School-scape as a linguistic battlefield: an LL study at Darussalam education complex of Gontor, Indonesia

Abstract

The current linguistic landscape study aims to analyze the multilingualism aspects observable in the school-scape of an exemplary institution of Darussalam Islamic Educational Complex of Gontor. A descriptive research project, this study obtained the data from both top-down and bottom-up signs visible in public places within the educational complex; thus, only signs apparent from outside of buildings totaling 148 signs were analyzed. The data analysis shows that there are four languages observable in the vicinity with English and Arabic as the most often employed languages. This situation shows a strong loyalty the institution’s language policy. Although the educational complex is a multilingual community, multilingual signs are the least among the public signs. Most of the signs are monolingual signs of either English or Arabic. The enacted language policy provides bigger rooms for English and Arabic to be visible in the school-scape, which leads to the subsumption of the national language of Bahasa Indonesia and the local language of Javanese. This condition reveals their pragmatic concern to empower the students to be ready for various facets of international life. As such, this study informs the school management about the value of the linguistic diversity and offer insights that potentially guide the development of educational strategies that leverage the linguistic landscape as a source for language learning and cultural enrichment. The findings also inform government policymakers about the importance of linguistic diversity in educational settings.

Keywords:

• Linguistic landscape
• signs
• multilingualism
• language policy
• Pondok Gontor

Reviewing Editor:

• Jeroen van de Weijer, College of International Studies, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

Subjects:

• Bilingualism / ESL
• Education Policy & Politics
• Education - Social Sciences
• Language & Linguistics
• Language Teaching & Learning

Introduction

Recent developments in studies on linguistic landscape (LL) have shown significant ascendency and LL studies have been carried out on different topics, such as patterns of language usage and language policy in Boswana (Akindele, 2011) and Kuala Lumpur (Manan et al., 2014), urban multilingualism in Tokyo LL (Backhaus, 2007) and the main streets of the capital city of Brunei Darussalam (Coluzzi, 2016), multilingualism aspects in Muslim areas of Indonesia (Yendra et al., 2020; Yusuf et al., 2022; Yusuf & Putrie, 2022), various frames of identity in Taipei signs (Curtin, 2015), linguistic competence shown in shop signs of Hong Kong (Finzel, 2012), commercial signs in Phnom Phen (Kasanga, 2012), signs in Hahndorf as a prominent tourist destination (Koschade, 2016), language power in LL of post-conflict Bosnia (Lay, 2015), Arabic LL in Andalusia, Spain (Said & Rohmah, 2018), English imperialism apparent in Singapore LL (Tang, 2018), the iconicity, indexicality and visual grammar of signage in Dili, Timor-Leste (Taylor-Leech, 2012), and commercial Arabic signs in Leipzig (Yusuf et al., 2022).

Along with LL research on various issues that have been conducted in different parts of the world, LL research which has to do with education has also come to the fore. Signs in LL have been utilized as an authentic source of materials to improve the language awareness of students, develop their pragmatic competence, and foster the students’ skills related to literacy (Cenoz & Gorter, 2008). LL has also been used as a means to raise the students’ awareness to improve their views of the differences and diversity of state languages. Hewitt-Bradshaw (2014) observes LL as an educational instrument that relates the students’ lives in schools to the reality of their community and involves the students in real activities in literacy beyond the classroom walls of the school. Barrs (2016) also conducted LL research by involving students at his higher education institution in Japan. Barrs directed the students to collect signs containing English texts, write descriptions of each photo, and bring them to the class. The students’ perceptions were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis. In this study, LL was used as a pedagogical means to get Japanese students involved and analyze English texts they found outside the classroom. This study was conducted not only for the sake of the students’ foreign language learning but also to uncover and explore possible fields of further linguistic research.

In the Indonesian context, a number of LL studies have also been conducted on educational spaces by some researchers, for example, Harbon and Halimi (2019), Auliasari (2019), Firdausiyah (2019), Ulla (2019), Ramlah (2020), Setiawati et al. (2020), Kweldju (2021), and Riani et al. (2021). Most of the abovementioned studies focused on patterns of LL involving the discussion of monolingualism and bilingualism in various public schools, private schools, and universities without relating them with some important points outside of the linguistic issues. There have been only three studies that connected LL studies with important non-linguistic issues. Harbon and Halimi’s (2019) LL study focused on healthy food in LL signs revealing no connection between top-down signs in the schoolyard containing healthy food and nutrition and the texts accompanying them. With regard to bottom-up signs, student’s responses to the signs are not always guided by the message in the healthy food and nutrition signs. While Setiawati et al.’s (2020) study had to do with the issue of preserving natural environment and humans’ survival by analyzing announcement boards containing eco-critical posters in schools in Malang, Kweldju’s (2021) study was focused on micro analysis of LL signs which were used as examples of teaching materials for a morphology class. To respond to this point, the current research tries to relate the analysis of the patterns of the mono-, bi-and multilingualism of the signs with the issues of language policy and language vitality embedded in the school’s public signs.

The previous studies on LL have indicated some yet limited concerns on LL around educational environment (e.g. Firdausiyah, 2019; Yusuf et al., 2022) although lots of moves have been initiated in Indonesia to encourage schools to have language-rich environment (Pondika et al., 2013; Artini, 2017). A question of how far the previous studies have contributed to LL knowledge is still not yet clear. Moreover, the LL research in school settings do not relate with language policy in the school scape as reported by Rohmah et al. (2023). As such, issues around language policy have not been factored in our understanding of multilingualism in educational settings. Therefore, this study addresses this lacuna to add information to the scarce research on LL in the educational spaces by connecting the diversity of languages with the language policy adopted by the school.

The current research is conducted to deal with a school setting. The school setting in the current study is the exemplary Darussalam Islamic Educational Complex of Gontor, Ponorogo (Pondok Modern Darussalam Gontor, often called using its short name, Pondok Gontor or PMDG), located in Ponorogo, East Java, Indonesia, which has been recognized as a unique Islamic educational institution with alumni assuming critical roles in the society (Bukhory, 2011; Wahab, 2014). The current study is set to identify the multilingualism aspects observable in the linguistic landscape of Pondok Gontor, language policy in the educational complex and contestation among languages apparent in the school scape.

There have been ample studies focusing on Pondok Gontor (hereafter, PMDG). The previous studies have spotlighted the leadership aspects (Dacholfany, 2015; Mardiyah, 2012), the education system (Ismail, 2011; Zarkasyi, 2015), the educational thoughts and philosophy (Fitriawan, 2011; Utomo, 2014), and the character education (Fahham, 2013; Makmun, 2014; Mu’minah, 2015; Muhson, 2013; Nuriz & Awang, 2017). Asnawir (2012) further related the aspects of character building and the peaceful thinking of the students at the PMDG. Dakir (2017) also revealed the multicultural perspectives of Imam Zarkasyi as one of the imminent founders of the PMDG. Additionally, Wafi and Saifulloh (2019) focused on moral habituation, and Karnaen et al. (2013) elaborated on the policy of moral education implemented at PMDG.

As noted earlier, despite the relatively big number of studies on PMDG, none has been conducted through the lens of linguistic landscape (LL) study whereas PMDG has been known for its concern around the teaching and daily uses of foreign languages, which makes it reasonable to be a setting of multilingualism. As such, our understanding of PMDG as a site of multilingualism likely showing a sort of linguistic battlefield has not been clearly unraveled; thus far we have not taken pedagogical benefits out of LL studies at PMDG whereas due to its unique existence, we are likely to learn much from LL studies in this setting (c.f., Li & Marshall, 2018; Rowland, 2013).

It is worth noting that the purpose of LL study is to obtain knowledge on societal multilingualism by putting an emphasis on choices and hierarchies of language, contact phenomena, regulations, and aspects of literacy (Gorter, 2009). As such, addressing the scarcity of LL studies on PMDG, a pedagogical institution of acclaimed reputations, has potentials to contribute to the development of LL body of knowledge and language pedagogical development. More specifically, the current research aims to answer the following research questions:

1. How is the diversity of languages portrayed in the LL of PMDG?

2. What are the multilingualism aspects of LL in the PMDG?

3. How is the enactment of the educational institution’s language policy in the LL patterns?

Conceptual underpinnings

To address the research questions, we resort to concepts that have emerged in the area of LL studies which are relevant to the variables raised in the abovementioned research questions. As such, the following briefly outlines concepts around multilingualism, linguistic diversity, language vitality, and the position of language policy within LL. Multilingualism which refers to the ability of individual or community to communicate fluently in more than one language was firstly explicated by, among others, Joshua Fishman, Francois Grosjean, and John Gumperz (Fishman, 1991; García & Wei, 2014; Grosjean, 2010; Wei, 2018). Research on multilingualism has now also been carried out by employing linguistic landscape studies to portray different languages employed in public signs (Backhaus, 2006; Gorter, 2007, 2009; Nuswantara et al., 2021; Rohmah & Wijayanti, 2023; Sakhiyya & Martin-Anatias, 2023; Tang, 2018; Wafa & Wijayanti, 2018). In this regard, Indonesia which is home to roughly 500 and 700 dialects spoken locally is undoubtedly one of the world’s most multilingual countries (Sneddon, 2003) which warrants LL reseatch.

People who live in multilingual communities and speak many languages or dialects exhibit linguistic varieties as well. Globally, multilingualism is a widespread phenomenon that reflects how dynamic language interactions and cross-cultural exchanges are. Linguistic diversity encompasses the multitude of languages spoken by different communities, as well as the diverse dialects, accents, and linguistic features within each language. So, multilingualism manifesting linguistic diversity is a fundamental aspect of human culture and communication, reflecting the complex interactions between language, society, and history (Crystal, 2000 Crystal, McCarty, 2018).

The discussion of linguistic diversity also touches on the issues of language vitality, endangerment, extinction, revitalization, and preservation. Using the theories of ethnolinguistic vitality (Landry & Bourhis, 1997), language economy and power (Cenoz & Gorter, 2008; Gorter, 2012), Said and Rohmah (2018) have reported that Arabic language has shown its vitality against language repression as the result of the enactment of the language policy issued by the Spanish government since the Reconquista in the fifteenth century. Rohmah and Wijayanti (2023) also uncovered that the Indonesian language as the national language has gained more power which presents threat to the existence of Javanese as a local language. This point strengthens the previous research showing that the language policy enacted by the government has brought about a huge effect on the existence of other languages (Crystal, 2000; Fishman, 1991; Sakhiyya & Martin-Anatias, 2023)

On the other hand, acquisition of English language may open many opportunities, such as, improved academic achievement, access to educational and career opportunities, and enhanced social integration (Collier & Thomas, 2004; García & Wei, 2014). Similarly, the significance of acquiring proficiency in the Indonesian language for individuals seeking opportunities in Indonesia or in fields related to Indonesian studies, business, diplomacy, or cultural exchange have been highlighted by scholars, among others, Arka and Sneddon (2013) and Sneddon (2003). They highlighted the role of the Indonesian language in the national identity, communication, and education, as well as its importance in fostering social cohesion and cultural understanding within the Indonesian society.

Methods

As noted earlier, the current research was conducted in the educational compounds of PMDG located in Gontor, a village in Ponorogo District, East Java, Indonesia. As an exemplary Islamic educational institution, it mainly aims to prepare future leaders of Muslim society in Indonesia (Castles, 1966, p. 205). The main focus of education in the institution is to provide their students with various skills including foreign language skills, especially, Arabic and English. The mastery of the main foreign language skills is believed to allow the students to be capable of expanding their knowledge and broadening their scientific horizons once they return to their community. The PMDG has developed its system of language education deemed appropriate and effective to achieve the educational goal, that is, to provide the students with good language skills as well as an adequate understanding of Islamic knowledge.

With regard to language policy in the PMDG, various language activities are integrated in the students’ life system as parts of their daily life. Direct Method is applied in the curricular and extra-curricular activities of the PMDG (Batmang, 2013). In the education complex, all students are residing in internal hostels where their activities are coordinated and regulated easily. In such a life system, the PMDG may provide a rich environment where the target language can be used as a medium of instruction and as a means of communication in daily life. In that milieu, the students have sufficient opportunity to use the foreign language to develop their receptive skills through listening or reading activities and to improve their productive skills, i.e., speaking or writing. The students can immediately use the language for communication in which every vocabulary and structural item is practiced and used in their real and actual contexts (Castles, 1966; Wahab, 2014).

The data collection was conducted through digital capture of signage, ranging from bottom-up and top-down signs available in public area of the PMDG in the forms of street signs, commercial board signs, place signs, announcement boards, and notice signs totaling 148 signs. The signs are those placed outside of the building or inside of the building which are accessible by the public. Excluded from the data were signs placed inside the students’ hostels and classrooms since they are only accessible to the inhabitants. The current study relied on photography and visual analysis of the signage (Akindele, 2011, p. 5).

Since it is an initial LL research in PMDG, this study focused more on the quantitative analysis of the signage similar to that described by Lanza and Woldemariam (2014, p. 497) that most earlier LL studies have been conducted quantitatively. One important aspect of LL studies is determining the unit of analysis—which is often difficult to do. Two alternative ways in deciding a unit of analysis in LL studies are using each sign as one item with semantic entities like information units, messages, or cases, and using physical entities (Backhaus, 2007, p. 61-62). The second one might be more preferred by linguistic landscapers; however, dilemmas might still exist as to whether the front and the backside of a sign should be considered as one or two items or how to deal with impaired signs. In this study, we follow Cenoz and Gorter (2006, p. 7) in considering each data capture as a single unit of analysis. As many as 148 signs were photographed from public spaces in the PMDG. There were actually more signs found in the sites but some had to be sorted out because they were repetitions. Identical data, although placed in different locations, were counted as only one datum.

The captured photographs were identified in terms of the language, scripts, and images apparent in them. They were tabulated according to the number of languages shown in the signs. The signs were then grouped into monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual signs. To ensure the validity of the analysis, the results were then checked by another researcher, and inter-rater consistency was estimated. When the two data analysts have agreed on all the extracted data, they came up to enriched data obtained from the analysis of the signs. An interpretation was then made based on the results of the analysis of the emerging data.

Results and discussion

Diversity of languages in the PMDG area

There are four languages observable in the signs placed in public area of the PMDG: Indonesian, English, Arabic, and Javanese. The following figure illustrates the distribution of the languages in the signs (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The use of languages in the public signs.

The chart shows insightful information. English as a foreign language is the most often apparent language in the signs, followed by another foreign language, that is, Arabic. The usage of Indonesian as the national language is below the amount of the usage of Arabic which is also a foreign language. Although the educational complex is located in Java, the use of Javanese language is the least, far below the use of the three other languages. The appearance of languages in the PMDG LL seems to follow the language policy developed in the educational complex.

As per the policy in the educational setting, English and Arabic are the two languages that must be used in students’ daily communication. After studying for about six months, the students are obliged to converse with each other using Arabic and/or English. The use of Indonesian which is slightly lower than the use of the foreign languages is in line with the fact that the students come from different parts of Indonesia not only from Java where the school is located. Indonesian is allowed to use only by freshmen or the first- semester students who have just studied at the PMDG for not more than six months. Indonesian language may still be used, however, by the students in communication with visitors. In the daily conversation, students are strictly forbidden to use their vernaculars (local languages); otherwise, there could be some misunderstandings or interactional drawbacks because the students come from diverse linguistic, social and cultural backgrounds from all over Indonesia and the neighboring countries, such as, Malaysia and Thailand.

Although some Javanese words are still found on some signs, their existence is insignificant and limited to few slogans, such as “Bondo bahu pikir, lek perlu sak nyawane pisan.” [sacrificing with wealth, physical, and mental strengths, and even with life when necessary]. Those are the exact words produced by Kiai Ahmad Sahal, the oldest brother of the founders, to inculcate students’ seriousness and whole-heartedness in their struggle (Alhamuddin, 2015).

Multilingualism aspects in the PMDG

Figures 2 and 3 display distribution of monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual signs in the PMDG. Figure 2 shows that monolingual signs take the biggest proportion which is more than half of the signs, followed by bilingual signs which are only one third. Multilingual signs constitute the least element which are only 10%.

Figure 2. Multilingualism in PMDG area.

Figure 3. Distribution of monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual signs.

A more specific data reported in Figure 3 provides richer information that the monolingual signs steadily outnumber the other signs except the Street & Direction Signs. This signals the tendency of the inhabitants of the environment to prefer the use of a single language in a single communication.

If we relate this with the information conveyed in Figure 1, we understand that the single language preferred is English, Arabic, and Indonesian. Meanwhile, Javanese is the least preferred one. In line with the principle of foreign language learning, then it is a good practice that the students learn to use foreign languages directly. The students practice understanding messages and expressing their ideas in a single foreign language without translating it from one language to another one.

Although monolingual and bilingual signs take the biggest proportion in the PMDG LL, it does not mean that the educational society where the signs exist are monolingual or bilingual society. The existence of the four different languages in the area has created a multilingual educational community. This is similar to the findings of Nuswantara et al. (2021) where monolingual signs constitute the biggest proportion followed by bilingual signs and multilingual signs in the tomb complex of Sunan Ampel. However, if we look at the details of what languages are the most often observable in the area, the findings of the two studies show different trends—Indonesian in the tomb area and English in the educational complex of PMDG. To discuss the thought-provoking phenomena, the researchers present a more detailed data from each of the monolingual, bilingual and multilingual signs as follows.

Monolingual signs

Figure 4 displays monolingual signs as the biggest proportion in the PMDG LL where foreign languages are the biggest components (English 47% and Arabic 30%). The local languages merely supply the least amount, 23%, which is combination of Indonesian and Javanese. This is different from the monolingual signs found in Rome (Gorter, 2007) and in Spain (Said & Rohmah, 2018) where the language apparent in most of the monolingual signs were the local, official language—Italian in Rome and Spanish in Spain. In the current study the languages apparent in most of the monolingual signs are foreign languages, i.e., English and Arabic.

Figure 4. Monolingual signs in PMDG.

Signs using one working language are observable in many places in the vicinity of PMDG as shown in Figure 5. English is mostly found in information signs, followed by building and office signs, regulatory signs, and commercial signs. Figure 6 shows English-only signs attached to the announcement board, put in front of the kitchen and mounted on the door in one room for students’ organization.

Figure 5. Distribution of monolingual signs in PMDG.

Figure 6. Monolingual signs in English.

Arabic-only signs can also be easily identified in slogans and building or office names. Figure 7 exemplifies monolingual signs using Arabic as a single language in slogans and office names.

Figure 7. Monolingual signs in Arabic.

The use of monolingual foreign language—English or Arabic—is especially intended not only for informative purposes but also for educational purposes. Some of those signs carry information as announcements attached on announcement boards, while others give identities to the rooms or offices where the signs are hanging on. For educational purposes, those signs are intended to create input-rich environment where frequent exposure of the students to the target language is maximized, hence promoting the target language acquisition, as Wafi and Saifulloh (2019) calls it “habituation.” In addition, the two signs at the bottom are signs containing moral messages for students to learn and to integrate within their characters.

Bilingual signs

The application of two languages in individual signs are also visible in the PMDG LL. Figure 8 depicts the phenomena where Javanese-Arabic signs were the least observable signs among the bilingual signs, since Javanese is the least language in the signs, even in the monolingual signs its percentage is only 5%. Its combination with another language makes the occurrence lesser, that is, only 2%. What is crucial to note here is the combination between the two foreign languages constitutes the biggest amount of the bilingual signs. This highlights the data that have been explained in Figure 3 regarding direct foreign language learning applied by the students since the majority of the monolingual signs contain only foreign languages. Again, these bilingual signs show that translation is not encouraged in learning in the PMDG. These can be seen more specifically in Figures 8–10.

Figure 8. Bilingual signs in PMDG.

Figure 9. Distribution of bilingual signs in PMDG.

Figure 10. Arabic and English in bilingual signs.

Figure 8 presents the employment of two languages in individual signs. More detailed information of the signs is presented in Figure 9. Arabic and English appear in the bilingual signs with English in most information signs, regulatory signs and building-office name signs. The combination of Indonesian and English takes the second position apparent in language learning signs, regulatory signs, commercial signs, building and office signs as well as information signs.

Indonesia-Arabic combination of signs is in the third position followed by Javanese-Arabic signs which appear only in slogans.

As mentioned previously, Figure 10 illustrates the use of two languages without any aim of translating one language to the other. In this figure, the English script of, “We serve you the best,” does not translate the Arabic alphabet written next to it. The Arabic script mentions the prayer that should be recited by the students before eating any meal.

The bilingual signs aimed at translating one language to another language are apparent mostly in language learning signs exemplified in Figures 11 and 12. In those signs, the Arabic and English vocabs are introduced to students by mentioning the translation in Indonesian language. In other types of signs, Indonesian-Arabic and Indonesian-English are used together to complete information mentioned in the other language, not as a translation. The first picture in Figure 13 shows Indonesian-Arabic where Arabic language is used to write the sentence, Bismillahirrohmanirrohiim, usually expressed by Muslims to start an activity. This sentence is combined with the Indonesian language explaining the year when the building was constructed by the leaders of the PMDG. Thus, it is not a translation. Different from this, a combination of Indonesian-English in the front of teacher’s bathroom is used as a translation when specifying the kind of a room.

Figure 11. Indonesian and English in bilingual signs.

Figure 12. Indonesian and Arabic in bilingual signs.

Figure 13. Indonesian-Arabic and Indonesian-English in bilingual signs.

Consistent with the previous findings, the use of bilingual signs either in the form of translation or non-translation is also intended for informative as well as educational purposes. When their uses are not translation, the information conveyed by using one language is completed by that of the other. When bilingual translation is used, moreover, it aims at providing input for language learning purposes.

Multilingual signs

Multilingual signs refer to the signage containing three or more different languages. This is to follow Wei (2013) who has defined multilingualism as the “coexistence, contact and interaction of different ­languages” (p. 26). As mentioned in Figure 2, multilingual signs contribute 10% of all signs in the educational complex. All kinds of signs have multilingual signs except building & office signs and commercial signs. Figure 14 demonstrates that almost half of the multilingual signs exist in the slogan signs and the least is in the information signs which is only 6%.

Figure 14. Distribution of multilingual signs.

Figure 15 exhibits two examples of three languages in each sign. All slogans are written in similar letterhead with PMDG symbol in the middle, name of organization written in English put in the left side and name of organization written in Arabic put in the right side. The slogans have the same pattern where the titles are written in English which is translated into Arabic. Each point in the slogans is written in Arabic with Hijaiyah alphabet, English and Indonesian in Latin alphabet but with different types of fonts.

Figure 15. Multilingual signs in slogans.

Hence, multilingualism does exist in the signs in PMDG area. Although the multilingual signs are the least in number, the existence of the individual signs which present different four languages with English, Arabic, and Indonesian as the three most often observable languages in the LL of Pondok Gontor has confirmed the PMDG as a multilingual environment. So, in addition to the oral communication using Arabic and English, the LL of the PDGM strengthens the existence of the educational institution as a multilingual complex. Okal (2014, p. 225) asserts that multilingualism displays both political and linguistic effects. Among the linguistic consequences of multilingualism is the development of a lingua franca, and the emergence of mixed languages within a linguistic community, cross cultural communication strategies and skills.

Some studies have also highlighted the linguistic aspects observable in the area where multilingualism is obvious. Batmang (2013), for example, found that the direct method was used to learn a foreign language at PMDG. Furthermore, he also described the curricular and extra-curricular activities conducted at PMDG as ways to improve students’ foreign language competence. Various data have shown that the English teaching at PMDG has relatively been efficacious in facilitating most of its students’ learning to acquire English. Most of the students at PMDG can use English for daily communication after about one or two years of English learning. For that reason, the system of the teaching of the target languages at PMDG is worth considering to be applied in broader contexts of education. PMDG with its “unique” system of teaching (Castles, 1966, p. 207) stands out in helping the students to be able to have proper pronunciation of the foreign languages. Therefore, the comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the system of the English teaching at PMDG may be greatly beneficial to contribute to a language teaching model that deserves due consideration by educational practitioners in the wider context.

In addition, multilingualism in education setting offers benefits in the forms of appreciation of cultural awareness, cultivation of academic and educational value, creativity enhancement, adjustment in society and appreciation of local as well as foreign languages. Multilingualism practices also boost academic flexibility and innovation. The multilingual establishment as apparent in PMDG may serve as a rich language learning environment (RLLE) described by Pondika et al. (2013) which then may function to provide a variety of resources and choices of literacy materials (Pratiwi et al., 2019). Artini (2017) has also reported that the RLLE has impacted positively in the students’ autonomous learning development. In fact, the language policy promoting multilingualism has been practiced in some African countries, like, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Mozambique and Tanzania, and the practice is apparently becoming a norm (Okal, 2014). Similarly, some other countries used to tend to have monolingual practices have changed into promoting the use of more than one language in schools. The US government launched Bilingual Education Act in 1968 encouraging schools to use languages other than English spoken by students at home to be used at schools. The Canadian government also launched Official Languages Act in 1969 which established English and French as official languages at the federal level across Canada (Okal, 2014, p. 227).

Language policy and the school-scape

Similar to any system in general as “a group of things or parts working together in a regular relation” (Hornby, 1974, p. 877), in a system of language teaching, a range of activities that are complementarily one another are organized to develop the students’ mastery of certain language(s). In such a situation, the students are involved in the target language activities which seem to be fairly effective in the formation of language habits among the students. The language policy adopted by the school administration seems to be translated and implemented well in the use of foreign languages in the majority of the signage (70%) with 37% in English and Arabic as many as 33% (see Figure 1). Considering the language policy which puts English as one of the languages to use in daily communication, it is in line with the current trend of English as a global language. English is at present a world lingua franca that is acknowledged by international community (Rohmah, 2005). The inclusion of English in the language policy of the Islamic education institution is a good signal of modernization in the institution since it shows the institution’s responsiveness to the inevitable situation where the expansion of English corresponds to the spread of science and technology, including the computer technology (Bylieva & Lobatyuk, 2021; Lawrence, 2012; Mohamadsaid & Rasheed, 2019; Profile, 2022; Tang, 2018).

The domination of English in the educational setting of the PMDG also shows a clear intention of the administration to bring their students into a better position with more opportunities for education and other international ventures. This is in line with Johnson’s (2013) statement that language policy may function as an instrument of empowerment. Hence, the PMDG create their own policy although it is not in total agreement with the President Regulation No. 63 year 2019, especially article 40 mandating that Bahasa Indonesia should be put in sign boards of buildings in Indonesia (Sakhiyya & Martin-Anatias, 2023, p. 5). The school policy makers have positive intentions of opening doors for students to join the international conversations, participations, and contributions. This is different from policies taken by various agencies—mostly non-educational—in most places of Indonesia where English is not used a lot since the society opts to implement the government policy. In most of these places, Indonesian language dominates the areas showing their loyalty to the government policy (Andriyanti, 2019; da Silva et al., 2021; Fakhiroh & Rohmah, 2018; Harbon & Halimi, 2019; Nuswantara et al., 2021; Rohmah & Wijayanti, 2023; Wafa & Wijayanti, 2018).

Meanwhile, the inclusion of Arabic in the PMDG language policy which was then materialized in the big number of signs can be easily understood since Arabic is the language operated in the Qur’an and Hadits—the main sources of the Islamic teaching. The PMDG aimed at creating Muslim leaders who must have a good mastery of Islamic knowledge, which by all means, needs to enforce the students to acquire Arabic as Arabic is part of Muslim’s identity (Said & Rohmah, 2018; Wafa & Wijayanti, 2018; Yusuf et al., 2022). However, it is interesting to note that English is more dominant than Arabic in this Islamic educational institution, which is actually at odds with the usual situation in Indonesia which strongly shows that Arabic is closely related to Islam and PMDG is an Islamic educational institution. The dominant use of English in the school-scape insinuates the winning position of English in the multilingual setting or linguistic battlefield of PMDG. The results of the study, hence, confirms that of Rohmah et al. (2024) metaanalysis of LL studies reporting that Arabic is not preferred by the Muslims in general in Indonesia.

Hence, the system of foreign language teaching developed in the PMDG is similar to what has been stated by Chastain (1988, p. 111) that a “coordinate system be developed in the students’ life. That is, the new language system is to be established separate from that of the first language, viz. the first language is entirely banned and the target language environment as a cultural island is maintained.” In this situation, every opportunity is given to facilitate the students’ improvement of their foreign language acquisition. The students’ activities in their daily life system are essentially aimed at the enrichment of their foreign language acquisition which also means empower them for international involvement and contribution. Despite the fact that this situation pragmatically may open wider opportunities for students to participate in international life and provide them with better and brighter future, it underscores the notion that the institutional policy has been made with a “cringe” spirit against English domination around the world (cf. Tang, 2018).

Conclusion

Pondok Gontor or Pondok Modern Darussalam Gontor (PMDG) which can be deemed an exemplary Islamic private educational institution with the aim at preparing Muslim leaders in Indonesian society has made a language policy which put English and Arabic as foreign languages to be learned by the students. The enactment of the language policy has translated into the signs existing in the linguistic landscape of the PMDG. Although the number of the multilingual signs is only 10% of all signs, the PMDG educational complex can be identified as a multilingual community since the existence of the signs is represented by four different languages in the LL of PMDG with English as the biggest in number followed by Arabic. The number of the monolingual signs which is the highest of all and dominated by English and Arabic just shows that the inhabitants tend to prefer the use of foreign languages to communicate—which is in line with the language policy adopted by the leaders in the educational complex.

The study adds to the body of knowledge on linguistic landscape research and improves educational practices that support linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism in the Darussalam Education Complex in Gontor, Indonesia, by connecting theoretical understandings with real-world applications. While offering theoretical and practical contributions, this study has some limitations.

Since the current study focused on a specific area and timeframe within the PMDG, the results cannot be easily extrapolated to broader linguistic landscape of other educational institutions or settings, especially those with different characteristics. Additionally, as the current research was conducted quantitatively focusing more on the number of different languages in the PMDG, future research should be done by involving more qualitative data collection and analysis using interviews or focus group discussions to have more data on reasons of the choice of languages employed in the LL.

As such, future studies may also explore a broader range of linguistic landscape elements beyond signage, such as language use in classrooms, corridors, and communal areas, to provide a comprehensive analysis of language presence and interactions within the educational complex. Longitudinal studies may also be conducted to track changes in the linguistic landscape over time, considering seasonal variations, educational reforms, and societal shifts that may impact language use patterns within the school complex. In addition, future researchers may also compare the linguistic landscape of Darussalam Education Complex with other educational institutions, both within Indonesia and internationally, to identify similarities, differences, and best practices in promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Zuliati Rohmah

Zuliati Rohmah professor in Applied Linguistics at the Language Department, Faculty of Cultural Studies, Universitas Brawijaya. Her research interests are in linguistic landscape, multimodal literacies, and TPD. A Fulbrighter in 2002 and a Humphrey Fellow in 2011, she is currently East Java Regional Coordinator of TEFLIN.

Diana Nur Sholihah is a lecturer at the Universitas Islam Tribakti Lirboyo Kediri. Her passionate research interest is on Arabic language education, and the Arabic language. She is currently a member of IMLA (Association of Arabic Language Teachers) Indonesia.

Yazid Basthomi is Professor of Applied Linguistics with the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang. He is a past convener of the MEd and PhD in ELT. Currently, he is the coordinator of the publication division of the Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN).

A. Dzo’ul Milal is a professor in ELT, currently teaching at the English Department, Faculty of Adab and Humanities of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, Indonesia. His interests are in English teaching Strategy, Classroom Discourse Analysis especially on teacher’s language, and second language acquisition.