Content uploaded by God'Sgift Ogban Uwen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by God'Sgift Ogban Uwen on Mar 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
1
INTERFACE BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND ROAD TRAFFIC
SIGNS
God’sgift Ogban UWEN
godsgiftuwen@yahoo.com
Department of English and Literary Studies
University of Calabar
Abstract
The paper focuses on the intrinsic interface between the general concept of
language and road traffic signs with a view to examining the underlying features
of language embedded in them within the English semiotic system. The study
adopts Scollon and Scollon’sTheory of Geosemiotics; an aspect of Suassure’s
Semiotics, as the relevant conceptual framework. Data for the study were
collected through primary and secondary sources; participant observation and
relevant materials. The findings indicate that non-verbal language is a vital
medium of communication which can be in the form of kinesics (the use of body
signs), proxemics (the use of space), and the use of other socioculturally-
transmitted signs. In addition, there are fundamental features of language such as
arbitrariness, semanticity, learnabiltiy, specialization, displacement, cultural
transmission, prevarication, reflexiveness, feedback mechanism, contextuality,
among others, found to be inherent in the signs. The study is significant because,
it has further broadened the multifaceted concept of language with the conclusion
that conventionally meaningful and interpretable signs, and particularly road
traffic signs, perform overt functions of language by communicating well-
intended messages which road users depend on for their safety. It is therefore
recommended that researchers should explore similar horizons for a broader
interpretation of language as a multidimensional phenomenon.
Key words: Language, Underlying features, Road traffic signs, Geosemiotics,
Communication.
1.0 Introduction
Language plays a vital role in human communicative needs and activities.
It could be written or spoken, verbal or non-verbal, and social or expressive.
Whichever form it takes, language’sprimary aim is to communicate intentions,
feelings, thoughts, instructions, among others, in order to ease the heap of the
daily activities performed by man. This innate property has enabled man to
manipulate the ‘huge’ activities within his environment in communicative events.
The consideration of this study is the non-verbal aspect of language which,
though not spoken,isconceived to communicate and inform extensively. In this
Volume 2 Nos. 1 & 2 (2019) ISSN 9091 4582 7142
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
2
category are: kinesics (the use of signs), proxemics (use of space) and the use of
other signs to communicate meaningful information from the decoders to the
encoders. In this direction, road traffic signs are viewed as employing kinesics
and proxemics in the regulation and direction of the behaviour of road users. That
is, the ‘usefulness’ of a particular road traffic sign depends on the locational
(space) and situational appropriateness and relevance. This underscores the
germaneness of space and its use to determine and explicate meaning. The signs
are anticipated to transmit meanings assigned to them, and acceptable in the
sociocultural landscape within which they are located and used. The road users as
well as the addressees, are expected to ‘respond’ in accordance with the intended
messages passed on by these signs. By these inherent qualities, road traffic signs
appear to share the attributes of, and covertly perform the functions of language.
It is on this basis that, Lyons (1979) affirms that non-linguistic signs and
signals (road traffic signs) intrinsically perform semiotic functions similar to
spoken language. The source adds that the signs, in addition to their extra-
linguistic functions, are particularly social and expressive and operate as integral
part of language behaviour. The research is therefore set to demonstrate that road
traffic signs, as components of non-linguistic signals, share some attributes with
the broad concept of language with a focus on the English semiotic system.
2.0 Literature review
The non-verbal aspect of language is associated with the use of signs to
communicate meaning. A sign is seen to be “everything that, or grounds of a
previously established social convention can be taken as something standing for
something else” (Eco, 1976, p.16). A sign is therefore ‘useless’ where it appears
in isolation of other sociocultural variables. There should exist ‘some’
conventionally established meaning ascribed to it. Sign’s capacity to stand for
something is anchored on the meaning and use society assigns to it (Gordon,
2005; Pennycook,2017). Its shape and/or colour constitute the something while
the meaning is what it stands for. Road traffic signs are within this category, as
they are something (colour and shape) standing for something else (meaning and
use).
Studies have been carried out on the comprehension, semiotic
interpretation, semiotic analysis, semiotic communication, communication
strategy and regulating capacity of road traffic signs (Wagner, 2006; Simpson,
2009; Kirmizioglu, 2010; Uwen, 2011;Makinde&Opeyemi, 2012; Ogunmola,
2013; Jolayemi & Olayemi; 2017). Road traffic signs are useful because road
users recognize them to be so. Simpson (2009) opines that road traffic signs are
semiotic components of the road that guide road users within the domain of social
communication. The signs provide information on the condition of the road and
the environment and only serve this purpose where they are comprehensible and
unambiguous (Kirmizioglu, 2010). Such signs that convey semiotic constructs
should have some level of uniformity in standard, colour and shape which
ultimately determine how they are construed in line with existing social
conventions.
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
3
To Uwen (2011), road traffic signs are apparently an aspect of language as
they communicate safety information to road users. They are erected, placed or
pasted to “regulate, warn or guide road users (Makinde & Opeyemi, 2012, p.608).
Ogunmola (2013) has also argued that these particular set of signs are signifiers
which road users are consciously, socially and culturally bound to obey for their
safety. In the same vein, Jolayemi and Olayemi (2017) maintain that, although
road traffic signs are non-linguistic symbols, they constitute the “linguistic
landscape to communicate intended information in form of instructions, warnings,
directions, (and other messages) to road users” (p.1). The common stance in the
views of the scholars above is that road traffic signs communicate, and
communication is the major role of language. Communication, according to
Richards and Schmidt (2012) is any particular system of human communication.
The communication in this order could be natural or artificial, human or non-
human, and social or expressive. Therefore, the meeting point between language
and road traffic signs underscores the interconnectivity which is principally
communication, and the situational functions they perform.
Although the studies discussed earlier might not hold the view that road
traffic signs are components of language in the expressive and spoken form, they
have, in their separate views, created relevant insights which ‘covertly’ link the
signs to language. By so doing, it implies that language and road traffic signs have
some common and intertwining features. For instance, it is suggested that road
traffic signs are components of the linguistic system, and road users with such
literacies are aware that they could be translated, written and analyzed into
meaningful constructions which road users depend on for safety (Uwen, 2011;
Uwen & Ebam, 2019). By this submission, they perform the implied roles of
language. Road traffic signs, like language does, appear to impose some
restrictions, construct social reality, articulate the norms of social conduct and
exert influence on social life (Scollon &Scotton, 2003; Hamid, 2015; Jolayemi &
Olayemi; 2017). Language, in addition to its numerous roles, is the medium used
to communicate meaning, impose restrictions and influence on human behaviour
and articulate social reality. The relationship between road traffic signs and
language is ‘firm’, to the extent that Blommaert, Collins and Slembrouck (2005)
earnestly advocate that semiotically, signs could replace language. This claim
may not hold in all circumstances, but certainly there are instances in
communicative events where signs sufficiently replaces spoken language. The
study is therefore aimed at exploring the connecting interface between language
and road traffic signs (which are products of the English semiotic system), and to
ascertain their mutually shared features.
3.0 Theoretical framework
There are several concerns on Semiotics. It is the study and analysis of
“the systems using signs or signals for the purpose of communication” (Richards
& Schmidt, 2012, p. 479). Also, Eco (1976) believes that semiotics is concerned
with everything that is a sign. According to Eco, the earliest semioticians,
Saussure and Pierce define the notion of sign in twofold and threefold abstract
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
4
semiotic entities respectively. Saussure sees sign as the signifier and the signified;
sign-vehicle, while Pierce states that semiotics is the cooperation of three
subjects; the sign, its object and its interpretant.
The aspect of semiotics adopted for this study is Scollon and Scollon’s
(2003) Theory of Geosemiotics. According the authors, geosemiotics is concerned
with the meaning of signs in the environment and space in consideration of the
way they are placed. It is “the social meaning of the material placement of signs
and discourses and of our actions in the material world” (p. 2). Signs in our social
space inform us about sociocultural background of the users of the space, how
they interact with the signs and how the signs and its users influence each other.
According to the source, geosemiotics consists of three attributes: interaction
order, visual semiotics and placement semiotics. The interaction order determines
the social relationship between the actors and spaces. Visual semiotics on the
other hand deals with the visual representations and meanings in space while
place semiotics is the socioculturally-induced meanings arising from the semiotic
systems existing within the physical environment.
In this context, and in alignment with the view of Scollon and Scollon, a
road traffic sign erected by the road, ultimately and non-linguistically assumes the
social role of the addresser while every road user making use of the road within
where the sign is located becomes the addressee. The sign in this particular
instance bears specific meaning within its physical location, that is, where it is
situated. For instance, the sign that denotes ‘STOP’ applies to intersections and
segments of the road that it is appropriate to convey the desired meaning,
specifically in road sections prone to human and vehicular traffic. It holds
therefore, that a specific road traffic sign has specific meaning in specific location
and not assumed to play a continuous informative role on other spots on the road.
The enforcement of its violation by traffic law enforcers is by the convention,
supposedly restricted to the specific area of the road where the offence is
reasonably suspected to have been committed. Going by this illustration, it is
situationally established that signs, language and space intermingle extensively to
make comprehensible meanings interpretable by road users. Therefore,
geosemiotics is relevant to the study because it is concerned with the underlying
interrelationship between road traffic signs, (English) language, and space which
covertly exposes the shared characteristics between language and road traffic
signs and the common functions they perform.
4.0 Methodology
Data for the study were derived from primary and secondary sources. The
data from the primary source is collected through participant observation. The
researcher is a consistent road user in two dominant categories; as a pedestrian in
one instance and a motorist (driver), and has observed that road traffic signs bear
the features that simultaneously perform the functions of language. Notes were
also taken based on observation of road traffic signs and road users’ responses to
them over a reasonable period of time. Those from the secondary sources are
derived particularly from the Nigeria highway code published by the Federal
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
5
Road Safety Corps in 2016, and other relevant materials. The data that form the
analysis are those considered relevant to the study derived from the research
techniques deployed.
5.0 Data presentation and discussion
The data for the discussion were generated from the major findings. The
discussion comprises of features of language found to be embedded in road traffic
signs. It is discussed under the major heading- features of language in road traffic
signs, and other subheadings.
5.1 Features of Language in road traffic signs
The study focuses on road traffic signs as aspects of non-verbal language
particularly in English, which transmit various safety messages to road users who
rely on them in order to avert preventable road traffic crashes on the roads. The
study adopts the related definitions of language by Lyons, and Richards and
Schmidt. According to the authors,language is “the principal signaling system
employed by human beings for transmission of information” (Lyons, 1979, p. 32),
and“any particular system of human communication” (Richards & Schmidt, 2012,
p. 283). The system in this context is non-linguistic signaling-systems. The
features of language in this category include: arbitrariness, semanticity,
learnability, displacement, specialization, cultural transmission, prevarication,
reflexiveness, contextuality and feedback mechanism. (Hockett, 1958; Lyons,
1979, 2009; Mathews, 2007; Uwen, 2011; Richards & Schmidt, 2012). Each of
the features and its relatedness to language is discussed below.
5.1.1 Arbitrariness
Arbitrariness as a feature of language “has to do with the link between
form and meaning, between the signal and the message” (Lyons, 2009, p.19).
There is no relationship in terms of linguistic forms and their meanings. Meaning
interpretation is not derived from the properties of the channel which are seen be
transmitted psychologically and physiologically. That is to say that, linguistic
signs do not bear physical resemblance of the meanings they represent or
information they convey. Arbitrariness denotes that meanings are assigned to
things by the society who dwells in the physical environment where the things are
present.
In the same way, Zebra (pedestrian) crossing isone of the road traffic signs
that bears this feature of language. The pedestrian crossing is represented by
white and black-coloured markingspasted in a rectangular shape across the road.
It is usually pasted where there is regular human traffic especially around schools,
markets, churches and recreational centres. The sign means that pedestrians can
cross the road at such point. It denotes pedestrians’ right of way by
‘compelling’motorists to stop especially where a pedestrian is sighted to have
stepped on the sign. The Zebra crossing carries the feature of arbitrariness
because the form; that is, the white and black-coloured rectangular markings
across the road has no physical and direct resemblance of, or relationship with the
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
6
meaning except the one which society has ascribed to it and transmitted from
generation to generation.
5.1.2 Semanticity
Semanticity as a feature of language is described in terms of the
associative relevance that connects signs and other features of their external
environment. It is the property of language that holds that (non)linguistic signs are
meaningful and convey meaning, and communicate same to the receiver (Hockett,
1958; Lyons, 1979, 2009). The feature of semanticity is found to be implanted in
road traffic signs. Every road traffic sign, whether it is iconic, indexical or
symbolic, has meaning components interpreted and comprehended by road users
who have developed the literacy in that respect. As Jolayemi and Olayemi (2017)
has averred, road traffic signs “communicative information to give instructions,
regulations, and relevant advice that will guide road users and maintain the
society of the usage” (p. 7). They are usually “marked by the intention to
communicate something meaningful” (Ogunmola, 2013, p.62). The signs warn,
regulate and inform depending on the colours and shapes, and by so doing, they
communicate meaning to road users who comprehend by responding
appropriately. So, just as meaning is enshrined in language, so it is in road traffic
signs which underscores the relevance. So, every road traffic sign is meaning-
oriented which also coveys its semantic components.
5.1.3 Learnabilility
Another feature of language existing in road traffic signs is the fact the
signs, shapes, colours and their meanings could be learned. This property of
learnability holds that any human being of whatever ancestry or race is capable of
learning language (and the meanings of signs). The only impediment to learning
is where there is physical or psychological impairment otherwise every learner
properly exposed to samples under suitable environmental conditions will learn
appropriately (Lyons, 1979). Just as it is the case in language, road traffic signs
could be learned when the road user is appropriately exposed to the samples. One
can develop road traffic signs’ literacy through behavioural approaches such as
imitation of others road users, studying the highway code and other relevant road
safety literature, attending standard and accredited driving school and exposure to
public awareness campaigns regularly organized by the responsible agencies. By
This illustration, road traffic signs are believed topossess the property of
learnability. In affirmation of the learning process, Ogunmola (2013)maintains
that the “meanings are usually instructional and can be learned over a period of
time long enough for them to be part of the linguistic knowledge representation of
the road users” (p.63). Uwen and Ebam (2019) describe the attainment of this
peculiar ‘linguistic knowledge’ as the acquisition and application of the necessary
literacy required by road users to make use of the road safely to their destinations.
Learning, as it is for language, is also a feature of road traffic signs.
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
7
5.1.4 Specialization
Specialization as a feature of language refers to “the indirect influence that
one organism exerts upon the behaviour of another… the direct physical
consequences of the signal and its effect on the behaviour of the receiving
organism are not functionally interrelated” (Lyons, 1979, p. 82). Communication
through the medium of language is, depending on the social roles of the
participants, used as a tool in influencing the behaviours of the interlocutors.
In relating this feature to road traffic signs, let us take the sending
organism as the particular sign and the receiving organism as the road user. In this
context, the road traffic sign is by virtue of societal norms and conventions
‘empowered’ to exert control over the behaviour of the road user who has
developed literacy in that aspect. In practical terms, every road traffic sign in it
‘communicative’ of warning, informing or regulating, has by so doing, covertly
exerted some level of control and influence (appropriately) on the behaviour of
the supposed road user within the point that the sign in located. In consonance
with this position, Uwen (2011) has stated that the sighting of a road traffic sign
simultaneously issues command which in turn influences the traffic behaviour of
‘literate’ road users within where the sign is physically located. For instance, the
red light in the traffic light signal means ‘STOP’ implying that once the traffic
light turns red, the expected and appropriate behaviour of motorists at such
direction is to stop. Any adverse behaviour which is capable of causing a road
traffic crash is by the available traffic regulations enforceable by traffic laws
enforcers. In this example, the red light is seen not to have any direct verbal
communication with the road user, but by virtue of the conventionally-assigned
meaning ascribed to it, has overt influence on the behaviour of motorists who are
socioculturally and legally bound to obey and behave appropriately. The
instruction, though not spoken, but it is effective enough to exert control on the
road user to elicit the appropriate response or reaction.
5.1.5 Displacement
The next feature considered in this discussion is displacement.
Displacement, according to Lyon (1979) is a feature of language which enables
interactants to refer to objects and events that are remote in time and place from
the setting. To justify that this feature is rooted in road traffic signs, Uwen (2011)
explains that “the spatio-temporal remoteness and reference of most road traffic
signs are object and informative” (p. 20). The source cites the warning signs that
denote: DANGEROUS DOUBLE BEND and NARROW BRIDGE among other
road traffic signs that have the appropriate attributes of displacement. Such signs
provide road users with cautionary information on the danger ahead which is not
necessarily at the point it is physically located. By this illustration, the road user is
informed beforehand and persuaded to rely on the immediate information to
ascertain and avert the danger transmitted but expected ahead on the road. The
signs within this category are by the established conventional standards installed
by the road side a few metres preceding the communicated danger. Therefore,
where such signs are located (communicate) are different from (in terms of space)
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
8
the spacial setting where the danger (ahead) is situated. This fulfills the feature of
displacement because the sign in this circumstance indicates character of
remoteness in terms of time and place of the object and event.
5.1.6 Cultural transmission
Language is also seen as a sociocutural property that is transmitted from
one generation to another. The “ability to speak a particular language is culturally
rather than genetically transmitted from one generation to another by learning and
teaching” (Lyons, 1979, p.82). Let us note here that the semiotic components of
road traffic signs are part of the non-verbal aspects of the English Languages
which is the L2 of (the majority of) road users particularly Nigerians. The
learning and teaching of road traffic signs (in formal and informal settings) which
have beenfused into the Nigerian road use culturepropagates theknowledge of this
particular English semiotic system which is being transmitted from one generation
of road users to the next.
In some instances, the Nigerian sociocultural concepts are re-invented and
conceived in the interpretation, comprehension and use of road traffic signs by
their replacement with the semiotic equivalents existing the Nigerian context. For
example, within the Nigerian context, the semiotic equivalent of the English C-
CAUTION is bunch of fresh leaves. The C-CAUTION is usually and expected to
be placed a few metres behind and in front of a malfunctional but stationary
vehicle on a single-carriage road. The sign has the semantic value to warn
motorists of such obstruction in order to avert preventable collision or crash.
What sometimes occur in similar circumstance on Nigeria roads is the
replacement of the C-CAUTION by bunches of fresh leaves heaped at same
positions. Interestingly, leaves-sign is understood in the Nigerian sociocultural
milieu to perform the same role as the regular C-CAUTION available in the
English system from where the sign is derived. The unfortunate aspect of this
practice is that where a ‘foreigner’ is confronted with such items on the road, its
misrepresentation could cause the road traffic crashwhich they intend prevent.
5.1.7 Prevarication
Prevarication is also one such features that language interfaces with road
traffic signs. This is the feature that holds that language can be used to tell lies,
deceive, or give incorrect information. It has been in the course of this research
that road traffic signs and language bear this characteristic. This feature is seen to
occur in instances where a road traffic sign is substandard in terms of shape and
colour or placed inappropriately on the road. Traffic light for example assumes
this feature where it has a major fault in its configuration such that it transmits the
inappropriate colour signal to motorists. To avert this, Scollon and Scollon (2003)
have emphasized that the meaning of a road traffic sign is depended upon its
physical location which limits its directional role to that particular point. The
signs are therefore limited and regulated by specific spot with a semiotic scope.
For instance, the road traffic sign denoting NARROW BRIDGE can only make
the appropriate meaning where it is placed a few metres preceding a narrow
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
9
bridge. This warning sign assumes the feature of prevarication when itloses its
meaning and becomes deceptive especially where it is placed either kilometers
before or where there is even no bridge ahead, on top of a tall building or any
other site that blurs the intended semantic perception. In situations where there is
any form of inappropriateness of the road traffic sign in terms of its standard form
and placement, then the deception and misinformation which language performs
is as well conveyed by any sign in this category.
5.1.8 Reflexivity
Reflexivity is also considered a feature of language which is also inherent
in road traffic signs. According to Mathews (2007)reflexivity is “the property of
language which can be used to talk about language itself” (p. 339). Just as
language is used to discuss language, some sets of road traffic signs could be used
to talk about the others. For instance, road traffic signs are grouped into three
categories: warning, regulatory and informative signs. A sign belonging to any of
the category can be used to discuss one or more other signs in the same category
specifically because they share similar features including shape, colour and
function. For instance, informative signs are rectangular and green, warning signs
are triangular and yellow while regulatory signs are circular and yellow or blue in
shape and colour. Therefore, the signs under same category serves as a guide in
discussing others in the same group. By so doing, the property of reflexivity is
conveyed.
5.1.9 Contextuality
Halliday (1978) states that meaning of words is context-dependent.
Language is functional and meaning-oriented. Meanings are in some instances
influenced by social and cultural contexts the words are used. So, the knowledge
of, and interpretation of the contextual position of words determine meanings. On
the contextuality of road traffic signs, it is maintained that the meanings of the
signs are basically relevant, understood and appreciated within its contextual
location (Scollon & Scollon, 2003; Uwen, 2011). There exists therefore, a
relationship between a road traffic sign, its location on (by) the road and the
meaning it conveys to the road users. For instance, the road traffic sign (road
marking) that denotes SCHOOL CHILDREN CROSSING can only be
meaningful and useful where placed by the roadside a few metres to a school,
otherwise, its meaning is degraded. The meaning in this context, in addition to the
sign, is determined by the extralinguistic factors which includes the location of a
school within the environment the sign is located. Just as the meanings of words
are determined by the context of use, so also are road traffic signs.
5.1.10 Feedback mechanism
Feedback as a property of language is often associated with the spoken
medium for communicative activities. This characteristic may appear
‘controversial’ when linked with non-verbal signs. Although road traffic signs do
not communicate through vocal utterances but they have a unique pattern of
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
10
performing the feedback role of verbal language. For example, motorists stop
where traffic light turns red towards their direction because there is the initiation
of non-verbal communication by the signal which ‘compel’ them to do so. The act
of stopping itself which by regulations is the expected and appropriate response is
seen to fulfill and perform the function of feedback which indicates that
communication has taken place. To demonstrate the property of the feedback
mechanismin this circumstance, the traffic light is the sender, the red light is the
message (stop) while the motorist is the receiver who responds upon the
understanding of the message. Non-verbal signal (like the road traffic sign in
question)and the corresponding response could stimulate spoken interactions
especially where violations occur. Such conversations or interrogations could be
between motorists or the traffic offender and traffic laws enforcers.
6.0 Conclusion
Although the features of language have often been described in
consideration of the verbal aspects, the non-verbal forms also perform essential
functions as the spoken medium does. The study has specifically demonstrated
that there exists an ‘indisputable’ connection between language in its broader
sense and road traffic signs in terms of the common characteristics they share.
These features have been discussed as they particularly apply to road traffic signs.
Language here, has been interrogated from the multidimensional point of view in
order to establish the fact that not all communicative interactions are carried out
through the spoken medium of language. Therefore, signs and signals are vital
constituents of language which interlocutors appropriately utilize in peculiar
social settings based on the meanings society ascribes to them.
Road traffic signs, particularly in this study, are viewed as agents of a
communicative system whose conversational participants are the signs which play
the social role of the addressers in this instance. Also, the road users who at such
settings (while making use of the road) become the addressees in road safety
information dissemination while utilizing the resources of signs-mediated
language .This communicative system functions appropriately because road users
with the required literacy are expected to have learned this aspect of
communication systems in order to guarantee their safety on the roads. The study
has further broadened the concept of signs and open up new horizons for research
on the multifaceted human ‘heritage’ called language.
References
Blommaert, J., Collins, J. &Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism:
Language and communication, 25 (3): 197-216.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
FRSC. (2016). Nigeria highway code. Abuja: Detailworks.
Gordon, I. E. (2005). Theories of visual perception. New York: Psychology Press.
Hamid, S. A. (2015). Road signs, geosemiotics and human mobility. Aalborg:
Alborg University Press.
Ebonyi Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (1&2) January/April
2019
11
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotics: The social
interpretation of language and meaning. Maryland: University Park Press.
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Jolayemi, D. & Olayemi, M. M. (2017). Road signs as linguistic landscape in
Nigeria: A Semiotic communication. International Journal of English
Language and Linguistic Research, 5 (5): 1-14.
Kirmizioglu, E. (2010). Analysis of comprehension of traffic signs: A pilot study
in Ankara, Turkey. Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Lyons, J. (1979). Semantics vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (2009). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, P. H. (2007). Oxford concise dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Makinde, O. O. & Opeyemi, D. (2012). An understanding of traffic signs by
drivers – a case of Akure city, Ondo State, Nigeria. ARPN Journal of
Science and Technology, 2 (7): 17 -28.
Ogunmola, A. A. (2013). Signs and symbols as a communication strategy: A
semiotic study of highway codes in Nigeria. New Media and Mass
Communication,19:62-68.
Pennycook, I. E. (2017). Translanguages and Semiotic assemblages. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 14 (13): 269-283.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2012). Longman dictionary of language teaching
and applied linguistics (3rded). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd.
Scollon, R. &Scollon, S. (2003). Discourse in place: Language in the material
world. London: Routledge.
Simpson, J. F. (2009). Semiotics on the road. New York: Yarki Press.
Uwen, G. O. (2011). A Semiotic analysis of road traffic code: A study of the
Southern Senatorial District of Cross RiverState. A Master’s Thesis,
University of Calabar.
Uwen, G. O. &Ebam, P. O. (2019). Road traffic signs’ literacy and its
implications on road users in Calabar. Literacy and Reading in Nigeria,
16(1), 22-35.
Wagner, A. (2006). The rules of the road: A universal visual semiotics. The
international Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 20 (1): 311-324.
