The goal of the study is to identify or describe the languages that are seen or that exist in public spaces of the city, identify the vitality of languages and assess the implications of the language landscape of Manila in the Filipino language situation at present.
The researchers took pictures of signs in four selected areas in Manila. It was then categorized based on the taxonomy of Spolsky and Cooper which include: 1.) road signs; 2.) advertising signs; 3.) warning; 4.) names of buildings; 5.) informational signs; 6.) plaque plots; 7.) things; and 8.) graffiti. Photographs also categorized whether it is monolingual, bilingual or multilingual and if it is “top-down” or “bottom-up”.
The measure of the vitality of languages spreading across the city was based on the Ethnolinguistic Vitality (EV) theory used in the studies of Giles, Bourhis and Taylor to determine which language is the most dominant or widely used in the linguistic landscape.
This research only covers the description of the linguistic landscape of Manila by determining the languages existing in the city and their vitality as evident in the road signs, advertising signs, warning, name of buildings, informational signs, things and graffiti. . It also examined the implications of the linguistic landscape of Manila to the current situation or state of the Filipino language and the challenges it faces in its development.
It was discovered that there are six languages spreading and existing in the city such as: English, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Spanish. Among these languages, English is the most dominantly used.
This study shows that English language is given more importance than Filipino, which is the country’s national language. English language is being used in meaningful activities such as providing information, advertising signs, and building names. The researcher proposes further studies of language learning in other major cities in the Philippines to determine the extent of the spread of Filipino language and dialects thereby maintaining, strengthening and improving the country’s national language more than the value exhibited with the use of the English language.
References
Akindele, D. O. (2011). Linguistic Landscapes as Public Communication: A Study of Public
Signage in Gaborone Botswana. International Journal of Linguistics. Retrievedfrom http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/view/1157/pdf
Almario, V. S. (2003). Nasyonalisasyon ng Filipino. Wikang Filipino sa Loob atLabas ng Akademya’t Bansa: Unang Soucebook ng SANGFIL 1994 – 2001. Manila:Pambansang Komisyon para sa Kultura at mga Sining, 11 – 14.
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualismin Tokyo. SKY Journal of Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2007/ZABRODSKAJA_BOOK%20REVIEW.pdf
Ben-Rafael, et al. (2006). Linguistic Landscape as a Symbolic Construction of PublicSpace: The Case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, (3) 1. 7 – 30. Retrievedfrom http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14790710608668383
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., & Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a“Subjective Vitality Questionnaire” for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingualand Multicultural Development, 2, 145 – 155. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254333394_Notes_on_the_construction_of_a_’Subjective_Vitality_Question naire’_for_ethnolinguistic_groups
Burdick, C. (2012). Mobility and Language in Place:A Linguistic Landscape of LanguageCommodification. Cultural Heritage in European Societies and Spaces. Retrieved fromh t t p : / / s c h o l a r w o r k s . u m a s s . e d u / c g i / v i e w c o n t e n t .cgi?article=1006&context=chess_student_research
David, R. S. (2003). Politika ng Wika, Wika ng Politika. Wikang Filipino sa Loobat Labas ng Akademya’t Bansa: Unang Soucebook ng SANGFIL 1994 – 2001. Manila:Pambansang Komisyon para sa Kultura at mga Sining, 15 – 22.
De Quiros, C. (2003). Ang Kapangyarihanng Wika, Ang Wika ng Kapangyarihan.Wikang Filipino sa Loob at Labas ng Akademya’t Bansa: Unang Soucebook ngSANGFIL 1994 – 2001. Manila: Pambansang Komisyon para sa Kultura at mga Sining, 28 – 33.
Desiderio, L. (2012). NSO: Number of foreign citizens residing in Phl now over177,000. The Philippine Star. Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com:8080/headlines/2012/11/26/873745/nso-number-foreign-citizens-residing-phlnow-over-177000
Espiritu, C. (2015) Language Policies in the Philippines. National Commision forCulture and the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n a/article.php?igm=3&i=217
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language inethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations.London, UK: Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265966525_Giles_H_Bourhis_RY_Taylor_DM_1977_Towards_a_theory_of_language_in_ethnic_group_relations_In_H_Giles_Ed_Language_Ethnicity_and_Intergroup_Relations_pp_307-348_London_UK_Academic_Press
Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic Landscapes in a Multilingual World. Annual Reviewof Applied Linguistic. Cambridge University Press. 33, 190-212.
Harwood, J., Giles, H., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). The genesis of vitality theory: Historicalpatterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociologyof Language. 108, 167-206. Retrieved from http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jharwood/pdf/harwood%20giles%20bourhis%20IJSL%201994.pdf
Johnson, P., Giles, H., & Bourhis. R. Y. (1983). The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality:A reply. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 4, 255 – 269 Retrievedfrom http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01434632.1983.9994115
Landry R. & Bourhis, R. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethnoliguistic Vitality:An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Retrieved fromhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261927X970161002
Lumbera, B. (2003). Ang Usapin ng Wika at Panitikang Filipino at ang Paglahokng Pilipinas a Globalisasyon. Wikang Filipino sa Loob at Labas ng Akademya’t Bansa:Unang Soucebook ng SANGFIL 1994 – 2001. Manila: Pambansang Komisyonpara sa Kultura at mga Sining, 11 – 14.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of Emglish as an international language,London: Longman.
Santiago, C. C. (2016). Ang Filipino Bilang Wikang Opisyal. Pandiwa: Lathalaanpara sa Wika at Kultura. Manila: Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino, (4) 1, 53.Santos, B. (2003). Ang SANGFIL at ang Dokumentasyon ng Pag-unlad ng Filipino.Ang Wikang Filipino sa Loob at Labas ng Akademya’t Bansa: Unang Soucebookng SANGFIL 1994 – 2001. Manila: Pambansang Komisyon para sa Kultura atmga Sining, 1– 6.
Slembrouck, S. (2011). Linguistic Landscapes in the City of Ghent: An EmpericalStudy. Ghent University (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/786/702/RUG01-001786702_2012_0001_AC.pdf
Spolsky, B. (2009). Prolegomena to a Sociolinguitic Theory of Public Signage. InE. Shohamy and D. Gorter (eds) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. London:Routledge.
Torkington, K. (2009). Exploring the linguistic landscape: the case of the ‘GoldenTriangle’ in the Algarve, Portugal. Papers from the Lancaster University PostgraduateConference in Linguistics and Language Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/laelpgconference/papers/v03/Torkington.pdf
Yagmur, K. & Kroon, S. (2003). Ethnoliguistic Vitality Perceptions and LanguageRevitalisation in Bashkorotstan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.Retrieved from https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/817249/ethnolinguistic.pdf
Zafra, G. (2014). Ang Wika sa pampublikong espasyo: kaso ng tanawing pangwikasa UP Campus. University of the Philippines. Manila
_________________. (2015). Safety signs and signals: The Health Safety (Safety Signsand Signals) Regulations 1996. Health and Safety Executive. Retrieved from
_________________ . (2005). Rule XII: General Design and Construction Requirements(2004 Revised IRR of PD 1096). Department of Public Works and Highways.Retrieved from http://www.architectureboard.ph/1%20LAWS%20(&Regns)ON%20ARCH3/National%20Building%20Code%20of%20the%20Philippines%20(Anotated)/Rule%20 X_Signs.pdf
__________________. Industry Performance for Travel and Toursim. Department ofTourism. Retrieved from http://www.tourism.gov.ph/pages/industryperformance.aspx
__________________. Philippines: Rules and Reguations on Trademarks, ServiceMarks, Tradenames and Markedor Stamped Containers. Retreived from http://www.jpo.go.jp/ shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/philippines_e/e_syouhyou.pdf