Tracing linguistic changes on shop signs in Malaysia: a diachronic examination of George Town, Penang

• Authors: Ben Said Selim , Wai See Ong Teresa

Title variants

PL

Badanie zmian językowych na szyldach sklepów w Malezji: studium diachroniczne w George Town w stanie Penang

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

According to Pavlenko (2010), linguistic landscape (LL ) studies cannot be fully understood without considering the past. Consistent with this idea is conceptualising LL research as a diachronic process. In this study, we explore the LL of George Town (UNESCO World Heritage Site), Penang in Malaysia, which is filled with evidence of historical changes from the past until its current state. A unique characteristic of George Town is its blend of different languages, which are displayed on shop signs and can be traced back to the late 18th century. To understand the social and historical changes that have taken place in George Town, data was gathered from several resources, including personal narratives by shop owners and historical artefacts such as postcards, books, and brochures obtained from the heritage centre. A geosemiotic approach is adopted to categorise, analyse, and interpret the subsequent collection of shop signs. In terms of the materiality of signs and their linguistic content, the findings reveal that old shop signs from the British colonial period were engraved on wooden boards and mostly written in Chinese or English. After Malaysia gained independence, metal signboards and non-standard Malay were used. In 1975, several Malay terms were changed, and shop owners started using Modern Standard Malay on signs. Currently, shop signs are more multi-modal, colourful, and most likely made of polycarbonate. More recent signs also light up at night. Through a diachronic examination of the LL , we reflect on how phenomena such as globalisation and technological innovation are having an impact on the nature of George Town’s shop signs, and the materiality of these signs.

PL

Według Pavlenki (2010) badania krajobrazu językowego (KJ ) nie mogą być w pełni zrozumiałe bez znajomości przeszłości. Rozwinięciem tej idei jest traktowanie badań KJ jako procesu diachronicznego. W artykule analizujemy KJ George Town (obiekt z Listy Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO ) w stanie Penang w Malezji, gdzie istnieje wiele świadectw dokumentujących zmiany zachodzące w czasie. Za wyjątkową cechę George Town należy uznać mieszankę języków pojawiającą się na szyldach sklepów, wśród nich znajdują się egzemplarze pochodzące jeszcze z końca XVIII wieku. W celu zrozumienia zmian społecznych i historycznych, jakie zachodziły w George Town, zebrano dane z wielu źródeł, były to m.in. opowieści właścicieli sklepów, informacje z obiektów historycznych (np. kartek pocztowych i książek) i broszury dostępne w centrum historycznym. Do analizy, kategoryzowania i interpretowania szyldów zastosowano podejście geosemiotyczne. Z badań szyldów i ich treści wynika, że stare szyldy z okresu brytyjskiej kolonizacji były wykonane z drewna a napisy były w większości pisane po chińsku i angielsku. Po uzyskaniu niepodległości przez Malezję zaczęto używać metalu i niestandardowej odmiany języka malajskiego. W roku 1975 zmieniono kilka malajskich zwrotów i właściciele sklepów zaczęli używać standardowego malajskiego. Współczesne szyldy są kolorowe, multimodalne i w większości z tworzyw sztucznych. Najnowocześniejsze z nich także świecą w nocy. Diachroniczne badanie KJ skłania autorów do refleksji, w jaki sposób globalizacja i postęp technologiczny wpływają na treść i wygląd szyldów sklepowych w George Town.

Keywords

EN

Linguistic landscape; George Town; history; geosemiotics; materiality

PL

krajobraz językowy; George Town; historia; geosemiotyka; materialność

• Publisher: Instytut Języka Polskiego Polskiej Akademii Nauk
• Journal: Socjolingwistyka
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 33
• Pages: 209-230

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Ben Said Selim

• National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan

author

Wai See Ong Teresa

• Griffith University, Australia

References

• Abas S. 2019: Cosmopolitan in ethnic foodscapes: A geosemiotic, social literacies view of restaurants in Bloomington, Indiana, Linguistic Landscape 5(1), 52–79.
• Anuarudin A.A.S., Chan S.H., Abdullah A.N. 2013: Exploring multilingual practices in billboard advertisements in a linguistic landscape, Pertanika Journal Social Sciences and Humanities 21(2), 783–796.
• Any Way in a W ay. 2017: Traditional Signboard Engraver in Penang, <https://anywayinaway.com/traditional-signboard-engraver-penang/> [25.03.2019].
• Asmah H.O. 1997: AD iscussion of the path taken by English towards becoming a Malaysian language, [in:] Halimah M.S., Ng K.S. (eds.), English is an Asian language: The Malaysian context, Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Bahasa Modern Malaysia and the Macquarie Library, 12–21.
• Backhaus P. 2005: Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo: A diachronic look at the linguistic landscape, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175/176, 1–20.
• Backhaus P. 2007: Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Ben Said S., Ong T.W.S. (2019): Creative language forms on signboards in Singapore and Malaysia, Interface: Journal of European Languages and Literatures. Special Issue on Visual Discourse and its Circulation between Europe and Asia 9, 1–28.
• Blommaert J. 2010: The sociolinguistics of globalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Blommaert J., Maly I. 2014: Ethnographic linguistic landscape analysis and social change: A case study, Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, Paper 100.
• Coluzzi P. 2015: The languages of places of worship in the Kuala Lumpur area: A study on the ‘religious’ linguistic landscape in Malaysia, Linguistic Landscape 1(3), 243–267.
• Coluzzi P. 2017: Italian in the Linguistic Landscape of Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), International Journal of Multilingualism 14(2), 109–123.
• Department of Statistics 2018: Population quick info, <http://pqi.stats.gov.my/searchBI .php?kod-Data=> [25.03.2019].
• Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka 2019: Tatacara pengesahan bahasa kebangsaan dalam iklan (Verification Procedures of National Language in Advertising), <http://eseminar.dbp.gov.my/dokumen/tatacara1.pdf> [25.03.2019].
• Fei W.F., Siong L.K., Kim L.S., Yaacob A. 2012: English use as an identity marker among Malaysian undergraduates, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 18(1), 145–155.
• Foucault M. 1967: Of other spaces, <http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/foucault1.pdf> [25.03.2019].
• George Town World Heritage Incorporated 2012: Intangible cultural heritage: Twenty practitioners.
• George Town World Heritage Incorporated 2014: Traditional trades and occupations in George Town World Heritage Site (by streets).
• Ghee Hiang Manufacturing Co. Sdn. Bhd. 2009: Ghee Hiang: A heritage over 155 Years, <http://www.ghee-hiang.com/> [25.03.2019].
• Gorter D. 2009: The linguistic landscape in Rome: Aspects of multilingualism and diversity, [in:] Bracalenti R., Gorter D., Ferrer C.I.S., Valente C. (eds.), Roma multietnica [I Cambiamenti nel Panorama Linguistico / Changes in the linguistic landscape], Rome: Edup SRL (bilingual Italian and English edition), 15–55.
• Gorter D., Cenoz J. 2008: Knowledge about language and linguistic landscape, [in:] Hornberger N.H. (ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and education, New York: Springer, 2090–2102.
• Huang Q. 2011: A study on the metaphor of ‘red’ in Chinese culture, American International Journal of Contemporary Research 1(3), 99–102.
• Huebner T. 2006: Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environment print, codemixing and language change, [in:] Gorter D. (ed.), Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 31–51.
• Huebner T., Phoocharoensil S. 2017: Monument as semiotic landscape: The contested historiography of a national tragedy, Linguistic Landscape 3(2), 101–121.
• Kingsley B. 2012: World Englishes and linguistic landscapes, World Englishes 31(1), 30–33.
• Landry R., Bourhis R.Y. 1997: Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16, 23–49.
• Leeman J., Modan G. 2009: Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualised approach to linguistic landscape, Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3), 332–362.
• Lock G. 2003: Being international, local and Chinese: Advertisements on the Hong Kong mass transit railway, Visual Communication 2, 195–214.
• Lou J. 2007: Revitalising Chinatown into a heterotopia: A geosemiotic analysis of shop signs in Washington, D.C.’s Chinatown, Space and Culture 10, 170–194.
• Malinowski D. 2015: Opening spaces of learning in the linguistic landscape, Linguistic Landscape 1(1/2), 95–113.
• Manan S.A., David M.K., Dumaning F.P., Naqeebullah K. 2015: Politics, economic and identity: Mapping the linguistic landscape of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, International Journal of Multilingualism 12(1), 31–50.
• Papen U. 2012: Commercial discourses, gentrification and citizens’ protest: The linguistic landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin, Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(1), 56–80.
• Pavlenko A. 2010: Linguistic landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: A diachronic study, [in:] Shohamy E., Ben-Rafael E., Barni M. (eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 133–153.
• Penang Happenings 2017: Traditional Signboard Making a Decline Trend, <https://penanghappenings.com/2017/09/06/traditional-signboard-making-a-decline-trend/> [25.03.2019].
• Rubdy R., Tan P. (eds.) 2008: Language as commodity: Global structures, local marketplaces, London: Continuum.
• Scollon R., Scollon S. 2003: Discourses in place: Language in the material world, London: Routledge.
• Spolsky B., Cooper R.L. 1991: The languages of Jerusalem, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Supramani S., Wang X.M., Koh Y.C., Riget P.N. 2013: Will Tamil be endangered in Malaysia? A linguistic landscape perspective, [in:] Ganesan M. (ed.), Language endangerment in South Asia 1, Annamalainagar: Annamalai University, 431–444.
• Tye T. 2019: Yin Oi Tong Medical Hall, <https://www.penang-traveltips.com/yin-oi-tong.htm> [25.03.2019].
• Wang X.M. 2017: Family language policy by Hakkas in Balik Pulau, Penang, International Journal of the Sociology of Language: Special Issue on Language Planning and Multilingual Malaysia 224, 87–118.
• Wang X.M., Koh Y.C., Riget P.N., Shoniah S. 2016: From monolingualism to multilingualism: The linguistic landscape in Kuala Lumpur’s Chinatown, [in:] Li W. (ed.), Multilingualism in the Chinese diaspora worldwide, London: Routledge, 177–195.
• Wang X.M, Riget P.N., Supramani S., Koh Y.C. 2017: Constructing identities through linguistic landscape: A comparison between Chinatown and Little India in Kuala Lumpur, [in:] Omar A.H., Norahim N. (eds.), Linguistic minorities: Their existence in larger communities, Kuching: UNI MAS Press, 159–186.
• Wong C.W., Friends G. 2014: Penang’s history, my story, Selangor: Star Publications.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17651/SOCJOLING.33.13