This study describes the linguistic landscape (LL) of the Manila Central Post Office (MCPO), one of the landmark government offices in the capital of the Philippines. This unconventional choice of locale partially fills the gap in extant LL studies that focus more on streets and neighborhoods. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered to determine the dominant language in signage found in the public-access spaces of the MCPO and the communicative functions of the said signs. Findings show that English is the dominant language of the signs. Using Finocchiaro and Brumft’s (1983) categories of communicative functions, it was found that most English signs serve referential and directive functions. Finally, the interview responses of key personnel of the MCPO reveal important insights into the intersection of language use and function. Implications call for a review of government language policy Executive Order 335.
Keywords: Bilingualism, communicative functions, government language policy, linguistic landscape, Philippines, post officeAmbion, L. (2013). The linguistic landscape of Amadeo: A study of the presence of different languages in the public space. Humanities and Social Review, 2(2), 223-238.
Backhaus, P. (2006). Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 52-66.
Bautista, M.L.S. (2004). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 226-233.
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., 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. Burdick, C. (2012). Mobility and language in place: A linguistic landscape of language commodification. CHESS Student Research Reports 7. Retrieved from http:// scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_student_research/7
Dagenais, D., Moore, D., Sabatier, C., Lamarre, P., & Armand, F. (2009). Linguistic landscape and language awareness. In E. Shohamy, & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 253-269). New York: Routledge.
DeCarlo, M. (1994). Communicative functions of speech in a monolingual kindergarten. (Working Papers in Educational Linguistics No. 1). Pennsylvania: Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania.
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, 2(1), 24-49.
Espiritu, C. (2015). Language policies in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://ncca.gov. ph/subcommissions/subcommission-on-cultural-disseminationscd/language-andtranslation/language-policies-in-the-philippines/
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumft, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Finzel, A.M. (2012). English in the Linguistic Landscape of Hong Kong: A Case Study of Shop Signs and Linguistic Competence (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http:// opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2013/6412 Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 1-6.
Gunigundo, M. (2010). The right to learn in one’s language. In R.M.D. Nolasco, F.A. Datar, & A.M. Azurin (Eds.), Starting where the children are: A collection of essays on mother tongue based multilingual education and language issues in the Philippines (pp. 78-80). Quezon City, Philippines: 170+ Talaytayan MLE.
Haratyan, F. (2011). Halliday’s SFL and social meaning. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 17(1), 260-264.
Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscape: Environmental print, code mixing, and language change. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 31-51.
Kavaliauskienė, G. (2012). Challenges in ESP: Teaching millennials. English for Specific Purposes World, 12(36), 1-10.
Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2012). The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. London: Routledge.
E. Papalexakis, E., Nguyen, D-P., & Doğruöz, A.S. (2014). Predicting code-switching in multilingual communication for immigrant communities. In Proceedings of the frst workshop on computational approaches to code switching (pp. 42-50). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Pietikainen, S. & Kelly-Holmes, H. (2011). The local political economy of languages in a S’ami tourism destination authenticity and mobility in the labeling of souvenirs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(3), 323-346.
Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H.R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
Tedick, D.J. (2002). Proficiency-oriented language instruction and assessment: A curriculum handbook for teachers (Revised edition). CARLA Working Paper Series. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota – The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Universal Postal Union. (2015). Global or regional estimates. Retrieved from http://www. upu.int/en/resources/postal-statistics/query-the-database.html
Yavari, S. (2012). Linguistic Landscape and Language Policies: A Comparative Study of Linkoping University and ETH Zurich (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://urn. kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-86009