28.3373, Review: Sociolinguistics: Ben Said, Rubdy (2015)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3373. Wed Aug 09 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.3373, Review: Sociolinguistics: Ben Said, Rubdy (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:10:25
From: Teresa Ong [ongtesa at gmail.com]
Subject: Conflict, Exclusion and Dissent in the Linguistic Landscape

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36275219


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3895.html

EDITOR: Rani  Rubdy
EDITOR: Selim  Ben Said
TITLE: Conflict, Exclusion and Dissent in the Linguistic Landscape
SERIES TITLE: Language and Globalization
PUBLISHER: Palgrave Macmillan
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Teresa Ong, Griffith University

REVIEWS EDITOR: Robert A. Coté

SUMMARY

The field of linguistic landscape has developed much over the years. Moving
away from the traditional definition of linguistic landscape by Landry and
Bourhis (1997), which focusses on the two main functions of linguistic
landscape: informational and symbolic, “Conflict, Exclusion and Dissent in the
Linguistic Landscape”, edited by Rani Rubdy and Selim Ben Said, aims to expand
into new areas of inquiry by bringing together notions of language ideologies,
language politics, language policies, language hierarchies, and
ethnolinguistic struggles to conceptualise research based on conflicting and
contesting linguistic landscape sites. This book is divided into two parts,
with part one focussing on the theme of ‘conflict and exclusion’, and part two
on ‘dissent and protest’. There are eight chapters in the former section and
five chapters in the later section. The articles cover various cities across
the globe, hence, it is worth reading to find out how conflict and exclusion
can be represented in different linguistic landscape sites. There are also
notes on the contributors, an introduction chapter by Rani Rubdy, and a
comprehensive index. 

Under the theme of ‘conflict and exclusion’, Chapter 1, ‘The Passive Exclusion
of Irish in the Linguistic Landscape: A Nexus Analysis’ by Jo Thistlethwaite
and Mark Sebba adopts a nexus analysis approach (Scollon and Scollon, 2004) to
examine the signage displayed on 220 buildings in four of the busiest streets
in Ennis, Ireland. Through categorisation of the signage, the process resulted
in the authors conducting interviews with fourteen social actors who displayed
their Irish signage on the exterior of their business. The interviews reveal
that the initiative to put up Irish signage (seen as the minority in most
cases) is actually driven by campaigns to paint a picture that the usage of
Irish is individually driven. Thus, this situation shows that the linguistic
landscape of Ennis is a contradictory site between language policies and
private practice, but not one which opposes language ideologies. 

In Chapter 2, ‘Unseen Spanish in Small-Town America: A Minority Language in
the Linguistic Landscape’, Robert A. Troyer, Carmen Cáceda, and Patricia
Giménez Eguíbar employs a mixed methods approach of a quantitative survey of
the linguistic landscape and qualitative semi-structured interviews to examine
the role of Spanish in a small town in Oregon, USA. The quantitative results
show that only 11% of public signage is in Spanish, limited to convenience
stores and Mexican restaurants and businesses. In addition, the qualitative
interviews demonstrate that there is a lack of awareness in determining
language choices in the linguistic landscape. The widely spoken Spanish in
private places is unseen in public. Nevertheless, this study shows that the
use of Spanish in the linguistic landscape carries important meanings related
to ethnic identity and heritage. 

Next, Chapter 3, ‘Language Removal, Commodification and the Negotiation of
Cultural Identity in Nagorno-Karabakh’, Sebastian Muth examines the linguistic
landscape of Nagorno-Karabakh to demonstrate the reconstruction of cultural
and political identities in a post-Soviet sphere after the fall of communism.
Muth’s study is based on a two-dimensional methodological framework; the
former illustrates the aspects of linguistic practices, while the later states
the physical restructuring of the sphere. Viewing the sphere through a wider,
semiotic meaning, the results illustrate the reflection of the legacies of
Soviet nation building, language policy, and collapse, as well as give
insights into the linguistic practices and the role of Russian as a language
of prestige and wider communication.

Melissa L. Curtin’s ‘Negotiating Differential Belonging via the Linguistic
Landscape of Taipei’ investigates the ways in which the linguistic landscape
is used for negotiating ‘boundaries of in-/ex-clusion’ for both the Taiwanese
and the island itself. She employs the ethnographic and discourse analysis
approach to explore several key ideas of in/exclusion: (i) domains, (ii)
scales, (iii) degrees, (iv) motivations, and (v) the relational nature. Her
discussion of the diverse linguistic and semiotic practices demonstrates that
the linguistic landscape practices are multi-indexical and influenced by
issues of social inclusion. Lastly, she suggests that the notion of social
inclusion is best understood through specific sociocultural, political, and
economic contexts. 

The following chapter, ‘Semiotic Landscape, Code Choice and Exclusion’ by
Luanga A. Kasanga studies public signs in three geographical spaces, which
have different colonial histories – The Democratic Republic of Congo, Bahrain,
and Singapore. Nevertheless, the three regions enjoy a high visibility of
English signage in their linguistic landscape. Employing a qualitative content
analysis together with a textual analysis of signage, Kasanga finds that the
choice of code or codes on the signage must not result in the audience having
to guess the messages indicated. When the choice of code on signage is only
written in a single language, additional information in the form of visuals or
iconographic information should be added to send out clear messages to the
audiences.

Focussing on Japan, a country that is extremely prone to natural disasters,
Mei Shan Tan and Selim Ben Said’s ‘Linguistic Landscape and Exclusion: An
Examination of Language Representation in Disaster Signage in Japan’ draws on
the framework of geosemiotics (Scollon and Scollon, 2003) to discuss the
trends of presenting emergency and disaster signage to non-Japanese speaking
audiences. The authors collect posters on bulletin boards and signage related
to natural disasters and evacuation locations at Matsushima Kaigan Station, a
place in Miyagi Prefecture that was affected during the 2011 Tohoku
Earthquake. The results reveal that most of the information presented is
predominantly in Japanese and English, not multilingual, which may cause
difficulties in sending out the messages of safety and survival to
non-Japanese residents or non-English speaking tourists. Hence, the authors
suggest highlighting this issue to the Japanese government to provide such
information in foreign languages. 

As part of a research project to investigate the academic linguistic landscape
from a student’s point of views, Chapter 8 ‘All of Myself Has to Change: A
Story of Inclusion and Exclusion in an Unequal Learning Space’ by Ruanni Tupas
focusses on the meanings and ideologies held by only one international
business student in Singapore whose school’s main building serves as a
productive academic space. The interview data with the student demonstrates
her struggles in a foreign country when acquiring competency to speak standard
English with her peers in an academic context. Tupas’ study, which
concentrates on only one individual’s point of view, is an attempt to capture
how a student’s life story and ideology intertwined with her daily
interactions in textual environments. 

The last chapter in the first section of this book, ‘Mobilizing Affect in the
Linguistic Cyberlandscape: The R-Word Campaign’ by Lionel Wee, is an
interesting case study that examines the R-Word campaign in cyberspace,
initiated in 2004 by the Special Olympics International community to eliminate
the use of the word ‘retarded’. Wee argues that while the R-word ‘retarded’
itself appeared to be ‘simply hurtful’, there are still people using it to
‘insult and degrade’ others. On the other hand, those opposing the campaign
are excluded from any related debates and express their concerns about their
freedom of expression. Combining insights from studies of language ideological
debates (Blommaert, 1999) and verbal hygiene (Allan and Burridge, 2006;
Cameron, 1995), Wee’s study enriches our understanding of how discourse
practices in linguistic cyberspace can have an impact on the social
circulation of linguistic resources (Stroud and Mpendukana, 2009). 

In the second section under the theme of ‘dissent and protest’, Chapter 10,
‘Occupy Baltimore: A Linguistic Landscape Analysis of Participatory Social
Contestation in an American City’ by David I. Hanauer examines the public
literacy in constructing the multimodal representational genres at the Occupy
Baltimore demonstration. Data collection consists of 439 digital photographs,
50 minutes of digital video, and discussions with five members of the Occupy
Movement. Hanauer finds that there are many kinds of representational genres
used during the demonstration such as handmade signs, handmade banners, signed
sidewalks, billboards, signed clothing, leaflets, flags, and tents. These
genres function as a very diverse set of messages for propagation and also as
an invitation for passers-by to participate in the demonstration. To sum up,
Hanauer concludes that these various genres are a representation of the many
voices of the people at the Occupy Baltimore site.

The subsequent chapter, Chapter 11, ‘Overcoming Erasure: Reappropriation of
Space in the Linguistic Landscape of Mass-Scale Protest’ by Corinne A. Seals,
discusses how the visibility of the linguistic landscapes of mass-scale
protests can be achieved. Using Bakhtin’s notions of heteroglossia, polyphony,
and dialogism (Bakhtin, 1984, 1992), Seals interprets her data from the
National Immigration Reform March and Occupy. She states that the messages
sent out during the protests catch the attention of the world. This situation
significantly increases the level of visibility, changes the conversation, and
becomes a mobility of social power. 

Drawing from a collection of 66 articles containing photographs with signage
and 39 videos representing demonstrations in Tunisia, Sonia Shiri in Chapter
12, ‘Co-Constructing Dissent in the Transient Linguistic Landscape:
Multilingual Protest Signs of the Tunisian Revolution’ looks at the languages,
themes, and discourse strategies employed during the demonstrations. Her
analysis reveals that there is signage displayed in Arabic, French, and
English, which reflects a multilingual linguistic repertoire among the
participant pool. Each language demonstrates the different roles it played
during the protests. Shiri’s study leads to a call for further expansion of
the linguistic landscape studies to include studying the soundscape during the
protests. 

In Chapter 13, ‘A Linguistic Landscape Analysis of the Sociopolitical
Demonstrations of Algiers: A Politicized Landscape’, Hayat Messekher combines
qualitative and quantitative analysis to investigate the types of signage used
and their functions during three Algerian public demonstrations which took
place in 2011 and 2012. The author finds that handheld signs, posters,
banners, and flags are used during the demonstrations, and they are designed
to communicate the different aims of the groups the demonstrators represented.
This study is a reflection of the power struggle between language practices
and language policy in Algeria, which is shaped by the changing socio-economic
conditions.

The last chapter in this book, ‘A Multimodal Analysis of the Graffiti
Commemorating the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks: Constructing
Self-Understandings of a Senseless Violence’ by Rani Rubdy examines the
graffiti painted on the walls of the Bada Kabrastan. Combining Kress and van
Leeuwen’s (1996) approach to visual semiotics and Scollon and Scollon’s (2003)
geosemiotics framework, the author interprets the photographs of the graffiti
according to the languages used and the meanings they conveyed. She concludes
that the graffiti on the wall of Bada Kabrastan shows us how a space is
reinterpreted and redefined to bring the protest discourse to another level.

EVALUATION

Linguistic landscape research is a rather young and narrow subfield in
sociolinguistics. Nevertheless, in recent years, it has branched out to
include semiotic analysis. Overall, this book has demonstrated an achievement
in expanding linguistic landscape research and included many semiotic analyses
of resources such as banners, flags, graffiti, cyberspace, and buildings. Many
chapters have employed different approaches such as nexus analysis,
geosemiotics, and multimodal analysis to study the linguistic landscape in
various places across the globe, with a frequent emphasis on places where
there were conflicts happening between language practices and language
ideologies. However, some basic knowledge of classic linguistic landscape
research is needed before attempting to read and understand each chapter.
Concepts of language policies, language politics, and the struggles of
language and power are also required before reading this book in order to
avoid any confusion. A conclusion chapter is preferred to sum up the various
chapters and to state how linguistic landscape research has developed as well
as the contributions made by the chapters in this book. From a postgraduate
student’s point of view, this book is suitable for any postgraduate students
who intend to conduct their research on linguistic and semiotic landscapes. 

REFERENCES

Allan, K. and Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden Words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. 

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’ Poetics. Minneapolis, USA:
University of Minnesota Press. 

Bakhtin, M. (1992). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, USA:
University of Austin Press

Blommaert, J. (Ed.). (1999). Language Ideological Debates. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton. 

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London, UK: Routledge. 

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual
Design. New York, USA: Routledge. 

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

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

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging
Internet. London, UK: Routledge. 

Stroud, C. and Mpendukana, S. (2009). Towards a Material Ethnography of
Linguistic Landscape: Multilingualism, Mobility and Space in a South African
Township. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 363-386.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Teresa Ong is a PhD candidate at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Her research interests include language maintenance and shift, language
planning and policy, and linguistic landscape. She is currently researching on
language maintenance of the Chinese community in Penang, Malaysia.





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

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


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3373	
----------------------------------------------------------