scholarly journals The linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jūratė Ruzaitė
Keyword(s):  
Economic Factor ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
Tourist Destinations ◽  
Border Areas

The present study provides a snapshot of Polish and Lithuanian linguistic landscapes (LLs) in several resort cities situated in the border areas of the two countries. The data consists of 515 digital pictures of multilingual signs collected in the central and thus the most touristic parts of the cities. The main objectives in this research are to identify the authorship of multilingual signs, determine the types of establishments that employ multilingual signage, and analyse which languages coexist in popular tourist destinations. The interpretation of the results is grounded on the interrelation between multilingual signage, tourism as an important economic factor, and official language policies. The findings show that at least some major tendencies in language displays in LL do relate to tourist exchange and tourists’ needs. However, some trends (e.g. absence of Russian in Polish LLs) need to be analysed with regard to symbolic, economic, and ideological values attached to non-titular languages.Kokkuvõte. Jūratė Ruzaitė: Turismi keelemaastik: mitmekeelsed sildid Leedu ja Poola kuurortides. Artikkel käsitleb Poola ja Leedu piirialal paiknevate kuurortlinnade keelemaastikku. Artikli keeleainestikuks on 515 linnakeskustest ja seega turistidele enim huvi pakkuvatest linnaosadest kogutud mitme keelset silti. Uurimuse põhieesmärk on selgitada välja, kes on avalike siltide autorid ja mis asutused (ettevõtted, institutsioonid) neid kasutavad, ning analüüsida, millised keeled populaarsetes turismisihtkohtades kõrvuti eksisteerivad. Tulemuste tõlgendamisel toetub autor mitmekeelsete avalike siltide, turismi kui olulise majandusteguri ning ametlike keelepoliitikate vahelistele seostele. Tulemused näitavad, et vähemalt mõned suundumused avalike siltide keelevalikutes on seotud turismi ja turistide vajadustega. Seevastu mõnede teiste trendide analüüsimisel (nt vene keele puudumine Poola keelemaastikul) tuleb arvesse võtta muid mitteametlike keeltega seonduvaid sümboolseid, majanduslikke ja ideoloogilisi väärtusi.Märksõnad: keelemaastik; mitmekeelsed sildid; leedu keel; poola keel; turism; kuurordid; piiriala

scholarly journals O Le Si'Osi'Omaga O Le Punafanau Lea O Se Gagana E Ola: The Linguistic Landscape Of Samoa

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Faith Esera
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
English Language ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Digital Camera ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
Education Policies ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Official Status

<p>The official language of Sāmoa is Samoan, but the majority of the population speak English as a second language. Because of early contact with missionaries and colonial powers, the English language soon became widely acknowledged and used in Sāmoa. Even after Sāmoa became independent from New Zealand, the English language was and is still recognised, but not made official, in the Constitution of Sāmoa and education policies.  This paper reports on the languages that are present in the linguistic landscape of Sāmoa. The main purpose of the study was to identify the predominant language used in Sāmoa, and to analyse ‘hybridity’ or ‘dualism’ on signs that contained the Samoan language. The data consists of 987 signs taken from two survey areas, Apia and Salelologa, using a digital camera. Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) ‘Place Semiotics’ was used to give an overview of the preferred code in the LL of Sāmoa. The ‘Motu Analysis’, a reconceptualization of Backhaus’s ‘part writing’ types, was used to analyse how two or more languages are used and positioned on signs in the LL; this analysis responds to the research question on ‘hybridity’. The final step involved a closer analysis of the subset of signs containing the Samoan language to detect signs of hybridity through loanwords and semantic extensions.  The results of the analyses indicated that English is the dominant language in the linguistic landscape of Sāmoa despite lacking official status in the language policies of Sāmoa. The findings further reveal that the English influence on the Samoan language on the signs is reflected more in semantic loans than loanwords, revealing a healthier picture of the Samoan language. The study concludes with possible lines of research for further studies in Sāmoa and the Pacific.</p>

scholarly journals O Le Si'Osi'Omaga O Le Punafanau Lea O Se Gagana E Ola: The Linguistic Landscape Of Samoa

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Faith Esera
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
English Language ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Digital Camera ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
Education Policies ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Official Status

<p>The official language of Sāmoa is Samoan, but the majority of the population speak English as a second language. Because of early contact with missionaries and colonial powers, the English language soon became widely acknowledged and used in Sāmoa. Even after Sāmoa became independent from New Zealand, the English language was and is still recognised, but not made official, in the Constitution of Sāmoa and education policies.  This paper reports on the languages that are present in the linguistic landscape of Sāmoa. The main purpose of the study was to identify the predominant language used in Sāmoa, and to analyse ‘hybridity’ or ‘dualism’ on signs that contained the Samoan language. The data consists of 987 signs taken from two survey areas, Apia and Salelologa, using a digital camera. Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) ‘Place Semiotics’ was used to give an overview of the preferred code in the LL of Sāmoa. The ‘Motu Analysis’, a reconceptualization of Backhaus’s ‘part writing’ types, was used to analyse how two or more languages are used and positioned on signs in the LL; this analysis responds to the research question on ‘hybridity’. The final step involved a closer analysis of the subset of signs containing the Samoan language to detect signs of hybridity through loanwords and semantic extensions.  The results of the analyses indicated that English is the dominant language in the linguistic landscape of Sāmoa despite lacking official status in the language policies of Sāmoa. The findings further reveal that the English influence on the Samoan language on the signs is reflected more in semantic loans than loanwords, revealing a healthier picture of the Samoan language. The study concludes with possible lines of research for further studies in Sāmoa and the Pacific.</p>

Re-thinking balanced bilingualism

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Juarros-Daussà ◽  
Tilman Lanz
Keyword(s):  
Language Revitalization ◽  
Spanish Speakers ◽  
National Language ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
New Immigrants ◽  
The World ◽  
Historical Presence ◽  
Globalized World

Traditionally, Catalonia is seen as a successful example of language revitalization, through the achievement and maintenance of a fairly stable Castilian/Catalan bilingualism for the last thirty years or so. Recently, however, Catalonia has experienced significant immigration in the context of globalization. The autonomous government is now supporting an agenda in which Catalan alone is presented as the national language, the language of convergence, while Castilian, despite its long historical presence in the region, is portrayed as one of three hundred languages spoken there today. We examine how this policy interacts with everyday linguistic realities and with a preservationist agenda. Catalan speakers are divided between those who feel liberated from the imposition of Spanish identity and culture and those who fear an exclusivist nationalism which they feel would be anachronistic in the globalized world of today. Spanish speakers, in turn, feel threatened and targeted. New immigrants, coming from all corners of the world, are caught in a climate in which official language policies hardly reflect their own needs. Linguistic policies have to be re-thought to tend to the needs of immigrants while also ensuring the survival of Catalan.

scholarly journals Plurilingual literary spaces

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-203
Author(s):  
Tristan Leperlier
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
Language Barriers ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
Political Structure ◽  
French Case ◽  
Linguistic Groups

In this article, I define the notion of a plurilingual literary space. While drawing from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory, I adopt a critical stance towards the highly autonomous, territorialized, and monolingual French case that he studied. Even though language is the material that the writers work with, the legitimate representation of the nation remains the major issue for non-central literary spaces, among which are plurilingual spaces. I elaborate on a typology of plurilingual literary spaces, which are heavily related to the political structure and language policies of the state. Then I concentrate on one of the types, that of plurilingual literary fields, where the language issue is the most significant. I argue that tensions or collaborations between the different linguistic groups depend on the symbolic balance of power between them as well as on official language policies. The most autonomous writers do not always desire to build bridges across language barriers, and they would sometimes rather create identity walls. I distinguish between unitarian policies that lead some linguistically dominated writers to reject collaborations and monolingual policies which lead the autonomous writers to reject the linguistic divisions.

scholarly journals Language Policy, Language Practices and Language Shift in Tabriz

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Seyed Hadi Mirvahedi
Keyword(s):  
Language Policy ◽  
Education System ◽  
Language Maintenance ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Language Policy And Planning ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Family Language ◽  
Policy And Planning

<p>This thesis examines how Azeri, a minority language with the largest number of speakers in Iran, is marginalized by de facto monolingual language policies of the state favoring Farsi, the only official language, over Azeri in the three selected domains. The research provides insights into how family language policies, i.e. attitudes, ideologies and practices in the home, are influenced by macro policies of multilingual nation-states, leading to language maintenance/shift among minority groups.  The investigation adopted and integrated a number of complementary theoretical frameworks and paradigms. An ecology of language paradigm (Haugen, 1972; Hornberger & Hult, 2008; Mühlhäusler, 1996) was used to situate the research within a broader sociopolitical, historical and economic context. The ethnolinguistic vitality model (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977), and language policy and planning (LPP) frameworks proposed by Shohamy (2006) and Lo Bianco (2005, 2008c, 2012a; 2013) were utilized to explore the complex interaction between macro level LPP activities and micro level attitudes and practices. The integrated model demonstrates how language policies implemented within state-run domains and institutions produce particular Discourses. The proposed framework further illustrates how such Discourses may influence people at the grass roots level which in turn could lead to language maintenance/shift in different communities and groups.  The data base for the study comprised two phases: the first phase involved ethnographic observations of the public sphere (linguistic landscape data), language use in the home (three case studies), and the local channel for Azeris (media data), interviews with fifty children, and authorities of ten kindergartens and preschools. A focus-group interview was also conducted in this phase to assist with designing an attitude questionnaire which was administered in the second phase to 150 parents of young children.  The empirical data suggests that family language policies among Azeris in Tabriz are constantly and increasingly influenced by monolingual policies of the state. The institutionalization and legitimization of Farsi through de facto LPP activities has resulted in formation of uncommitted, if not negative, attitudes among Azeri parents regarding their ethnic language. The analysis shows how a Farsi-only education system cajoles kindergarten principals into favoring Farsi over Azeri, leading them to suggest that parents and children speak Farsi in the home to ease their integration into the education system.  The linguistic landscape data demonstrates the absence of Azeri both in top-down governmental and private individual signage indicating its low status compared to Farsi and English, the two prevalent languages in public signage in Tabriz. Exploring the broadcasting media suggests Azeris' inclination towards Farsi, and then in a second place, Turkish channels. As a result, having attracted only one percent of Azeri audience, the only available channel provided by the government for Azeris, Sahand TV, provides arguably no institutional support for Azeri. The findings suggest that although family members may be viewed as free agents to choose a particular language to speak in the home, in reality such choices are highly constrained by the ecology surrounding the home which is shaped by LPP decisions and activities.  Overall, this thesis sheds light on the complex nature of language policy and planning in multilingual nation-states, and how they impact on language maintenance/shift processes among minority groups, whilst also illuminating how language ecologies are manipulated by nation-states to achieve particular non-linguistic goals.</p>

LANGUAGE AND POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA: MYTHS AND REALITIES.Thomas Ricento and Barbara Burnaby (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998. Pp xv + 357. $39.95 paper.

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-126
Author(s):  
Timothy Reagan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indigenous Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Policies ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Language And Politics ◽  
Comparative Treatment

This book is an outstanding contribution to the literature on language policy, language planning, and language rights. It provides a fascinating comparative treatment of developments related to issues of language and politics in the United States and Canada. Divided into five sections, the book includes chapters that present broad overviews of the demographic and policy situations in the two nations, chapters on indigenous languages in North America, chapters on the legal implications of official language policies, chapters on educational issues related to language policies, and finally, chapters addressing issues of language services and language rights.

‘Official language for intercultural ties’

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-177
Author(s):  
Jason Litzenberg
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
National Identity ◽  
Language Policy ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Minority Language ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language And Culture ◽  
Cultural Ideologies

Abstract This study considers the parallel expression of language policy toward Kichwa in the linguistic landscape of Yachay, two administratively independent government-funded institutions in Ecuador. Although the institutions share a geographic location, name, and goal of becoming a sciences and technology hub for Latin America, they maintain distinct identities through their official signage, providing opportunity for consideration of how recent political and cultural ideologies toward Ecuador’s language policy have been realized in the linguistic landscape of parallel institutions. Kichwa, a constitutionally-recognized minority language of the region, is largely absent from the landscape, providing little more than a shared institutional nomenclature. Instead, the language and culture are used as a commodity for promoting pan-Ecuadorian interculturality and indigenous values, even if these values are not otherwise overtly supported. Kichwa thus represents the ‘traditional’ Ecuador, while at the same time serves as the backbone in the formation of a collective, future-oriented national identity.

Opvattingen Over Nederlands En Andere Talen Als Instructietaal Op Aruba En In Suriname

2009 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 57-68
Author(s):  
Sjaak Kroon ◽  
Jeanne Kurvers
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Language Of Instruction ◽  
Clear Preference ◽  
Lay People ◽  
Educational Professionals ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Multilingual Societies

The Republic of Suriname in South America and the Carribean island of Aruba are both former Dutch colonies. After its independence in 1975 Suriname opted for maintaining Dutch as an official language and a language of education and also in Aruba, which is nowadays an autonomous part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, Dutch remained the official language and the language of instruction in education. The fact that Suriname and Aruba are both multilingual societies - Suriname has some twenty different languages and in Aruba, apart from Dutch, Papiamento is the main language - over the years gave rise to heated debates about what language or languages should best serve as a medium of instruction in schools. This question was investigated by means of a survey that was administered with 200 respondents in the case of Aruba (educational professionals and lay people living in Aruba) and 315 in the case of Suriname (partly living in Suriname and partly in The Netherlands). The investigation showed that on Aruba lay people, among which parents of school going children, are the main advocates of Dutch as language of instruction in schools whereas educational professionals show a clear preference for including Papiamento as a language of instruction. In Suriname on the other hand, both groups of respondents showed a clear preference for using Dutch as a language of instruction. These outcomes seem to be related to differences in the linguistic landscape in Suriname and Aruba and to the different colonial history of the two countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document