Localizing KFC

           This essay is an analysis of a public sign/logo of a private business establishment. The essay has three objectives: 1) describe briefly the profile of the business establishment; 2) describe its sign/logo; and 3) show how the sign reflects local realities. Ultimately, I argue that even as the local business establishment uses the ‘global’ to its advantage, it still is able to assert its local identity by using the language of the local community in its sign.

The data are composed of the sign itself and interviews with the two service crew members of the establishment (on behalf of the unavailable owner) and with seven random customers (male and female, ranging from 18 to 45 years old).

Business first . . .

            The Kanto Fried Chicken is estimated to belong under Small & Medium Enterprise (SME). It sells fried chicken in different cuts (whole, drumstick, thigh, chicken skin) for a range of prices. Within just a year, it already has 15 branches scattered in 13 barangays and 2 villages. The specific branch discussed here is on Chorillo St., Barangay Barangka, Marikina City near my boarding house.  

I saw the sign. . .  

            The sign may be described in terms of its semiotic resources, its purposes, and its target audience. The following description will be used in the analysis later on.

The semiotic resources utilized by the sign are languages and pictures. The English language and the Filipino language are both used in the sign. The words “The Original” and “Fried Chicken” are in English while Kanto (which means street corner) is originally a Spanish word (Spanish being the language of the Philippines’ colonizers) but was eventually accepted as an everyday Filipino word. On the left side of the sign is a face surrounded by the words “Arnoco’s Pritos”; the first word is the family name of the owner while the second is the Filipino word for fried. The crew identifies the face as a caricature of Mr. Arnoco.

            The sign has two purposes. The first is to bear the identity of the establishment. Any business establishment is incomplete unless it has a name. Usually, its name is bannered on a public sign, a logo. This sign becomes the identity of the establishment before the public eye as it will be the first thing to be noticed by the public and the name that people associate the business with as a whole. It may be a reflection of the business’s values and products/services. The second purpose is to call attention. The mere presence of a sign already means that something should be noticed. Thus, it becomes an important stimulus for the people to notice the establishment and what it offers.

            The target audience is the customers, especially the potential customers. Specifically, it both targets the people who belong to low-income bracket (the immediate local community) and middle class as revealed in the range of their prices (P 10 – P 150) and the communities they are operating in. The crew also confirm that their customers range from bystanders to professionals who drive cars.  

The ‘local’ realities

            The terms ‘local’ and ‘global’ will not be used entirely in Canagarajah’s sensibility (2005) since these pre-existing constructs do not account for the ‘local’ and ‘global’ in economic business terms. For my purposes, the ‘local’ will be operationally defined as business establishments operating only in the local community while the ‘global’ refers to foreign business establishments which operate in different countries and have attained international prestige such as Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and McDonald’s; however, I am aware that specific nuances need to be done with these operational definitions which space does not allow. Here, I argue that the global business establishment’s identity is used by a local business establishment to its advantage yet the local still asserts its identity through local language use. The notion of visual grammar in the spatial organization of texts will be used in the analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen as cited in Taylor-Leech, 2011).  

             The local uses the global’s identity to its own advantage. In this context, this means that the given local establishment purposefully uses the prestige of KFC (the international one) to gain attention. The sign itself commands the reading public to associate it with KFC. The three capital letters K F C are placed in the center of the sign, in bold and the biggest characters in the sign. Given their placement, order, and size in the sign, these three letters may be the ‘new or more important information’ (Kress and van Leeuwen as cited in Taylor-Leech, 2011: 16). Also, on the left side of the sign is a male figure which was identified by the crew as their “kuya”, the owner Mr. Arnoco. This figure in the sign is an imitation of the KFC logo in two levels: a) putting Mr. Arnoco’s figure is similar with putting KFC founder Colonel Harland Sanders’ figure on KFC logo and; b) the placement of both figures are on the left side. Overall, what these suggest is that the given sign is constructed purposefully so people readily associate it with the prestigious KFC and get enticed to buy its products.

            This notion is called “Perceived Brand Foreignness”, a marketing communication strategy “which involves a set of functional and imagery associations with non-local appeals [foreign culture appeals] of the product” employed by the local brands (Keller, Maheswaran, Papadopoulos as cited in Zhou et al., 2009: 3). It is believed that it adds “to brand value as perceived by consumers” (Shocker at al.; Pappu et al. in Zhou et al., 2009: 3) and is more pervasive in developing countries (Batra et al. in Zhou, 2009). Again in this context through the local business establishment’s name written on the public sign, it aims to increase the brand value of their local fried chicken by making people associate their product with the global prestige of KFC.  

Although the argument above is not be supported by the owner’s views due to his absence at the time of my visit, the customers got the same impression as I did. Furthermore, they also find it effective. One said that “Noong una kung nakita ‘yun, KFC na agad ang naisip ko.(The first time I saw it, I immediately thought of KFC).” The same respondent said that “Madali siyang mapansin dahil sa three letters na KFC (It is easily noticeable because of the three letters, KFC.)”. Another respondent said that the sign is “cute dahil ginagaya nila ang KFC na ‘branded’, kilala. Eh, ito pang-street lang, gilid-gilid lang” (I find the sign cute because they imitate KFC which is ‘branded’ and known considering that this business establishment is basically 'for the streets').   

            Even as the local business establishment uses KFC’s prestigious global identity, it still is able to assert its own local identity: by using the word “kanto”. As explained earlier, public signs/logos are business establishments’ identities. In this case while the establishment tries to associate itself with the elite KFC, it also projects a local image by using the local language. Why is “kanto” a reflection of the local? Apart from the fact that it is ingrained in the Filipinos’ daily vocabulary, the word has also been used to index something as local. Examples are the phrases, “salitang kanto” (street language), “kwentong kanto” (street stories), and “kainan sa kanto” (small-scale restaurant at the street corner). Using “kanto” in the sign suggests that the language and language practices of the local community index the business establishment as ‘local’, that is, the sign tells the local people that it is for the masses even as it says that it offers world-class fried chicken.   

                             

References

Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Taylor-Leech, K.J. (2012). Language choice as an index of identity: linguistic landscape in Dili, Timor-Leste. International Journal of Multilingualism 9 (1): 15 – 34.

Zhou, Lianxi. (2009). Non-local or local brands? A multi-level investigation into confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications. Journal of Academic Marketing Science 38: 202-218. 

The ABC’s of Being Critical

            In James Tollefson’s article entitled “Critical Theory in Language Policy”(2006) , the role of critical applied linguistics was emphasized in building the tenets of Critical Language Policy (CLP) . Tollefson discussed three assumptions from critical theory which are widely accepted in CLP. I find these three assumptions striking because their relevance extends to my teaching and my future research endeavors.

A. Structural Categories are explanatory factors.   

            Structural categories such as class, race, and gender are explanatory factors in all social life (Tollefson, 2006). This is the notion that language behavior and performance of an individual is a product of his/her social interactions which are influenced by his/her race, gender, and class. Therefore, to investigate and analyze a language policy is to look at its intentions and consequences for individuals and their class, race, and gender. To illustrate, the ‘English-only policy” in a public school classroom may have serious consequences for a poor female student in a patriarchal nationalist society since her social life (1) does not expose her to enough linguistic input due to poverty, (2) constrains her social interaction in English and in her mother tongue as a female, and (3) tells her that English is an affront to nationalism and identity.

This reminds me of the complexity of language policy making in the classroom since a language policy does not only affect the language behavior of my students but also their whole social being in some way or another.    

B. The need for ethical and political considerations in research

            “[A] critical examination of epistemology and research methodology is inseparable from ethical standards and political commitments to social justice (Tollefson, 2006, 44)”. Research has ethical and political dimensions; it is not just a pure academic and scientific endeavor. This requires the researcher to constantly examine himself in relation to his research participants (oftentimes the Others), in relation to the phenomenon/subject matter he is investigating, and in relation to the discourse communities he is dealing with.

            Personally as an aspiring researcher, I am reminded of the great responsibility that a researcher has in society. I need to be conscious of the way I conduct my research to make sure that the voice of "the Others" and of the people affected by my research is well represented. I should always bear in mind that research findings, including research on language policies, do not just stay at the theses/dissertation section of the libraries or the pages of the academic journals; they are consumed by institutions in society in the form of policies which may build or destroy lives.

  

C. Key Ideas from Critical Theory

            Important constructs inform CLP such as power, struggle, colonization, hegemony and ideology, and resistance. I find these concepts valuable in research because they provide frameworks with which to view individuals, groups, and institutions and better understand power relations in society.

            It is also interesting to find out that these constructs are operating even inside the classroom. All classroom practices and policies are political. They are based on certain ideologies and hegemonic ideas which are imposed by powerful institutions and individuals. For example, Auerbach argues that monolingual English-only instruction serves the economic and political interests of the dominant groups in the US and is hurting the interest of the adult ESL students with limited L1 and schooling backgrounds (as cited in Pennycook, 1994). Perhaps this is what critical scholars maintain that the classroom is never innocent and is a cultural site where contrasting ideologies compete and hegemonies are entrenched (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1994).    

References

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching.

           Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, Alastair (1999). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London:     

           Longman.

Tollefson, J.W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In An introduction to language policy: theory    

           and method (pp. 42 – 59). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Graded Blog Assignment 1: Myths about English in the Philippines in the Essays of James Soriano and Mila Aguilar

            In the month of celebrating the Pambansang Wika last year,an essay by Ateneo senior James Soriano was published in The Manila Bulletin (MB) trumpeting the privileged status of  English over the Filipino language in the Philippines from his point of view, a rich English-speaking Filipino student. It got mixed reactions from Filipino netizens which led to MB’s withdrawal of it and to other Filipino writers’ responding to it. One of the responses is the essay by former U.P. professor Mila D. Aguilar in defense of multilingualism and against superiority of English language. The two essays are chosen for analysis based on the importance of the issues presented and the enormous public interest they attracted.

            This post is an analysis of the assumptions about language that are embedded in the two essays. The analysis is guided by Martin’s (2010) book chapter on the myths about English in the Philippines. Overall, she suggests that the combined power of curriculum, western literary canon, and pedagogy during the American colonial period propagated present-day myths about English language. These myths are originally conceptualized by Kachru (cited in Martin, 2010).  

Myth 1: English and Filipino are languages in opposition.

Martin (2010) summarizes this myth as “the [English] language. . . in direct opposition with other Philippine languages, especially the national language” (p. 257). In his article, Soriano highlighted the privileged status of English in the Philippines and took it against the Filipino language, positing that the two operate in mutually exclusive domains. He said that English is the language of learning while Filipino is the language of the streets. The Filipino is language portrayed as ‘the other’ subject which is to be learned for his survival in the outside world.     

In response, Aguilar said that the Filipinos are multilingual and the Filipino language is equally intellectual as it can be used to translate Bible verses and to teach sciences at U.P. Personally, I also think that this dichotomy is false considering that the Filipino was used by Pres. Benigno Aquino III himself in his State of the Nation Address (SONA) last July 25, 2011 and has been used in our literature. Conversely, English is also used in rap songs and pop songs which belong to the streets and are not of formal register.

Myth 2: English is the only language of learning.

            This myth is the assumption that the English language is the only language which provides access to knowledge, especially in Mathematics and science (Martin, 2010). The first sentence of Soriano’s article clearly reflects this myth: “English is the language of learning”. He recalls his childhood experiences in learning his Math, Science, and Religion lessons in English. He went on to say that Filipino is not the language of the learned in the classroom, the boardroom, the courtroom or the operating room.

Aguilar responded in two planks in defense of the Filipino and the mother tongue. First, she said that U.P. professors are actually using Filipino in teaching biology, physics, and chemistry. Second, she implied that the mother tongue is a better medium of instruction by mentioning her father’s Sta. Barbara Experiment proving that the mother tongue results to more efficient learning in Grades 1 and 2.     

At present, the view that English is the only language of learning has been put to question by research and policies. The Department of Education (Dep. Ed.) already issued Dep. Ed. Order No. 74 S. 2009 “Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MLE)” which mandates the use of the mother tongue as medium of instruction (MOI) in the early years of schooling. Even in the higher education, research has been done in proving that 1) using English as MOI does not make mathematics concepts easier to understand (Bernardo as cited in Martin, 2010); 2) code switching has been done by Filipino Science teachers to aid instruction (Martin as cited in Martin, 2010).

Myth 3: English is not a Philippine language.

            Though not one of the myths suggested by Kachru (cited in Martin, 2010), this assumption is evident. This is the view that English is still a possession of the Filipinos’ colonizers and therefore, does not represent the nation's identity. By implication, the mastery of English is a betrayal to the Filipino identity.

            Soriano calls himself “a split-level Filipino” for having English as his mother tongue. He realizes that he “smell[s] than a malansang isda” and “may be disconnected from my [his] being a Filipino” because he chooses English over Filipino. This reveals the mentality that 1) only the Filipino language and other Philippine local languages give identity to Filipinos; and 2) one’s mastery and preference of English is necessarily a detachment from the Filipino identity.      

            Aguilar also fell victim to this. She maintains that she embraces English as a multilingual Filipino and what she is complaining about is the insistence of its superiority in the Philippine scene. However, this is rather contradictory as she still refers to English as “the language of the conquistador” (as her parallel to Spanish in the past). Further, she ended her piece with “Meanwhile, I will use the language of the reconquistador to shout down its proponents.” This suggests that she views English as a tool of the (neo)colonizers and feels that she just have to use English for the sake of  pinning down the agenda of its masters and not to use it out of genuine embracing of English as Philippines’ own.                   

            This mentality is blind to the reality that English is not anymore owned by its native speakers but appropriated by different communities that use it (Widdowson, 1994). In particular, Philippine English is "a ‘variety of English in its own right, associated with a distinct accent, a localized vocabulary, and even a body of creative writing by Philippine writers in English” (Bolton and Bautista, 2009: 9) and is recognized as a distinct variety of Asian English (Bolton, 2011). It is only when we accept English as our own that any “justified” promotion of English in policy-making is not taken against any other Philippine languages.

References

Aguilar, Mila (2011). The Filipino is Multilingual. Retrieved from http://philippinehistory.ph/the -filipino-is- 

            multilingual-in-answer-to-james-soriano/#comments

Bolton, Kingsley. (2011). Introduction: The study of Philippine English: The contribution of corpus linguistics.

            In Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (Ed.), Studies of Philippine English: Exploring the Philippine 

           Component of the International Corpus of English (pp. xi-xiv). Mandaluyong City: Anvil.

Bolton, Kingsley and Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. (2009). Philippine English: Linguistic and literary 

           perspectives. In Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista and Kingsley Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: 

          Linguistic and Literary Perspectives (pp. 1-9). Pasig City: Anvil.

Martin, Isabel. (2010). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the Philippines. In 

          Andy Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 247-264). New York:

          Routledge.

 Soriano, James (2011). Language, learning, identity, privilege. Retrieved from   

          http://mb.com.ph/node/331851/language-learning-identity-privilege

Widdowson, H. G. 1994. ‘The ownership of English’. TESOL Quarterly 28: 377–88.