Table 2-‐ 1: Some Previous Linguistic Landscape Studies from 1972-‐2009
Year Author Title/Topic Research Sites
1972 Masai Living Map of Tokyo Tokyo
1977 Rosenbaum English on Keren Kayemet Street Jerusalem 1978 Tulp Language on commercial billboard Brussels 1987 Bhatia, T. K.
English in advertising: Multiple
mixing and media South Asian
1989 Monnier Linguistic conflict; language in the
commercial sector Montreal
Zeng Shiying Discussion on How to Use pinyin for
Place Names in the map of China China 1990 Calvet Languages used in the linguistic
landscape Paris; Dakar
Takahashi &
Wilkerson, K. English elements in Japanese
advertising Japan
1994 Calvet Languages used in the linguistic
landscape Paris; Dakar
Cheshire, J. &
Moser, L. M.
English as a cultural symbol: The case of advertisements in French speaking
Switzerland Switzerland
1991 Spolsky &
Copper Sign of power and solidarity Jerusalem 1994 Smalley.
W. A. Linguistic Diversity and National
Unity: Language Ecology in Thailand Thailand 1996 Wenzel, V. Language on commercial signs Brusssels 1997 Landry, R. &
Bourhis, R. Linguistic Landscape and Ethno-‐
linguistic Vitality Montreal
Ross, N. Signs of international English Milan 2000 CLF Summary of linguistic landscape
studies Montreal
Inoue. F. The Price of Japanese Tokyo
McArthur, T. Interanto: The Global Language of
Signs Sweden
Hick, D.
Scotland's Linguistic Landscape: The lack of policy and planning with
Scotland's place names and signage Sweden
2002 Someya, H. Writing on signs Tokyo
Itagi, N.H. &
Singh, S. K. Linguistic landscaping in India with
particular reference to the new states India
Schlick, M The English of shop signs in Europe Klagenfurt; Udine 2003 Kim, M. Japan's growing ethnic heterogeneity
seen from the linguistic landscape Japan
MacGregor, L. The Language of Shop Signs in Tokyo Tokyo Scollon &
Scollon Discourse in Place Hong Kong,
Vienna, etc.
2004 Berry, K.
English in the Linguistic Landscape of Mongolia: Indices of Language Spread
and Language Competition Mongolia
Ben-‐Rafael, E.
Shohamy, E., et al
Linguistic landscape and
multiculturalism: A Jewish-‐Arab
comparative study Israel
Griffin, J.L
The presence of written English on the
streets of Rome Rome
Reh, M.
Multilingual writing: A reader-‐
oriented typology with examples from
Lira Municipality Uganda
Stewart &
Fawcett
Shop signs in small towns in modern
Portugal Portugal
2005 Backhaus, P. Signs of Multilingualism in Tokyo: A
linguistic landscape approach Tokyo
Dailey, R. M. Giles, H. & Jansma, L. L.
Language attitudes in an Anglo-‐
Hispanic context: The role of linguistic
landscape Santa Ynez
USA Rubestein-‐Avila,
E.
Brazilian Portuguese in
Massachusetts's LL: A prevalent yet
understudies phenomenon Boston, MA
Backhaus, P. Multilingualism in Tokyo: A diachronic
look into the linguistic landscape Tokyo
2006 Ben-‐Rafael, E.
Shohamy, E. et al.
Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of public space: The case
of Israel East
Jerusalem
Cenoz, J. &
Gorter, D.
Linguistic Landscape and minority languages
Netherland;
Spain
Huebner, T.
Bangkok's linguistic landscapes:
Environmental print, codemixing and
language change Bangkok
2007 Backhaus, P.
Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in
Tokyo Tokyo
Edelman, L.
What is in a name? Classification of
proper names by language Amsterdam
Collins, J. &
Slembrouck, S.
Reading shop windows in globalized neighborhoods: Multilingual literacy
practices and indexicality Belgium
Huang, C.
Language planning for naming and its socio-‐cultural connotations: A case
study in Taiwan Taiwan
2008
Cenoz, J. &
Gorter, D.
The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition
Basque The incongruence of the Breton
linguistic landscape for young
2009 Backhaus, P. Rules and regulations in linguistic
landscaping Quebec;
Tokyo
Coulmas, F
Linguistic landscape and the seed of the public sphere
World-‐famous
Inscriptions Curtain, M. Indexical signs, identities and the
linguistic landscape of Taipei Taiwan Dagenais, D.,
Moore, D., et al. Linguistic landscape and language awareness
Montreal, Vancouver, Canada Dal Negro, S.
Local policy modeling the linguistic landscape
South Tyrol, Italy
Hanauer, D.
Science and the LL: A genre analysis of representational wall space in a
microbiology laboratory Pittsburgh,
PA Hult, F.
Languages ecology and linguistic
landscape analysis Sweden
Lanza, E. &
Woldemarian, H. Language ideology and linguistic
landscape Ethiopia
Malinowski, D. Authorship in the linguistic landscape:
A multimodal-‐performative view Oakland, CA Pavlenko, A.
Language conflict in post-‐Soviet linguistic landscapes
post-‐Soviet countries Pennycook, A. Linguistic Landscapes and
Transgressive semiotics of Graffiti Malaysia
Rosendal, Tove
Linguistic markets in Rwanda:
Language use in advertisements and
on signs Rwanda
Shohamy, E. &
Waksman, S. LL as ecological arena: Modalities,
meanings, negotiations, education Tel-‐Aviv
Slobada, M.
State ideology and linguistic
landscape: A comparative analysis of (post) communist Belarus, Czech Republic, and Slovakia
Belarus;
Czech Republic;
Slovakia
Stroud, C. &
Mpendukana, S.
Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape: Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African
township. South Africa
Trumper-‐Hecht, N.
Construction of national identity in mixed cities of Israel: Arabic signs in
the public space of Upper Nazareth Nazareth, Israel
From the exhibition of previous works, it is found that the research of signs has been conducted world wide with or without labeling the term
“linguistic landscape”, and I will discuss the characteristics of those studies. First, linguistic landscape research is predominately conducted in urban areas around
the world. As Coulmas (2009, p. 14) indicated, “linguistic landscape studies typically focus on urban environments.” Gorter (2006) also collected a series of publications on studies of the linguistic landscape in “urban settings”. Backhaus (2007) further pointed out that language usage in urban public places had been the theme of linguistic landscape research and put forward a preferable term
“cityscape”. Linguistic landscape researchers expect a fruitful result from examining the cityscapes, and it has been verified that there is more linguistic diversity in urban space where there is booming of private signs (Backhaus, 2006; Huebner, 2006; Landry and Bourhis, 1997; Rosenbaum et al., 1977).
Second, as Backhaus indicated (2005) the research interest of linguistic landscape first appeared in places where there had been linguistic conflicts among different language groups, for instance, Quebec, Montreal and Belgium and those empirical studies are taken as important literature for scholars nowadays. Therefore, there also arise the issues and discussion on language policy and language planning, for example, Cenoz and Gorter (2006) found that the difference in language policy influence the presence of the minority
languages in the linguistic landscape; Backhaus (2009) exhibited the contrast in the representation of the context in language policies in Canada and Japan;
Plessis (2010) suggested to see the extension of the notion of language policy in terms of covert form, which indicates the effect it brings; Negro (2009)
illustrated the influence of the local language policy to the dialect varieties of German.
Third, given the language situations in the multilingual communities, surveys on the power relation of the dominant group and subdominant group and state ideology were often proposed, as the theme of linguistic landscape
research (Ben-‐Rafael et al., 2006; Marten, 2009; Plessis, 2010, Sloboda, 2009,).
For instance, Curtin (2009) extended the notion of language in a public space to the understanding of collective national identity and claimed the of linguistic landscape of Taipei work as indexical signs that inform the identity of its agents;
Shohamy et al. (2010) also collected several contributions on the topic of power communicated in the linguistic landscape; the linguistic landscape as a site of power struggling informs its audience of the power relations through the
language choice for the public signage, which may cause conflict of the dominant language and weaker language group, and thus draw researchers attention.
Fourth, English and its spread first attracted the interest of scholars, as many previous studies took the increasing presence of English in the linguistic landscape as basis to further delineate social, cultural, and economic changes of that place. One important cause is globalization, because of which, the variation of English, the booming of foreign languages, and the salience of one language in the public place become rich fields of linguistic landscape research. Huebner (2006) presented the “emerging Thai variety of English” besides the questions of language mixing and language dominance. Moreover, the commercial usage of English in advertisement, product branding, shops, and so on, has become a popular subject explored by many scholars (Bhatia, 2006; Bolton, 2012;
Friedrich, 2002; Ross, 1997; Schlick, 2002; Tulp, 1978), so English in particular has drawn much attention in the linguistic landscape.
Fifth, a deeper investigation into linguistic landscape requires the researcher to explore the history of a country, from which the history and
formation of current language situation could be explained. In the process, issues like immigration, colonial history, controversy on a state language, and so on are
often discussed. Moreover, Gorter (2006) viewed linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism; Shohamy et al.’s (2010) collection shed new insight on linguistic landscape through the exploration of multiculturalism and the perceptions of the audience. It has become a tendency to enlarge the
possibility of linguistic landscape, which is also a challenge for the researchers.
There has been a lack of theoretical support to verify and enrich the descriptive analysis of the visual data in the linguistic landscape research. Many previous studies analyzed the linguistic landscape without introducing
theoretical background and systematic analysis (Backhaus, 2007; Huebner, 2006;
McArthur, 2000; Rosenbaum, 1977; Schlick, 2003). Because of the absence of an exact term for sign research, researchers have become aware of the theoretical and methodological problems in doing linguistic landscape research. Some scholars try to borrow theories from different discipline, and call for the cooperation of researchers from different research background. Shohamy &
Gorter’s (2009) pioneering collection “expanding the scenery” of linguistic landscape provides comprehensive insights for adopting theories from other disciplines, such as historical perspectives (Coulmas, 2009), sociological (Ben-‐
Rafael, 2009), economic (Cenoz & Gorter, 2009), and ecological perspectives (Hult, 2009), which are substantial expansion of the framework for linguistic landscape. However, the linguistic landscape researchers are still on their way to explore theories that could substantiate the analysis of the linguistic landscapes.
As this section indicates, the popular focus of linguistic landscape has been the urban areas. I will give a special review of previous works on the linguistic cityscapes of China and Japan that analyze shop signs of their capital cities.