27.789, Review: Anthropological Ling; Cog Sci; Socioling: Laitinen, Zabrodskaja (2015)

The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Thu Feb 11 19:40:25 UTC 2016


LINGUIST List: Vol-27-789. Thu Feb 11 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.789, Review: Anthropological Ling; Cog Sci; Socioling: Laitinen, Zabrodskaja (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:39:56
From: Teresa Ong [ongtesa at gmail.com]
Subject: Dimensions of Sociolinguistic Landscapes in Europe

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36087197


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-2141.html

EDITOR: Mikko  Laitinen
EDITOR: Anastassia  Zabrodskaja
TITLE: Dimensions of Sociolinguistic Landscapes in Europe
SUBTITLE: Materials and Methodological Solutions
SERIES TITLE: Sprachkönnen und Sprachbewusstheit in Europa / Language Competence and Language Awareness in Europe - Volume 7
PUBLISHER: Peter Lang AG
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Teresa Ong, Griffith University

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

‘Dimensions of Sociolinguistic Landscapes in Europe’ is a collection of
articles from a workshop which took place in autumn 2010 in Jyväskylä. The
workshop is organised by Mikko Laitinen and Anastassia Zabrodskaja and funded
by the Academy of Finland (2006-2011). In the sociolinguistic subfield of
linguistic landscape research which flourishes from the work by Landry and
Bourhis (1997), the editors offer a range of articles which investigate
language and signs displayed in public spaces across Europe during the early
21st century. The focus in this volume ranges from aspects of multilingualism
to tension and conflicts across borders, to aspects of mobility of languages,
to linguistic choices in cities and rural places. Apart from a general
introduction by the editors, there are ten chapters under three headings: (i)
Mobility, globalization and signs in space, (ii) Semiotic landscapes and signs
in virtual space, and (iii) Exploring linguistic landscapes in the former
Eastern bloc. This collection adds fresh insights by looking at languages from
a range of different methodological perspectives. 
 
In the first chapter of this volume, Hagen Peukert examines the visibility of
linguistic diversity on signs in the district of St. Georg, a multicultural
and multilingual landscape in Hamburg by combining different methodology from
linguistics and urban sociology. This study brings together the concepts of
‘actual utilization of a concrete spatial unit involving social actions and
practices independent of the functions of language’ (Peukert, 2015, p. 30).
Peukert perceives the city of Hamburg as a macro space, the streets as a meso
space and the details of houses, floors and flats at St. Georg as a micro
space. His quantitative analysis reveals that two streets which share a common
property – shopping areas – have the highest percentage of language diversity.
Peukert concludes that the selection of space for data collection/observation
is important because the concept of relational space with the actual presence
of signs has yet to be explored in a satisfactory manner.
 
Chapter 2 by Amei Koll-Stobbe examines the hairdressers’ shop names in
Lancaster City and the West End of London with additional data from a German
city. By studying the shop signs as a genre in advertising discourse,
Koll-Stobbe categorises hairdressers’ shop names according to stylistic
choices and traditional forms versus stylistic innovations. Her results show
that hairdressers’ shop names may serve two indexical functions: codified
identifiers (identify the business and its services) and ideofiers (trigger an
image for commodity purposes). Koll-Stobbe’s small-scale analysis acts as a
starting point for future studies which aim to examine the on-going changes of
various types of shops in the writing city. 
 
In two urban districts in Oslo, Karine Stjernholm compares the expression of
local social culture in a more affluent district in the west (Majorstua) with
a more working-class district in the east (Grünerløkka), both qualitatively
and quantitatively. Various languages found on the store names in both
districts were counted and the differences were compared. An interesting
observation is that a large part of the Oslo population’s language skills are
not represented in the linguistic landscape of both districts – this shows the
low status of non-western languages, which are invisible and not marketed. On
the other hand, the qualitative analysis demonstrates the concept of
iconography as an analytic method for interpreting visual art. In Majorstua,
international expressions make up the main theme of the district whereas in
Grünerløkka, the linguistic landscape tends to express a close relationship to
the local environment. 
 
By employing Kachru’s (1985) paradigm of English, Mikko Laitinen looks at the
presence and usage of English in the public spaces in Finland and examines its
implications for future studies. The data were collected in two bicycle field
trips: (i) from Helsinki to Oulu, and (ii) in the winter sports center of
Ylläs. Laitinen analyses the types of mobility of the collected English signs
by focusing on the space and time of the placement of the signs which could
lead to future research on linguistic globalization. He also examines the
local elements in English texts. From the analysis, Laitinen concludes that
the understanding of English usage in public space requires an ethnographic
approach, such as interviews with sign producers and audiences, which could
provide different angles on the topic.
 
In her analysis of semiotic signs in digital space, Mia Halonen examines the
uses and functions of a hybrid lexical element, “siisdaa” and its spelling
variations employed by Finnish adolescents in various social media spaces.
“Siisdaa” is an informal register and originates from spoken languages. It
consists of the Finnish particle “siis” which means ‘like’ and “daa” which
comes from English ‘duh’. Her results show that “siisdaa” is positioned
ambiguously in different activities – the reason is participants are engaged
in communicative activities but prefer to distance themselves from sounding
serious about their discussions. This might relate to a feeling of insecurity
and defensiveness by the participants. 

An interesting contribution by Christoph Marx and Marek Nekula which combines
the theory of language management (cf. Neustupny and Nekvapil, 2003) with
visual semiotics (cf. Scollon and Scollon, 2003), examines the semiotic
landscapes of a binational and bilingual German-Czech organisation. Marx and
Nekula employ ethnomethodology with the assumption that ‘social structures are
negotiated and re-produced in interactions’ (Marx and Nekula, 2015, p. 150).
The data consists of photographs of the building and rooms of the
organisation, printed texts published by the organisation, public events of
the organisation and internal interactions. This chapter demonstrates that the
construction of a cross-border space in a bilingual semiotic landscape can be
seen as heterotopy (cf. Foucault, 1991).
 
By employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, as well as
discourse analysis of visual semiotics, Petteri Laihonen investigates the
linguistic situation in two villages in South-West Slovakia where the majority
of the population are the minority Hungarians. He compares both mono and
bilingual signage to highlight the language ideologies and discourses
encompassing them. According to the 2011 Census, Reca is bilingual (and
shifting to Slovak) whereas Vásárút is predominantly monolingual Hungarian.
However, Slovak is dominant in the public space of both villages. According to
the study, the regional dominating language is not mirrored in the public
space of these villages to avoid tension with officials and offence to state
sovereignty. 
 
Chapter 8 reports on research examining the ruralscapes of a self-declared
republic, Transnistria – a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union in the
late 1980s and early 1990s. Sebastian Muth collected his data based on signs
from two towns (Rybnitza and Dubossary) and three villages (Erzhovo, Saratei
and Bolshoi Molokish): each of the settlements had a distinctive demographic
composition but the characteristics of their ruralscapes were similar. He aims
to show a connection between the ongoing efforts to construct a unique
Transnistrian political and cultural identity. His results reveal that the
common categories of ‘derussification’ and ‘de-sovietization’ which were
observed in most parts of the former USSR do not occur in Transnistria. In
contrast, the use of Russian is widely promoted as a lingua franca and an
important part of the post-Soviet identity.
 
Based on theoretical foundations of multimodal research, Olga Bever analyses
the contradictory display of Russian and Ukrainian in Cyrillic script rather
than Roman script in Ukrainian’s politically, linguistically and culturally
contested spaces. At the main street of Zaporizhzhya where there is a high
density of private and governmental signs; Bever looks at the font, sizes,
colours, images and text prominence which constitute the multimodal elements
of a multilingual sign. This study accounts for the linguistic identity and
language choices in modern Ukraine as well as the underlying linguistic
tension that is happening between eastern and western Ukraine. 
 
The final chapter by Monica Perotto deals with the vitality and usage of the
Italian language in Moscow. The number of Italians in Moscow is rather low but
there is high demand for Italian courses – this suggests that the Italian
language reflects good values such as prestige, beauty, elegance and
creativity. Perotto examines how the Italian language is used in Moscow’s
commercial signs. She concludes that the Russian language dominates the public
spaces despite the fact that Moscow is multicultural and multilingual.
Nevertheless, the presence of Italian words in the Russian language is
perceived as cultural and attractive to the country’s industry.  

EVALUATION
 
The book offers a great collection of articles where scholars focus on the
linguistic landscape of Europe, expanding to the semiotics of space (i.e.
visual and social semiotics), mostly employing both qualitative and
quantitative approaches. There is also a focus on the former Eastern bloc
where the Russian language is used in most parts but where there are traces of
other minority languages. As pointed out by Shohamy and Waksman (2009, p.
328), closer and more comprehensive analysis of the visible signs is required
to understand the significance and design of public space. The scholars in
this book have achieved a deep and complex investigation of the various spaces
across Europe which includes integrating language choices and the semiotic
system to achieve a holistic understanding of the visual data. The articles
discuss the elements fundamental to understanding the meaning of signage in
the public spaces of Europe. This is a recommended book for scholars who are
interested in the linguistic landscape of Europe, in particular the former
Eastern bloc, which offers many opportunities for work on tension and conflict
of language policy and language choices. 

REFERENCES

Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The
English Language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.).
English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp.
11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Landry, R. and Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic
Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16,
23-49. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X970161002.

Marx, C. and Nekula, M. (2015). Constructing a Cross-Border Space through
Semiotic Landscapes: A Case Study of a German-Czech Organisation. In M.
Laitinen and A. Zabrodskaja (Eds.). Dimensions of Sociolinguistic Landscapes
in Europe: Materials and Methodological Solutions (pp. 149-167). Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.

Neustupny, J. V. and Nekvapil, J. (2003). Language Management in the Czech
Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(3 & 4), 181-366. DOI:
1466-4208/03/030181-186.

Peukert, H. (2015). Urban Linguistic Landscaping: Scanning Metropolitan
Spaces. In M. Laitinen and A. Zabrodskaja (Eds.). Dimensions of
Sociolinguistic Landscapes in Europe: Materials and Methodological Solutions
(pp. 29-51). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the
Material World. London: Routledge. 

Shohamy, E. and Waksman, S. (2009). Linguistic Landscape as an Ecological
Arena: Modalities, Meanings, Negotiations, Education. In E. Shohamy and D.
Gorter (Eds.). Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 313-329). New
York and London: Routledge.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Teresa Ong is a PhD student at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Her
research interest includes linguistic landscape, sociolinguistics, language
planning and policy, language and culture, multilingualism and social
semiotics.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-789	
----------------------------------------------------------







More information about the LINGUIST mailing list