EXPLORING THE LANGUAGE CHOICE OF THE NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS IN JAKARTA

This article focuses on non-commercial signs in the linguistic landscape of Jakarta. Five main streets within or nearby the centroid of Jakarta are selected. The prevalence of English and the use of English words in the non-commercial signs are examined. The data cover 47 non-commercial signs which are investigated from the perspective of place semiotics. Despite their small number, this category of sign, mainly those that belong to the Regulatory discourse, holds a legal power. The presence of the non-commercial signs signifies the power of the state and communicates vertical and horizontal relationships between the authority and the audience. The findings suggest that the Infrastructural discourse is mostly available and Indonesian is the dominant language. English is present to a certain extent, particularly with regard to content related to technology and English prestigious status. Semantically, few English words had meaning extension when used in Indonesian context. The language choice of the non-commercial signs indicates the exclusiveness of Jakarta linguistic landscape.

The notion linguistic landscape (hereafter referred to as LL) concerns languages that are displayed within a specific area (Landry & Bourhis, 1997), namely inside a city (Gorter, 2006).Reading public signs in LL is challenging as LL reflects historical, political, economic, geographical, and social relationships between the audience and the sign authors (Huebner, 2016).In line with the growing amount of research in LL, the definition has been reformulated in accordance with the approach taken by the researchers and the findings they presented.LL includes not only language (Koskinen, 2012), but objects that symbolize people's belief, culture, and action (Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Amara, & Trumper-Hecht, 2006).In other words, the placement of language in public areas is connected to the social and tangible setting nearby (Scollon & Scollon, 2003).More than that, LL is seen as particular descriptions of one place that are derived from the audience's interpretation of the written signs which in themselves reflect complex relationship between meanings and places (Stroud & Jegels, 2013) LL may also refer to the "manifestation of political and economic interests through the use of languages" (da Silva, 2016, p. 229), which implies that LL is dependent on the political and economic decisions made by the sign authors.
Discussion about LL encompasses the sign authors as well.The authorship of the signs in LL has been categorized into two: the government and the private parties (Landry & Bourhis, 1997).The former is called the top-down and the latter the bottom-up signs (Ben-Rafael, et al., 2006).The top-down signs are also known as the official signs, while the bottom-up the non-official signs.The difference between the two lies in these two aspects: variety of signs and language presentation.Topdown signs commonly include names of streets, writing on buildings and facilities that belong to the governments, banners or posters within the government offices, road signs, writing in public facilities such as hospitals, train stations, schools, campuses, parks, and many more, whereas bottomup signs cover commercial banners, posters, billboard advertisements, mobile advertisements on vehicles, and balloons that are created or owned by private parties.With reference to the language presentation, the top-down signs are likely to present a limited number of languages, i.e. the national language and other languages that are officially recognized by the government, while the bottom-up signs may display other languages in addition to the official language(s) (Backhaus, 2006).
The categories of sign authorship are useful when the division between the official and nonofficial is clear and strict.Yet, there can be cases in which the official party (the government) assigns a private party to run a public facility, as what happens in Jakarta, the capital city of the Republic of Indonesia.For example, PT.Transportasi Jakarta or Transjakarta is an enterprise owned by Jakarta Provincial Government.The company is assigned to manage the bus rapid transit, which is publicly known as 'busway' (PT.Transportasi Jakarta, 2016).Hence, to categorize whether the signs of Transjakarta belong to the government or the private doi: dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8355parties can be quite complicated.Therefore, the category of commercial and non-commercial signs was selected in the present study (da Silva, 2016).Scollon and Scollon (2003) incorporated the government and the private signs (as well as the social actors, the interaction between the actors, the visual and the place semiotics) into the study of the meaning of language in this physical world, hence Geosemiotics.In Geosemiotics, the government signs create a discourse, and it is classified into Regulatory and Infrastructural discourse.Other signs are categorized into commercial and transgressive discourses.The Regulatory discourse includes signs that have legal consequences, such as traffic lights, speed signs, pedestrian traffic, and public notices.The Infrastructural discourse contains signs that are related to the infrastructure such as "water, power, and gas" (Scollon & Scollon, 2003, p. 185).Commercial discourse is connected to business, and Transgressive discourse covers graffiti and other signs not included in the previous three discourses.
Previous research on LL found that English was not the most preferable language for noncommercial signs.It was the local or national language that became the identity of the top-down signs in several cities, such as Israel, Tokyo and Timor Leste (Ben-Rafael, et al., 2006;Backhaus, 2006;Macalister, 2012).Specifically, Hebrew was dominant on the top-down signs in different localities.In Jewish locality, signs containing only Hebrew were dominant; in Israeli-Palestinian locality, signs displaying Hebrew and Arabic were mostly found; and in East Jerusalem signs that consisted of Hebrew, Arabic, and English were most frequent (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006).Similarly, most non-official signs (both the monolingual and multilingual) in Tokyo used Japanese (Backhaus, 2006).However, English was frequent within the multilingual official signs.Official signs in Tokyo could thus be characterized by the occurrence of translations from Japanese into one or more than one language, indicating that the expected audience of the signs were not merely Japanese speakers, but also speakers of other languages, such as foreign business people and visitors.Likewise, Portuguese, not English, was the most preferable language for official signs in Timor Leste (Macalister, 2012).
Despite the predominance of national language on top-down signs, LL still provides an evidence of bilingualism or multilingualism of a city (Dixson, 2015;Huebner, 2016).Based on the languages that are present in LL, Backhaus (2006) categorized the multilingual signs into homophonic (signs that are written in one language with its translation), monophonic (signs that are written in one language only), and polyphonic (signs that utilize more than two languages).Drawing on Backhaus (2006), da Silva (2016) categorized the commercial signs in Jakarta LL into three: (1) monolingual, i.e. signs that consisted of English only, (2) bilingual, i.e. signs that displayed Indonesian-English translation, or vice versa, and (3) bilingualized, i.e. signs that contained English borrowing, code-mixing, codeswitching, and English idiosyncrasies.
The use of English in non-English speaking countries may result in typical English used in one place.Ooi (2001) proposed a Concentric Model of English words used in Singaporean context.Based on Ooi's proposal, da Silva (2016, pp. 225-226) suggested a "Constellation of English words in the Jakarta LL" that illustrates the English words borrowed in public signs in Jakarta (vide Figure 1).Group 1 was for the English words whose spoken and written forms were retained and consisted of four sub-groups: 1A (for operational English words such as .com,.ac.), 1B (for technical words such as notebook, steam), 1C (for prestigious words, such as t-shirt, e-mail), and 1D (for words that did not have their Indonesian equivalence, e.g.varsity, brownie).Group 2 was for the adapted English words (the spoken form) and was divided into three sub-groups: 2A (for words related to the internet, e.g.www), 2B (for words related to technology, e.g.handphone, ATM), and 2C (for prestigious words, e.g.WC, service).Group 3 was for adjusted English words whose meaning is extended.Group 4 was for the modified English words (the written and spoken forms) and was classified into two sub-groups: 4A (for words about technology, e.g.HP, AC, refill) and 4B (for words that did not exist in Indonesian vocabulary, e.g.cornet) Figure 1.Constellation of English words in Jakarta LL Earlier studies have shown the homogeneity and heterogeneity of languages used in LL (Backhaus, 2006;Cenoz & Gorter, 2006).The dominance of powerful group was also represented in the dominance of its language in public signs through the language policy (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006).The extended diglossia (English being more prestigious than the local languages) was also evident in the LL of some areas; for instance, in Israeli and Portuguese LLs (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006;Torkington, 2009).Nevertheless, the discourse of non-commercial signs and the use of English on the non-commercial signs in Jakarta have not been explored deeply.In most of the earlier studies, the public signs collected were inclusive, i.e. all the signs present in the research areas.Furthermore, the idea of using centroid to gather data has never been introduced.Drawing from Scollon and Scollon's (2003) study, the present study investigates the presence of the non-commercial signs and seeks answer to these questions: (1) what does the language choice of the non-commercial signs in Jakarta convey?( 2) to what degree is the prevalence of English in the non-commercial signs of Jakarta? and (3) why are English words used in the noncommercial signs?Public signs are composed of language, symbols, colours, pictures, or all of the previously mentioned elements.Nevertheless, the focus of the present study is the written words of the non-commercial signs and its objective is to describe the use of languages in non-commercial discourse.The following sections discuss how data were collected and analysed.Suggestions for further study can be read in the concluding remarks.

METHOD
The source of data for the present study was all noncommercial signs collected in commercial areas on or near the centroid of each administrative town in Jakarta.A centroid is the central point of an irregularly shaped area (Mulyana, 2014).A qualitative approach was selected in order to get a deep understanding of a phenomenon (Creswell, 2013).A sign in this study refers to texts that are placed in the landscape of a city (Gorter, 2006).LL refers to the collection of texts in public signs (Gorter, 2006).
The data collection process included: (1) determining a research area, i.e. main streets of the city that are commercial (Taylor-Leech, 2012) and located in or near the central point of an administrative town (da Silva, 2016); (2) photographing all signs within the area (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006), i.e. signs that are placed on the streets or on the outer part of buildings, not inside the buildings (Backhaus, 2006;Edelman, 2010;Manan, David, Dumanig, & Naqeebullah, 2015); (3) selecting only the non-commercial signs to be the research data, and (4) analysing the language displayed on the signs.
The authorship of a sign was based on the establishment; i.e. more than one sign was considered to be one single sign when it belonged to one establishment (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006).Illegible signs were excluded from the data collection.The present study used words as the unit of analysis (Backhaus, 2006).Pictures, colours, numbers, international measurements, international symbols, mobile signs, graffiti, and proper names were not included in the research data.Repeated signs that belong to the same establishment were also excluded (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006).The decision of not including the symbols, pictures, and proper names may not reflect the uniqueness of the noncommercial signs collected.Moreover, as the research areas covered only five centroids in Jakarta, the result may not be generalized.
In all of the research areas, only a few noncommercial signs were present (47 signs) in comparison to the commercial signs (324 signs).In Prapatan and Halim Perdanakusuma Roads there were only nine signs, respectively.Fewer signs in Baru Ancol Selatan Road (n=8) were collected and much fewer in Kembangan Baru (n=3).Antasari Road had the highest number of non-commercial signs (n=18).
The present study used the following theories to solve the research problems.To answer the first research question about the meaning of language choice, Scollon and Scollon's (2003) typology of discourse in Geosemiotics, particularly the place semiotics, Backhaus', Ben-Rafael et al.'s, and Macalister's findings on the dominance of local language in LL were adopted.To answer the second research question about the degree of English prevalence in LL, a typology of commercial signs that used English by da Silva (2016) was adopted.The non-commercial signs using English in the current study were also categorized into five, i.e. (1) signs that used only English words, (2) signs that used more English than Indonesian words, (3) signs that used half English and half Indonesian words, (4) signs that used fewer English than Indonesian words, and (5) signs that did not use any English words at all.To answer the third research question about the reason of using the English words in LL, da Silva's (2016) Constellation of English words in public signs was adopted.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section starts with the results and discussion of the question about the typology of discourse of the non-commercial signs.The description of language usage is the primary focus.Not all of the authors were clearly identified in the signs.Some of the identified signs include the official organizations, such as the Jakarta Provincial Government, the Indonesian Federal Bank, the Indonesian Navy office, the Fire Department, the Indonesian Ministry of Finance, the Indonesian Ministry of Education, the District Court of North Jakarta, the Precinct Police of Tanjung Priok, and the Road Traffic and Transportation Service.Other authors were mass and Islamic organizations.Note that the main point is not the authorship, but the establishment.The discourse of the signs in all of the research areas was mostly Infrastructural (vide Table 1).In Prapatan, 89% of the signs were Infrastructural.The percentage was decreasing in Baru Ancol Selatan (75%), Halim Perdanakusuma, Antasari, and Kembangan Baru (67%, respectively).With regard to the language choice of the noncommercial signs, the findings indicate several factors.First, language is used for political reason.The use of Indonesian language is encouraged throughout the country.The Indonesian language is the primary language that must appear in public areas.The predominance of signs using only Indonesian language is consistent to the Law Number 24 Year 2009 and the Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 40 Year 2007 about the mandatory use of Indonesian language in public signs.The regulations stipulate that all public signs are written in Indonesian language.Specifically, in article #36, it is noted that the mandatory language for names of buildings, streets, apartments, residences, offices, business centres, schools, and organizations that belong to the Indonesian citizens or legal organizations is Indonesian.The use of languages other than Indonesian, such as foreign and local languages, is allowed under several conditions, i.e. the foreign words were related to historical, cultural, traditional, and/or religious values.Meanwhile, article #38 stipulates that Indonesian must be used for public signs, street directories, public facilities, banners, and other signs that are related to the public service.Local or foreign language may be used in addition to the Indonesian language.
Second, the language that is used on noncommercial signs is a means of communicating the authority's power.Note that the signs that belong to Regulatory, for instance, a stop sign, speed sign, and traffic lights are part of the law enforcement (vide Figure 2).Those signs are rigid and symbolize a top-down communication between the authority and audience.They are part of the authority's policy to ensure that the citizens obey the law.Thus, the authority is entitled to give penalties or sanctions to those breaking or ignoring the signs (Scollon & Scollon, 2003).The homogeneity is reflected in the Regulatory discourse; the author of the Regulatory signs tends to be homogeneous, i.e. the Road Traffic and Transportation Service.The service is responsible to the Ministry of Transportation.The authority of creating and placing the Regulatory signs is stipulated in the Regulation of the Ministry of Transportation No. 34 Year 2014 regarding Road Signs.In that regard, the content of the Regulatory signs also is likely to be uniform.Such homogeneity is not always presented by the signs of Infrastructural discourse, which is illustrated in Figure 3.As the name bears, the Infrastructural discourse consists of signs that index to the infrastructure provided by the authority to the citizens (Scollon & Scollon, 2003), such as a hydrant, dustbin, an exhaust emission checkpoint, and an absorbing well.The Infrastructural discourse is more fluid and may bear multiple meanings (Boogaart II, 2001).The Infrastructural discourse tends to reveal both the vertical communication from the authority to the audience and the horizontal communication between the authorities and the audience.Take the as airports or train stations, will show a contrary fact.The exclusiveness of the non-commercial signs may be similar to that of Timor Leste LL.
Despite the dominant use of Indonesian on the non-commercial signs in Jakarta LL, the use of English is unavoidable for few non-commercial signs.There can be several contributing factors behind the use of English in the non-commercial signs in Jakarta LL.First, the use of English may indicate efficiency.Texts in public signs are generally short, clear, and distinctive, as they require a very short time for the readers to read them (Gorter, 2006).Several words in English, for example, busway and separator are considered to be more efficient than the possible Indonesian versions jalur bus and pemisah jalur bus, respectively (vide Figure 4).Curiously, there are two meaning extensions.The first is with the noun busway (see Figure 4).While busway is defined as "a road or section of a road that can only be used by buses, especially the one with special tracks for guiding the buses" (Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, 2016), the above sign suggests that the meaning of busway has been extended into not only road but also the bus itself.The combination kecuali busway which is equal to except busway is the evidence.
The second extension happens to the noun separator which is defined as "a machine for separating things" (Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, 2016).In Jakarta LL, the meaning of separator is extended into a brick construction that separates the busway from the main road.Interestingly, the English noun separator is combined with the noun busway, in which the original meaning of busway is retained.Furthermore, there is an Indonesian acronym HP (typically used in Indonesian context) that is derived from the English handphone.The item HP seems to be preferable because it is more efficient than the Indonesian version ponsel, which is a shortened form of telepon selular (cellular phone) or the English version handphone.The words HP, separator, and busway have been commonly used, but they have not been included in the Comprehensive Dictionary of Indonesian Language.Referring to Da Silva's (2016) Constellation, the items busway and separator may belong to Group 3, while HP belongs to Group 4A.The study would like to propose that the lexical item HP can be an Indonesian word because it has been pronounced /hape/ and not /eɪtʃ piː/.
Second, the absence of several English words such as www, .go,.com,fax, web, GPS, and hydrant creates a semantic gap between English and Indonesian.Consequently, the use of English becomes unavoidable.The first three words above are operational, i.e. those words are needed to open a website address.They indicate the internet communication system, the research of which started in the US in the 1960s, a period of which English started its role as the internet lingua franca.The fact that all of the abovementioned words are related to technology indicates the privilege of English in relation to the Industrial Revolution (Crystal, 2003).Drawing from Da Silva's (2016) Constellation, the words com, .go,and web belong to Group 1A and the words GPS and hydrant belong to Group 1B.
Third, the prestige with the English words may be accounted for the use of English.Take the English words online and learning center, for example.The Indonesian versions for those words are available, i.e. dalam jaringan which was shortened into the acronym daring for online and pusat pendidikan dan latihan which was shortened into pusdiklat for learning center.That the English versions are still used is probably due to the prestige of English as in the use of English in French advertising (Martin, 2006).Finally, the use of the English airport instead of its Indonesian equivalent bandar udara or bandara can be related to the status of English as a language for international travel (Crystal, 2003).

CONCLUSION
In this study, I have highlighted what lies behind the language choice of non-commercial signs, the low prevalence of English, and the reason of using English words on the non-commercial signs.The analysis is limited into merely Place Semiotics.In the five research areas, both Regulatory and Infrastructural Discourses are present.Signs that belong to the Infrastructural Discourse are greater in number than those of the Regulatory Discourse.The English language is not prevalent.The Indonesian language is dominant.The choice of using English words may be related to the role of

Table 1 .
Type of discourse in the five research areas Torkington, K. (2009).Exploring the linguistic landscape: The case of the 'Golden Triangle' in the Algarve, Portugal.Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistic and Language Teaching.III, 122-144.Lancaster: Lancaster University Postgraduate.The article is based on an unpublished dissertation entitled "On English Prevalence and Characteristics: A Case Study of Linguistic Landscape Along the Main Streets of Five Administrative Towns in Jakarta" i