1

IN: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2013), 33, 190–212.

doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000020

Linguistic Landscapes in a Multilingual World

Durk Gorter

University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU – IKERBASQUE

Abstract

This article offers an overview of the main developments in the field of linguistic landscape
studies. A large number of research projects and publications indicate an increasing interest in
applied linguistics in the use of written texts in urban spaces, especially in bilingual and
multilingual settings. The article looks into some of the pioneer studies that helped open up this
line of research and summarizes some of the studies that created the springboard for the rapid
expansion in recent years. The focus is on current research (from 2007 onwards), including
studies that illustrate main theoretical approaches and methodological development as key issues
of the expanding field, in particular when applied in settings of societal multilingualism.
Publications on linguistic landscape cover a wide range of innovative theoretical and
empirical studies that deal with issues related to multilingualism, literacy, multimodality,
language policy, linguistic diversity, and minority languages, among others. The article shows
some examples of the use of the linguistic landscape as a research tool and as a data source to
address a number of issues in multilingualism. The article also gives an outlook on some possible
future directions. Overall, the various emerging perspectives in linguistic landscape research can
deepen our understanding of languages in urban spaces, language users, and societal
multilingualism in general.
 2

Linguistic Landscapes in a Multilingual World

Panorama of the Field
Language learning is the main product of the Rosetta Stone company. Its kiosks can be
found in shopping malls and at airports across the US, and its offices are all over the world.
Through the display of the brand name, the slogans, and the advertisements, the company
contributes to the construction of the linguistic landscape, similar to numerous companies, shops,
government agencies, private associations, and individuals. The linguistic landscape refers to any
display of visible written language. The signs are part of the textual decor that surrounds us
every day, as we walk, ride, or drive through urban environments. One wonders, however, if
passers-by are more than vaguely aware of the history of the Rosetta stone and its importance in
the decipherment of hieroglyphs in 1822. The original text on the stone, now in the British
Museum in London, is given in two languages and three scripts: Egyptian hieroglyphics on top;
the demotic variety of Greek in the middle;, and a more modern Greek alphabet at the bottom.
Coulmas (2009) observed that “the Rosetta Stone embodies many of the intricacies of language
contact, language choice, and linguistic hierarchy that form the substance of linguistic landscape
research” (p. 18). In antiquity the linguistic landscape was already multilingual in some places,
but today, due to globalization, a pure monolingual linguistic landscape is a rarity, if only
because of the spread of English in non-English speaking countries and the spread of foreign
brand names, shop names, and slogans in monolingual English speaking countries.
Landry and Bourhis (1997) referred to linguistic landscape as “the visibility and salience of
languages on public and commercial signs” (p. 23). They have also provided the most widely
quoted definition in the literature:

The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place
names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings
combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban
agglomeration (Landry & Bourhis, 1997, p. 25).

This definition captures well the object of linguistic landscape studies. However, it only lists six
types of signs, whereas the number of different signs and the variation in types is much wider.
For example, recent technological developments have added many new types of signs: electronic
 3

flat-panel displays, LED neon lights, foam boards, electronic message centers, interactive touch
screens, inflatable signage, and scrolling banners. The use of language in its written form in the
public space is the main focus of linguistic landscape studies (Gorter, 2006). Several other
phrases are used by different authors to refer to the linguistic landscape, such as “the decorum of
the public life” (Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Amara, and Trumper-Hecht, 2006, p. 10), “the linguistic
items found in the public space” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 110), “environmental print” (Huebner,
2006, p. 31), “the words on the walls” (Calvet, 1990), or “words on the street” (Foust & Fuggle,
2011). Although I will keep the generally accepted designation linguistic landscape, the
alternative concept of multilingual cityscape might be more precise, because, as we will see, the
interest of most researchers is with the use of more than one language in urban settings. On the
other hand, in the literature, the concept of linguistic landscapes is also used with a completely
different meaning, such as the general language situation or linguistic diversity (Gorter, 2006).
The study of linguistic landscapes aims to add another view to our knowledge about
societal multilingualism by focusing on language choices, hierarchies of languages, contact-
phenomena, regulations, and aspects of literacy. Linguistic landscapes are, of course, important
in monolingual contexts, if those in a strict sense still exist, but studies of linguistic landscapes
can be more revealing when they deal with multilingualism, variation, and the conflict and
contact of languages. The linguistic landscape is a multi-faceted phenomenon and its study is
related to a multitude of perspectives and disciplines. Most research studies approach the
linguistic landscape from applied linguistics or sociolinguistics, including a language policy
perspective. Other disciplinary backgrounds of researchers include advertising, education,
economics, history, media, semiotics, sociology, or urban geography. Many linguistic landscape
studies are confined to one specific geographic area, which often is a city, but can also be a
street, a neighborhood or even a whole country or a comparison between more than one of these
levels of analysis.
The aim of this overview article is fourfold. First, in order to clarify the origins of
linguistic landscape studies I will look at some pioneering studies that focused on the linguistic
landscape, but did not yet use the term as such. The section ends with the seminal study by
Landry and Bourhis (1997), who gave their widely quoted definition to the field. In the next
section I will attempt to show how some early adopters changed the emphasis of the field. The
real growth of linguistic landscape studies is more recent, and in the next section I synthesize
 4

current research since 2007. There I aim to demonstrate the contribution of diverse studies to our
understanding of multilingualism, and even though widely varying in theme and scope, they all
share a focus on the written languages of public space. In the final section, I outline possible
future developments.

Pioneer studies

Rosenbaum, Nadel, Cooper, and Fishman (1977) wanted to investigate language use in
Jerusalem, so they carried out interviews, planted encounters, and transactions in one street,
Keren Kayemet Street, and they included an analysis of the languages and scripts on the signs.
Their analysis of the languages on signs is limited to the use of Roman (almost all in English)
and Hebrew scripts. They found that the Roman script is more common on bottom-up than on
top-down signs. It demonstrated a difference between the official language policy that supports
Hebrew-only signs and the use in commercial signs of mainly English. For Rosenbaum et al.
(1977) the prevalence of English can be explained by what they call ‘snob appeal’ (P. 151).
Many later studies about the spread of English as a global language also refer to a similar
prestige factor.
Another pioneer study took place in Brussels. Tulp (1978) focused on the distribution of
Dutch and French on billboards. She found that the image of the streets was not bilingual, but
predominantly French, with only limited space for Dutch (Tulp, 1978). In a later study Monnier
(1989) reported on the importance of legal arrangements in the province of Québec, Canada,
which require the use of French in the public domain and which go against the use of English on
shop fronts. Calvet (1990) distinguishes between different ways to mark the territory by the
authorities on the one hand and by the citizens on the other. He compares the words on the walls
in the urban spaces of Dakar and Paris and finds that the signs inform us about the
multilingualism of these cities, but the authorities do not take multilingualism into account. In
Paris the languages are kept separate and never mix, whereas in Dakar they coexist and interact
because you find them on the same sign.
In their investigation of the language of Jerusalem, Spolsky and Cooper, (1991) discussed in
detail a pair of street signs in the old part. Their analysis provides an interesting early example of
the application of an historical perspective in linguistic landscape studies (the example is also
 5

discussed by Backhaus, 2007; Calvet, 2006; Spolsky, 2009a, 2009b). Each street sign consists of
nine tiles and is written in three languages. In both signs the Hebrew and Arabic are identical,
but on one side, the transliteration into English reads Ha-Malakh RD. and on the other El-Malak
RD. The first sign is transliterated from Hebrew, and the second from Arabic. The signs differ
further because the first sign consists of nine tiles within a single frame and the texts are each
written over three tiles. In the second sign the lower six tiles are together but the top three tiles
with the street name in Hebrew have evidently been added later. The explanation seems to be
that the original sign in Arabic and English was put up during the Jordanian occupation of the
Old City of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967. Then in 1967, the Old City came under Israeli rule and
the Hebrew line was added to the sign. Placing Hebrew on top demonstrates the Israeli rule and
dominance of Hebrew. The example illustrates the possibility of linguistic landscapes studies for
clarifying the social changes in the relationships between languages in a community.
The definition by Landry and Bourhis (1997) contains the seeds of the development of
the field of linguistic landscape, even though the authors did not study the textual information of
the signs in the public space per se. Using the theoretical framework of (subjective)
ethnolinguistic vitality, Landry and Bourhis (1997) included in their questionnaire the experience
of the linguistic landscape by a group of francophone secondary education students in Quebec.
They conclude that “the linguistic landscape is a sociolinguistic factor distinct from other types
of language contacts in multilingual settings” and the linguistic landscape “may constitute the
most salient marker of perceived in-group versus out-group vitality” (Landry and Bourhis, 1997,
p. 45). The results of their study also suggests a carryover effect of the linguistic landscape on
language behavior.
Early Adopters
In the years immediately following the Landry and Bourhis (1997) article, only a limited
numer of publications on linguistic landscape appeared. The journal English Today published a
few articles that contain inventories that aim to describe the use of English in shop signs in
different European cities. McArthur (2000) looked at English in shop signs in Zurich
(Switzerland) and Uppsala (Sweden). His example inspired Schlick (2002) to compare those two
cities to Klagenfurt (Austria), Udine (Italy), and Ljubljana (Slovenia). Although her samples are
rather small (80 signs per city at most), the outcomes showed that the local language is dominant
in each city (over 60% of the signs). English has an important presence in the shop signs as well,
 6

although the percentages vary. In a follow-up study Schlick (2003) compared the capitals and
one provincial town of four countries (Austria, Great Britain, Italy, and Slovenia). She did not
observe large differences among those, but she found again a good deal of English on the shop
signs. English Today did continue to publish similar studies of English on shop signs in different
countries (Dimova, 2007; Griffin, 2001, 2004; MacGregor, 2003; Stewart & Fawcett, 2004).
Because of their descriptive characteristics these articles have limited value for the study of
multilingualism; they only look into the use of English and do not examine the relationships
between different languages.
Linguistic landscaping has also been studied in the context of multilingual India.
Dasgupta (2002) provided a theoretical perspective on linguistic landscaping, which he sees as
an intentional activity. For him a linguistic landscape is not fully predetermined or static, because
other actors can introduce new unknown designs. For Singh (2002) linguistic landscaping is part
of language planning. He sees it an organized intervention which adds to the functionality of a
language, similar to developing a script or reforming a spelling. Both Dasgupta and Singh
pointed to the importance of actors who are actively shaping the linguistic landscape, hence their
preference for using linguistic landscaping as a verb.
Other studies of linguistic landscapes discussed diverging issues and seem unrelated. For
example, Hult (2003) carried out an explorative study of the relationships between English and
Swedish in society. He applied an ecology of language perspective (Haugen,1972) to a study of
shopping streets of two Swedish towns. He observed a prominent presence of English on
storefronts and signs in a complex relationship to Swedish. As part of a larger study of language
contact in urban neighborhoods, Collins and Slembrouck (2004) wanted to analyze variable ways
of perceiving, reading, and construing multilingual shop signs posted by immigrants in Ghent,
Belgium. They found differences between locals and immigrants in the readings and
interpretations of the signage. Reh (2004) is interested in multilingual writing and she examined
signs in the Lira Municipality in Uganda. She gave special attention to the amount of information
in each language in bilingual signs and their intended readership. She developed a model of
combinations of languages and information in the text on signs that was useful for later studies
(e.g. Backhaus, 2007; Edelman, 2009; Huebner, 2009;). Hicks (2002) is one of the first authors
to use the concept of linguistic landscape directly from Landry and Bourhis (1997), focusing on
 7

the policy around Scottish Gaelic signage and the problems of policy implementation for this
minority language.
The linguistic landscape field got a theoretical push through the monograph of Scollon
and Scollon-Wong (2003). They argued that we can only interpret the meaning of public signs by
considering their placement in a social and cultural context. Scollon and Scollon-Wong (2003)
called their approach geosemiotics which they defined as “the study of social meaning of the
material placement of signs and discourses and of our actions in the material world” (p. 2).
Meaning is taken from how and where signs are placed, based on general principles of layout.
For Scollon and Scollon-Wong (2003), the languages on a sign can index the community in
which they are used (geopolitical location) or they can symbolize an aspect of the product that is
not related to the place where it is located (sociocultural associations) . Thus, a sign in English
may not index an English-speaking community, but can be used to symbolize foreign taste and
manners. Their work is theoretically rich, and demonstrates that the field of linguistic landscape
studies does not have sharply demarcated disciplinary boundaries.
Backhaus (2007) published the first comprehensive monograph entirely centered on the
linguistic landscape. It is an important work because it provided a detailed review of previous
research in the new field of linguistic landscape and at the same time it presented an elaborate
case study about the linguistic landscape in Tokyo, a major world city. He also furnished a
general framework, in which he distinguishes between the source or origin of a sign, the reader
of a sign, and the dynamics of the languages and scripts in contact. His research is based on a
large empirical database of multilingual signs and revealed a multilingual reality of Tokyo that is
not as linguistically homogeneous as is often thought. He also described in detail the increasing
importance of English as well as other languages. Backhaus thereby demonstrated that this field
is a valuable development in the analysis of multilingualism. He contributed further to the field
through his publications on the diachronic study of the linguistic landscape (2005), on the
distinction between official and non-official multilingual signs (2006), a summary of his major
outcomes in a wider context of multilingualism (2008), and a comparison between language
policy in Tokyo and Montreal (2009).
Further direction to the field was given in a special issue on linguistic landscapes of the
International Journal of Multilingualism in which four studies were reported. Ben Rafael,
Shohamy, Amara, and Trumper-Hecht (2006) focused on the degree of visibility on private and
 8

public signs of the three major languages (Hebrew, Arabic, and English) in Israeli cities. Taken
together the linguistic landscape is not a true reflection of the diversity of Israel's languages. In
this perspective they refer to the linguistic landscape as the symbolic construction of the public
space.
Huebner (2006) examined questions of language mixing and language dominance in his
study of Bangkok, Thailand. He makes visible the linguistic diversity of the linguistic landscape
in this large metropolitan area. He also provided a linguistic framework for the analysis of
different types of code mixing, where English as a global language turns out to have an
important influence. He offered evidence of a shift from Chinese to English as the major
language of wider communication in the city. His data raise questions about the consequences of
the spread of English in the linguistic landscape.
Backhaus (2006) focused on the distinction between official and non-official multilingual
signs in Tokyo, Japan. The two types of signs show different characteristics with regard to the
languages used and how they are arranged on the signs. He used the notions of power and
solidarity to interpret the differences. Backhaus explicitly established links between his
investigation of the linguistic landscape of Tokyo and the increasing number of linguistic
landscape studies around the world.
Cenoz and Gorter (2006) compared the linguistic landscape in Friesland (the
Netherlands) and the Basque Country (Spain). They examined the use of the minority language
(Basque or Frisian), the state language (Spanish or Dutch) and English as an international
language. In their approach the quantitative data of the language signs are analyzed to determine
the number of languages used, which languages are on the signs, and the characteristics of
bilingual and multilingual signs. They found that the language policy regarding minority
languages is reflected in the linguistic landscape, but there are important differences between
both regions.
These studies provided examples for other researchers, as is demonstrated by frequent
quotations of the articles. Together with the Backhaus (2007) monograph, these articles moved
the field further along and created a springboard for the rapid expansion in later years.
Current Research
Although the boundaries of the field of linguistic landscape studies cannot be drawn
precisely, in agreement with the definitions offered in the introduction, the field can be delimited
 9

by emphasizing studies that have as the main focal point the analysis of language(s) displayed on
signs in public space. Backhaus (2007) discussed a chronological overview of publications from
the 1970s to 2006. He listed 10 publications before 1998 and another 20 from 1998 to 2006.
Troyer (2012) presented an updated bibliography of linguistic landscape publications in English,
although he also included some media and advertising publications. In his list of 168
publications only 12 appeared before 1998, another 40 between 1998 and 2006, and no less than
116 publications have appeared since 2007. These figures are a clear demonstration of the rapid
growth of the field.
An expanding group of researchers from applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, language
policy, and other disciplinary backgrounds are fascinated by the use of languages on the signs,
mainly in multilingual urban contexts. New researchers were attracted to the field by special
panels and colloquia at important international conferences. Those colloquia also resulted in the
publication of edited volumes (Gorter, Marten, & Van Mensel, 2012; Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010;
Shohamy & Gorter, 2009). In January 2008 a series of Linguistic Landscape Workshops started
in Tel Aviv which were continued in Siena (2009), Strasbourg (2010), Addis Ababa (2012), and
Namur (2013). These workshops attract researchers who share an interest in contributing to the
study of multilingualism in urban contexts. The workshops have resulted thus far in two edited
books (Shohamy, Ben-Rafael, & Barni, 2010; Hélot, Barni, Janssens, & Bagna, 2012). Several
articles appeared in widely dispersed journals, as well as in chapters of edited volumes. All these
developments contribute to a more solid infrastructure of the field, although it does not (yet)
have its own associations or journals. The directions the field takes can be illuminated through a
discussion of theoretical approaches and methodological developments.

Theoretical Approaches

Scholars from Israel are of great significance for the field of linguistic landscape, in
particular its theoretical development. Spolsky and Cooper (1991), in their study of the
languages of Jerusalem, tried to build a theory of language choice on signs from a literacy
perspective. They proposed a preference model based on Jackendoff (1983) with three
conditions: (a) sign-writer’s skill, write a sign in a language you know; (b) presumed reader,
write a sign in the language which can be read by the public and (c) symbolic value, write in
 10

your own language or the language you want to be identified with. These three conditions apply
to all signs but their significance for the preference in the choice of one language or another may
vary from sign to sign. Spolsky (2009a) put the model in a wider context than linguistic
landscape and he includes it in his theory of language policy (Spolsky, 2009b). His merit is that
he connects the study of public multilingual signage to his language policy theory. Linguistic
landscapes belong to the component of language practices, one of the three components of his
theory, which also includes beliefs about language and language management, the latter referring
to the explicit efforts by some authority to modify practices or beliefs.
As mentioned before, Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Amara, and Trumper-Hecht (1998, 2006)
wanted to investigate the degree of visibility on signs of Hebrew, Arabic, and English. Their
theoretical ideas are based on four sociological structuration principles. The first principle is the
presentation of self, following the work of American sociologist Erving Goffman (1963),
because signs compete with each other to become attractive to different actors because of their
uniqueness. Second is the good-reasons perspective that anticipates clients’ cost-and-benefit
considerations, involving instrumental and rational calculation of alternatives in their behavior.
The third principle considers signs as collective-identity markers of groups. Signs illustrate
forms of multiculturalism because they may be designed to assert a commitment to the identities
of the actors, that is, who they are. Finally, the power relations perspective goes back to theories
of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1991). It helps to explain the linguistic landscape in terms
of dominant and subordinate groups. Taken together the linguistic landscape is seen under these
principles as the symbolic construction of the public space (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Ben-Rafael,
Shohamy, & Barni, 2010).
Shohamy (2006) continued in the line of reasoning and referred to the linguistic
landscape as a public arena where language battles are taking place and where the choice of
languages can establish domination of space. Linguistic landscape items are mechanisms of
language policy that can perpetuate ideologies and the status of certain languages and not others.
She refers to the contestation over language in public space. A clear example of such
contestation is the painting over signs or parts of signs in a so-called wrong language, an activity
well known among certain minority language groups (Gorter, Aiestaran, & Cenoz, 2012). Puzey
(2011) gave the extreme example of a sign in Norway that literally got shot at because it contains
the wrong language. In another publication Shohamy and Waksman (2009) asked the
 11

fundamental question “What can be considered linguistic landscape?” (p. 313). They opted for a
somewhat radical view of linguistic landscape as an ecological arena that goes beyond written
texts of signs and includes oral language, images, objects, placement in time and space, and also
people. They posit fluid and fuzzy borders to include all possible texts that emerge in public
spaces. Various theories of multimodality and multilingualism, discourse analysis, and genres are
applied to interpret the all-inclusive linguistic landscape texts. Public space is not neutral but a
negotiated and contested arena. The field offers a “challenge of further understanding the essence
of language in public space” (Shohamy & Waksman, 2009, p. 329). In a recent publication
Shohamy and Ghazaleh-Mahajneh (2012) questioned the traditional notion of the term minority
language. They studied the consequences and the impact of the status of Arabic as a so-called
minority language in its relation to Hebrew and English. They conclude that the concepts of
minority and majority are relative and politically determined.
In recent years, linguistic landscape research has used different theoretical perspectives.
Franco-Rodriguez (2011) and Kasanga (2012) continue in the tradition of ethnolinguistic vitality
theory, already the point of departure for Landry and Bourhis (1997). A frame-analytic
perspective based on Goffman (1974) is used by Coupland and Garrett (2010) in their analysis of
the Welsh in Patagonia and again by Coupland (2012) in his analysis of language policy in
Wales. Also, Kallen (2010) applied frame-analysis to the multilingual landscape of Dublin and
Jaworski and Yeung (2010) used it to explain the naming of residential buildings in Hong Kong.
These studies show that a frame-analytic perspective can be enriching for linguistic landscape
studies.
Sloboda, Szabó-Gilinger, Vigers, and Šimičić (2010), as well as Szabó-Gilinger, Sloboda,
Šimičić, and Vigers (2012) used the theory of advocacy coalitions framework (Sabatier &
Jenkins Schmidt, 1999) from policy sciences to underpin their analysis about the perception of
multilingual signs in a comparison of four European towns. Leeman and Modan (2009) drew on
cultural geography theories of landscape as well as research on the commodification of language
and ethnicity in their discussion of the changes in Chinatown, Washington, D.C. Taking
theoretical ideas from disciplines such as political science and geography can fruitfully
contribute to the study of multilingual signage. Stroud and Mpendukana (2009, 2010) tried to
address the theoretical dimensions of multilingual mobility and the multimodal representation of
languages in South Africa, and Wetzel (2010) analyzed public signs as narratives and described
 12

parallels between language on signs and extended discourses. This list of theoretical frameworks
which have been applied is not exhaustive and even if the field has started from divergent
theoretical assumptions and gone in different directions, they have contributed valuable new
insights on the use of languages and societal multilingualism.
Methodological Developments

Research into linguistic landscapes draws on the general arsenal of available methods in
applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. Its main innovation is in the typical method of collecting
large numbers of photographs, made possible by affordable digital technology. The
methodological development of the field can be illustrated by a series of studies on linguistic
landscapes in the Basque Country, Spain. Cenoz and Gorter (2003), inspired by the early work
done in Israel, presented a first small-scale study in the city of Donostia-San Sebastián that
contains a systematic inventory of all the observable signs in one street only. They referred to the
example of Rosenbaum et al. (1977), who also focused on one street and they used an adapted
coding-scheme of Ben-Rafael et al. (1998). Later the same authors carried out a more elaborate
study. They photographed all the signs in the main shopping street of Donostia-San Sebastián.
That street was compared to a similar shopping street in Leeuwarden/Ljouwert in Friesland, The
Netherlands where the same data-collection technique was applied. Their systematic quantitative
sampling had as an advantage that it makes a comparison possible of the distribution of
languages on the signs and different patterns of multilingualism. Cenoz and Gorter (2006)
discussed how the counting of the signs is not unproblematic because decisions have to be made
about what constitutes the unit of analysis. They decided to count all visible signs, large and
small. A shop front is one unit, but an individual street sign or a poster is one unit as well. In
contrast, Backhaus (2007), in his quantification of signs in Tokyo, counted only signs that
contained more than one language. He defined signs as “any piece of written text within a
spatially definable frame” (p. 66). In both cases some degree of arbitrariness cannot be avoided
and both studies exclude moving signs such as advertisements on buses, texts on T-shirts, or
thrown away wrappers. Sebba (2010) argued that “while fixed signage is undoubtedly of great
interest … it needs to be seen and analysed as a subset … of all public texts, which also includes
mobile or ‘non-fixed’ public texts” (p. 59).
 13

The quantitative-distributive approach to multilingualism in the study of the linguistic

landscape was followed by several researchers, including Coluzzi (2009), Edelman (2006),
Gorter (2009), Lado (2011), Lai (2012), and Muth (2012), among others. The analysis of the
quantitative data is often underpinned by a qualitative analysis as part of their studies. Macalister
(2010) critically examined the much imitated quantitative approach, but he showed at the same
time its usefulness in his analysis of the predominately monolingual linguistic landscape of the
small town of Picton in New Zealand.
Cenoz and Gorter (2006) were able to apply an international comparative perspective
because they used identical sampling procedures. Their analysis of two European regions where
a minority language is used, informed the reader about the distribution of the minority language
(Basque or Frisian), the state language (Spanish or Dutch), and English as the global language.
The differences in official language policy between the two regions are held responsible for a
larger or smaller number of signs in the minority language. The study showed that the linguistic
landscape of a specific area marks the geographical space inhabited by a language group or
groups. It indexes a sociolinguistic reality that touches on the relationships between people living
in this specific area and beyond. The linguistic landscape not only reflects the status of different
languages in society, but it also acts as a force shaping how languages are being perceived and
used by the population.
Another innovative methodology came from the interdisciplinary collaboration of applied
linguists and economists in SUS.DIV, a European Network of Excellence about Sustainable
Development in a Diverse World. A team of researchers explored together the possibility of
using econometric models to analyze the linguistic landscape and to look into the use and non-
use values of the signs (Cenoz & Gorter 2009; Nunes, Onofri, Cenoz, & Gorter, 2008; Onofri,
Nunes, Cenoz, & Gorter, 2010). In their study they applied the contingent valuation method to an
allocation scenario in which during street interviews persons were asked to answer standardized
questionnaires about the linguistic landscape. One research question concerned preference
structures (What languages do the interviewees prefer?) and another priorities (How much is it
worth to them?; Aiestaran, Cenoz, & Gorter, 2010).
In a recent study Kopinska (2011) tried another methodological approach by creating a
semi-experimental setting to test the hypothesis that language practices can be influenced by the
language used on the signs. A group of students were presented with a series of slides on which
 14

signs of a bakery or a bank appear on one half of the slides either in Basque or Spanish and the
other half are distracter signs of other establishments with bilingual, multilingual, or English
signs or a brand name. In half of the cases the written language on the sign is in agreement with
the spoken language of a costumer and in the other half the displayed language is different of the
spoken language. The respondents have to evaluate the language choice of the client in the
establishment and have to indicate which language they themselves would use in the given
situation (Kopinska, 2011; Kopinska & Gorter, 2012).
Outside the Basque Country, Barni and Bagna (2009) applied a unique method of
quantitative mapping the linguistic landscape by means of a computer program. Their research
tool, MapGeoLing, can provide a detailed description of all the signs in a street or a whole
neighborhood. The software has the built-in possibility of adding codes to the photograph about
the text genre, domain of use and its context, and its linguistic features. They applied their
technique in Rome in the Esquilino neighborhood to map immigrant languages on signs (Barni &
Bagna, 2009). In a follow-up study of the same neighborhood they aimed to observe changes
after an important policy measure was implemented, but they do not seem to have used the same
tool again (Barni & Vedovelli, 2012).
A more qualitative approach was chosen in other studies. Based on their experiences in
the Basque Country, Cenoz and Gorter (2008) explored qualitatively the role that languages on
signs can potentially have as a source of authentic input or learning method in second language
acquisition (SLA), in particular for the acquisition of pragmatic competence and multimodal
literacy skills. The linguistic landscape contains many texts that can be useful in a learning
context. Even a vending machine that asks in two languages “Are you thirsty?” does not only
display in pragmatic terms a request, but also gives access to authentic input and can raise
language awareness (see also Gorter & Cenoz, 2007). Malinowski (2009) obtained his insights
from interviews with Korean shop-owners which he combined with a joint interpretation of the
store´s signs in order to figure out issues about authorship of the use of Korean, English, or both
in the signage. Another qualitative study was carried out by Leeman and Modan (2010), who
wanted to expand the boundaries of linguistic landscape research by breaking away from a
quantitative approach and attending to the linguistic and spatial context of the written signs.
They focused on the meaning of the languages on the signs they examined. Taylor-Leech (2012)
took a similar qualitative approach. Her goal was to analyze language choice in the linguistic
 15

landscape of Dili in Timor-Leste. She examined signs that illustrated indexical, iconic, and visual
grammatical features in order to demonstrate the links between the linguistic landscape and the
wider social, economic, and political context. Garvin (2010) used a remarkable qualitative
research technique when she conducted what she called postmodern walking tour interviews, in
which she interacted with passersby in order to understand their response to the linguistic
landscape around them in the street. She saw her method as an explorative exercise into
understandings and visual perceptions of signage which mark an increase of multilingualism and
multiculturalism in Memphis, Tennessee.
Mitchell (2010) demonstrated the value of triangulation of different methods. He
combined a discourse analysis of a newspaper clipping, the languages overheard being spoken on
the street, and a quantitative photographic investigation of the linguistic landscape. In one
neighborhood of Pittsburg, Mitchell found a predominantly monolingual linguistic landscape
(96.5% English only signs) and a similar “soundscape” (80.7% of the people spoke English).
Still, that same landscape has given rise to a newspaper report with metaphors of “invasion” and
“flood” to represent a “discourse of fear about Latino immigrants” (Mitchell, 2010, p. 169).
More and more scholars purposefully combine several research methods; for example, Bogatto
and Hélot (2010) combined quantitative with qualitative methods in Strasbourg, Dray (2010)
juxtaposed a survey-type analysis with a detailed qualitative ethnography on Jamaica, and Lou
(2010) added together a geosemiotic analysis of shop signs, observations of community
meetings, interviews with neighborhood residents, and ethnographic fieldwork in Chinatown,
Washington, D.C. Also, Papen (2012) combined textual and visual analysis of signs with
interviews with sign producers such as shop owners, activists, and street artists in a
neighborhood in Berlin. The results of these studies seem to be based on a relatively small set of
non-random and selective empirical data, which can illuminate the relationship of individual
signs with issues of multilingualism and with wider social, economic or political developments,
but at the same time can be a weakness because replication and generalization seem difficult.
Outlook: Moving Forward
Linguistic landscape studies have been conducted for over 40 years, but it is during the
last five years that there has been an explosion of publications. Given these recent developments,
it is likely that researchers want to continue making important contributions to our understanding
of several aspects of societal multilingualism, language policy, and the use of written languages
 16

in urban contexts. Although linguistic landscapes are usually studied in urban settings, primarily
in the most central parts of a city, Daveluy and Ferguson (2009) challenged the dichotomy
between urban and rural in their discussion of road signs in the north of Canada and Kotze and
Du Plessis (2010) focused deliberately on the linguistic landscapes of rural areas.
As Dagenais, Moore, Sabatier, Lamarre, and Armand (2009) pointed out, cities can be
viewed as “dense with signs that must be deciphered, read, and interpreted by citizens” (p. 255).
The study of the linguistic landscapes has added an innovative and captivating approach to the
mapping of language diversity and multilingualism in urban settings. Linguistic landscapes can
be places where linguistic diversity is displayed but also contested. Some language groups have
more access to being on written display in public sphere than others; majority languages
dominate but minority languages often struggle for visibility (Marten, Van Mensel, & Gorter,
2012). In this sense, a multilingual cityscape is the outcome of particular social processes and at
the same time the signage can be a display of identities of certain language groups and not
others. Therefore, the regulation of the linguistic landscape will remain an important issue, not
only in terms of which languages are used but also because of moral, ethical, and legal
dimensions. The linguistic landscape seems to reflect the relative power and status of the
different language groups in a specific context.
A basic assumption of many studies is that the linguistic landscape contributes to the
construction of the sociolinguistic context because people process the visual information that
comes to them. Another assumption is that the language in which signs are written can influence
the perception of the status of the different languages and affect linguistic behavior.
No doubt the field’s main foci over the past 40 years-- the spread of English, the
distribution of languages, language regulations, minority languages, and so on--will continue to
characterize studies of linguistic landscapes. At the same time heterogeneity can be seen as a
built-in characteristic of the field.
Studies of the spread of English in the linguistic landscape were among the first in the
field (Rosenbaum, et. al, 1977) and this theme continues to attract the attention as a recent
special issue of World Englishes attests (Bolton, 2012). Words, chunks, formulae, phrases, and
utterances are used in English in the linguistic landscape, in particular in the case of commercial
signs. English is used along with other languages, visuals, and icons and these multilingual and
multimodal texts display soft boundaries between languages and between modes (Cenoz &
 17

Gorter, 2008). As mentioned earlier, English is often associated with modernity,

internationalism, or technological advancement or what Rosenbaum et. al (1977) called snob
appeal. Other reasons to use English may be creative-linguistic or related to the possibility to use
English as a lingua franca across many countries. Kuppens (2009) demonstrated that independent
of these reasons, sometimes English signs also contain a linguistic cue as an intertextual
reference to existing media genres. Hybrids of English with Chinese signs resulting in
‘Chinglish’ are studied by Radtke and Yuan (2011, p. 390) who attempt to develop a typology
based on a corpus of signs collected through a website. They suggest future studies into the sign
production process and into control of official translations.
Names are an important element in linguistic landscapes, but it is not always clear to
what language they belong. Edelman (2009) and Tufi and Blackwood (2010) tried to solve the
problems by coding and attributing brand names to specific languages. The social psychological
concept of social representation could provide a solution and in future studies people can be
asked to designate the “language of representation” of trademarks and brand names (Tufi &
Blackwood, 2010, p. 208). Du Plessis (2009) addressed the regulation of language choice in
geographical names in South Africa because such decisions may lead to bilingual or multilingual
names. He demonstrated that his analysis provides more insights than a mere policy analysis
would do. Puzey (2009) considered how including minority place-names on signs can be
perceived as an act of renaming in itself. Jaworski and Yeung (2010) discussed the names of
residential buildings in Hong Kong, the languages used for them, and how they are framed, and
Tan (2009) found that English predominates in building names in Singapore, contrary to the
official language policy of multilingualism. These studies can provide valuable examples for
future studies into the relationship between the use and regulations of names in the linguistic
landscape and its monolingual or multilingual character.
The Rosetta Stone and a pair of street signs in Jerusalem were given as examples at the
beginning of this article to make clear that linguistic landscapes can have an important historical
dimension. A diachronic approach has been applied by several researchers like Backhaus (2005)
who looked into layering of signs over time or Lou (2007) and Leeman and Modan (2009, 2010)
who worked on historical developments in Chinatown, Washington D.C. Pavlenko (2010)
examined different periods of the visual landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine and the factors that shaped
language changes. She wrote a sociolinguistic history from the 9th to the 21st century based on
 18

sources with linguistic landscape items. She used a corpus of pictures with traces of past
linguistic landscapes on frescoes, coins, manuscripts, and also photographs from the 19th century
onward, including her own pictures of signage. She also used secondary sources such as
archaeological studies or memoirs of travelers. Her study demonstrates the value of a diachronic
approach by providing an overview of a thousand-year-old multilingual tradition of the city.
The perspective of the actors was already included in some of the studies that were
mentioned before (e.g. Malinowski, 2009; Lou 2010; Papen, 2012), but Ben Said (2011)
suggested a future line of inquiry by his remark that linguistic landscape research “ought to
include voices from the people as an essential part of the interpretation of the linguistic
landscape” (p. 68). Also, the industry of sign producers should be considered in this type of
research because it is an economically important industry that determines to a large degree what
the linguistic landscape looks like and which languages are used.
A promising direction in linguistic landscape studies are investigations of semi-public
institutional contexts, such as government buildings, libraries, museums, hospitals, and schools.
Education as an institution has already attracted the attention of some scholars. The aim of
Dagenais et al (2009) was to document the literacy practices of elementary school children when
they examine multilingualism and language diversity in their communities in Vancouver and
Montreal. The attention to the linguistic landscape in an educational context provides a
promising way to teach about language awareness and literacy practices. Clemente, Andrade and
Martins (2012) followed their example in a project called “learning to read the world, learning to
read the linguistic landscape” (p. 268) where they applied a similar didactic strategy in a
Portuguese primary school. Based on anthropological fieldwork in Estonia, Brown (2012)
wanted to analyze the re-emergence of the regional language Võru in “school spaces” (p. 281).
She identifies the regional language as enriching national culture, but also as an historical
artefact. She identifies these two central themes in different signs in the linguistic landscape
inside the schools. Also, university students can profit from working with the linguistic
landscape. For example, Sayer (2010) used the linguistic landscape as a pedagogical tool for
teaching English as a foreign language in Mexico, and Hancock (2012) investigated how student
teachers respond to the linguistic landscape in the city of Edinburgh. In the case of education, the
signage can be related to issues of second or third language acquisition or language awareness,
 19

but as these studies demonstrate, questions about the functions of signs, multilingual literacy or
multilingual competence can also be investigated.
New developments in how language is displayed in public spaces and how researchers
study language on signs may result in further shifts of theoretical approaches and methods as the
field is moving forward. The ways in which signs are displayed and how the languages are used
may change in striking ways due to technology. When the study of linguistic landscapes began
there were no smartphone apps, no interactive digital advertisements, no Internet, no text
messaging, no Twitter, and so on. The rapid spread of these technologies is both a challenge and
an opportunity for linguistic landscape researchers. In recent years flat screen video displays
have begun to populate urban commercial areas. They have become part of the linguistic
landscape of most shopping streets. The signs that combine to form the linguistic landscape are
to some degree static and as was mentioned above one can observe historical changes over time
in the signs. These video displays add dynamism and fluidity to signage, and it is a challenge to
capture and analyze their contribution to the multilingual make-up of the linguistic landscape.
Other recent phenomena are so-called QR-codes, the small black and white squares that look like
a Mondriaan painting. In just a few years they became omnipresent in advertisements, on
information panels, and so on, but these barcodes cannot be read by humans. Only through a
smartphone, used as a barcode reader, can one discover what is behind the symbol, and in what
language(s) the information is available.
There will be more new technology coming; some of it is already with us and more will
arrive soon. One example of where things are headed is augmented reality (AR), that is, the
viewing of digital information which has been superimposed or augmented onto a live view of
your physical environment. AR has already become common in sports television broadcasts to
display different sideboard-advertisements for different audiences or to superimpose artificial,
digital lines on a playing field. In commercial applications, AR can be used to display products
in different languages for different costumers. AR changes the perception of the linguistic
landscape because it overlays the real world with digital data. Another example is a smartphone
app such as Wordlens (http://questvisual.com/us/) that can translate almost any sign written in
Spanish into English (and vice versa) by only pointing the phone at the sign. Further, the next
generation of personal technology such as Project Glass by Google
(https://plus.google.com/+projectglass/posts), in which you wear a pair of glasses through which
 20

you read information about objects at the same time you look at them. If you combine Project
Glass, augmented reality and automatic translation, you can imagine that the production,
perception and experience of linguistic landscapes will most certainly change and a multilingual
cityscape can turn into a monolingual version of the language you prefer to read, which for the
time being will most likely be English. These technologies raise a multitude of new questions
about societal multilingualism that deserve systematic study.
From the previous research, it has become clear that researchers approach the linguistic
landscape from a variety of theoretical perspectives and with various methodologies. The
research has seen an increasing diversification called for by the diversity of themes and issues
investigated in a variety of settings and locations. Some theoretical progress has been made, but
more is needed. A future challenge will be to use empirical studies to test theoretical ideas rather
than provide descriptive or analytic accounts that more or less illustrate theoretical ideas. A
panoptical view can be beneficial but the theoretical work can be strengthened further. More
thought should go into what the signs mean, what they do, and how they influence the use of
written and spoken languages in people’s lives.
The typical linguistic landscape method of collecting photographical data can be
considered an additional source of information about the sociolinguistic context along with
censuses, surveys, or interviews. Methodologies can be quantitative, qualitative ethnographic
studies, and even experimental. However, the methodology thus far has been often eclectic,
which can suffice, but it could be less explorative and there should be more efforts to build on
former studies. Perhaps more important, as language becomes increasingly digitized, the size,
range, and nature of the samples that can be analyzed will increase dramatically. More rigorous
research is needed that is well controlled and that can be replicated by other researchers.
The field of linguistic landscapes is growing as a specialization in applied linguistics,
sociolinguistics, and language policy studies. It will not likely evolve into a new subdiscipline on
its own, nor will a new coherent theory of multilingualism be developed in the near future. But
its studies provide important additional tools for research, innovative sources of data, and
reflections on theoretical ideas. The results of linguistic landscape research offer fresh
perspectives on issues such as urban multilingualism, globalization, minority languages, and
language policy. I have tried to capture the broad scope of this rising field and the main
characteristics of the research that takes place. Overall, the various emerging perspectives in
 21

linguistic landscape research can deepen our understanding of languages displayed in urban
spaces, language users and of societal multilingualism in general.

Acknowledgement: I would like to acknowledge the funding by the Basque Department of

Education, Research and Universities for the Donostia Research Group on Multilingualism and
Education (DREAM IT-362-10; UFI 11/54).

Annotated Bibliography
Gorter, D., Marten, H. F., & Van Mensel, L. (Eds.) (2012). Minority languages in the
linguistic landscape. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
This collection of 18 articles focuses on the dynamics of the use of minority languages
for public display in urban spaces or next to majority languages, English as a global
language, and other languages. Most articles make use of tangible, photographic data
to explore the so-called “same old issues” of language contact and language conflict.
The lens of the chapters is on situations in Europe with two contrasting cases from
Israel and Brunei.

Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (Eds.). (2010). Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space.
London, UK: Continuum.
Semiotic landscape is an alternative for the term linguistic landscape that emphasizes
a wider focus for the studies in this book. For the editors, space and image are equally
important to language texts. The programmatic introduction adds complexity to
existing theories and methodologies. The authors of the 13 chapters succeed in
exploring and expanding the borders of the field.

Shohamy, E., Ben-Rafael, E., & Barni, M. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistic landscape in the city.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
This collection offers 18 case-studies of major world cities and smaller towns concerning the
factors that construct the linguistic landscape and the impact it has on wider socio-cultural
realities. Its programmatic introduction characterizes the field as being interested in “ordered
disorder” (pp xi-xxviii), a jungle of jumbled and irregular items, which can be analyzed by
 22

using underlying structuration principles. The book complements existing publications on

linguistic landscape.

Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New
York, NY: Routledge.
This book introduces a broad and diverse view on the field of linguistic landscape
studies, based on empirical data obtained from a wide range of places from around the
world. It provides a basic exposition of an expanding field. Across the 20 chapters,
urgent issues of study in linguistic landscapes are dealt with. The book puts forward
many suggestions as to what the field in its various manifestations can amount to.

References
Aiestaran, J., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2010). Multilingual cityscapes: Perceptions and
preferences of the inhabitants of the city of Donostia-San Sebastian. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-
Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape in the City (pp. 219-234). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Backhaus, P. (2005). Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo: A diachronic look at the linguistic
landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175/176, 103-121.
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in
Tokyo. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Backhaus, P. (2008). The linguistic landscape of Tokyo. In M. Barni & G. Extra (Eds.), Mapping
linguistic diversity in multicultural contexts (pp. 311-333). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Backhaus, P. (2009). Rules and regulations in linguistic landscaping: A comparative perspective.
In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 157-
172). New York, NY: Routledge.
.
Barni, M., & Bagna, C. (2009). A mapping technique and the linguistic landscape. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 126-140).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Barni, M. & Vedovelli, M. (2012). Linguistic Landscape and Language Policies. In Hélot, C., M.
Barni, R. Janssens & C. Bagna (Eds.) Linguistic Landscapes, Multilingualism and Social
Change (pp. 27-38). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E. Amara, M.H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (1998). Linguistic landscape
and multiculturalism: A Jewish-Arab comparative study. Unpublished manuscript. Tel Aviv,
Israel: Tel Aviv University.
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M.H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape
as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. In D. Gorter (Ed.),
Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism (pp. 7-30). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
 23

Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., & Barni, M. (2010). Introduction: An approach to an “ordered
disorder”. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city
(pp. xi-xxviii). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ben Said, S. (2011). Data triangulation as a resource in multilingual research: Examples from the
linguistic landscape. In Proceedings of the Conference on Doing Research in Applied
Linguistics. Bangkok, Thailand: King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi and
Macquarie University. Retrieved from
http://arts.kmutt.ac.th/dral/PDF%20proceedings%20on%20Web/62-
70_Data_Triangulation_as_a_Resource_in_Multilingual_Research.pdf
Bogatto, F., & Hélot, C. (2010). Linguistic landscape and language diversity in Strasbourg: The
“Quartier Gare”. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in
the city (pp. 275-291). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bolton, K (2012). World Englishes and linguistic landscapes. World Englishes, 31, 1, 30-33.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Brown, K.D. (2012). The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: Language revitalization and
schools in southeastern Estonia. In D.Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.),
Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 281-298). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-
Macmillan.
Calvet, L. J. (1990). Des mots sur les murs. Une comparaison entre Paris et Dakar [The words on
the walls. A comparison between Paris and Dakar]. In R. Chaudenson (Ed.), Des langues et
des villes (Actes du colloque international à Dakar, du 15 au 17 décembre 1990) (pp. 73-
83). Paris, France: Didier Érudition.
Calvet, L.J. (2006). Towards an ecology of world languages. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2003, September). The linguistic landscape of Erregezainen / Escolta
Real. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Third Language Acquisition and
Trilingualism, Tralee, Ireland.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. In D. Gorter (Ed.),
Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism (pp. 67-80). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2008). Linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second
language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
(IRAL), 46, 257-276.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2009). Language economy and linguistic landscape. In E. Shohamy &
D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 55-69). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Clemente, M., Andrade, A. I., & Martins, F. (2012). Learning to read the world, learning to look
at the linguistic landscape: A primary school study. In C. Hélot, M. Barni, R. Janssens, & C.
Bagna (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism, and social change (pp. 267-285).
Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Coluzzi, P. (2009). The Italian linguistic landscape: The cases of Milan and Udine. International
Journal of Multilingualism 6, 298-312.
Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2004). Reading shop windows in globalized neighborhoods:
Multilingual literacy practices and indexicality. Working Papers on Language, Power and
Identity, 21, 1-19.
Coupland, N. (2012). Bilingualism on display: The framing of Welsh and English in Welsh
public spaces. Language in Society, 41,1–27.
 24

Coupland, N. & Garrett, P. (2010). Linguistic landscapes, discursive frames and metacultural
performance: The case of Welsh Patagonia. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 205, 7–36.
Coulmas, F. (2009). Linguistic landscaping and the seed of the public sphere. In E. Shohamy &
D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 13-24). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Dagenais, D., Moore, D., Sabatier, C., Lamarre, P., & Armand, F. (2009). Linguistic landscape
and language awareness. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape:
Expanding the scenery (pp. 253-269). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dasgupta, P. (2002). The public space and the overt imagination. In N. H. Itagi & S. K. Singh
(Eds.), Linguistic landscaping in India with particular reference to the new states (pp 1-6).
Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Daveluy, M., & Ferguson, J. (2009). Scripted urbanity in the Canadian north. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 19, 78–100.
Dimova, S. (2007). English shop signs in Macedonia. English Today, 23, 18-24.
Dray, S. (2010). Ideological struggles on signage in Jamaica. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow
(Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 102-122). London, UK:
Continuum.
Du Plessis, T. (2009). Die Pan-Suid-Afrikaanse Taalraad en die regulering van taalsigbaarheid in
Suid-Afrika – ’n ontleding van taalregteklagtes. [The Pan-South African Language Council
and the regulation of language visibility in South Africa – an analysis of language rights
complaints] Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2009, 27, 173–188.
Edelman, L. (2006). The linguistic landscape of Kalverstraat: A pilot study. In T. Koole, J.
Nortier, & B. Tahitu (Eds.), Artikelen van de Vijfde sociolinguïstische conferentie (pp. 148-
155). Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
Edelman, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Classification of proper names by language. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 141-154).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Foust, E., & Fuggle, S. (Eds.). (2011). Word on the street: Reading, writing and inhabiting
public space. London, UK: Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies.
Franco-Rodriguez, J. M. (2011). Linguistic landscape and language maintenance: The case of
Los Angeles and Miami-Dade Counties. In Michael Morris (Ed.), Culture and language:
Multidisciplinary case studies (pp. 69-122). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Garvin, R. (2010). Responses to the linguistic landscape in Memphis, Tennessee: An urban space
in transition. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the
city (pp. 252-271). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public spaces. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Gorter, D. (Ed.). (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gorter, D. (2009). The linguistic landscape in Rome: Aspects of multilingualism and diversity.
In R. Bracalenti, D. Gorter, I. Catia, F. Santonico, & C. Valente (Eds.), Roma multietnica (I
cambiamenti nel panorama linguistico/changes in the linguistic landscape) (pp. 15-55).
Rome, Italy: Edup SRL.
 25

Gorter, D., Aiestaran, J., & Cenoz, J. (2012). The revitalization of Basque and the linguistic
landscape of Donostia-San Sebastián. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.),
Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 148-163). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-
Macmillan.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2007). Knowledge about language and linguistic landscape. In J. Cenoz
& N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Knowledge about
language (2nd edition, Vol. 6, pp. 343-355). New York, NY: Springer.
Gorter, D., Marten, H. F., & Van Mensel, L. (Eds.). (2012). Minority languages in the linguistic
landscape. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Griffin, J. L. (2001). Global English invades Bulgaria. English Today, 17, 54-60.
Griffin, J. L. (2004). The presence of written English on the streets of Rome. English Today,
20,3-8.
Hancock, A. (2012). Capturing the linguistic landscape of Edinburgh: A pedagogical tool to
investigate student teachers’ understandings of cultural and linguistic diversity. In C. Hélot,
M. Barni, R. Janssens, & C. Bagna (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism, and
social change (pp. 249-266). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hélot, C., Barni, M., Janssens, R., & Bagna, C. (Eds.). (2012). Linguistic landscapes,
multilingualism, and social change. Frankfurt, UK: Peter Lang.
Hicks, D.A. (2002, April). Scotland’s linguistic landscape: The lack of policy and planning with
Scotland’s place-names and signage. Paper presented at the World Congress on Language
Policies, Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from
www.linguapax.org/congres/taller/taller2/Hicks.html
Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing, and
language change. In D. Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic landscape: A new approach to
multilingualism (pp. 31-51). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Huebner, T. (2009). A framework for the linguistic analysis of linguistic landscapes. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 70-87).
New York: Routledge. Hult, F.M. (2003). English on the streets of Sweden: An ecolinguistic
view of two cities and a language policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19,
43-63.
Itagi, N. H., & Singh, S.K. (Eds.). (2002). Linguistic landscaping in India with particular
reference to the new states. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (Eds.). (2010). Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space.
London, UK: Continuum.
Jaworski, A., & Yeung, S. (2010). Life in the Garden of Eden: The naming and imagery of
residential Hong Kong. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic
landscape in the city (pp. 153-181). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kallen, J. L. (2010). Changing landscapes: Language, space and policy in the Dublin linguistic
landscape. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image,
space (pp. 41-58). London, UK: Continuum.
Kasanga, L. A. (2012). Mapping the linguistic landscape of a commercial neighbourhood in
Central Phnom Penh. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 1-15.
 26

Kopinska, M. (2011). Linguistic landscape and linguistic behaviour: Language choice and
linguistic preferences of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU: Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Kopinska, M., & Gorter, D. (2012, September). Linguistic landscape and the use, perceptions
and preferences of second language speakers. Paper presented at the EUROSLA
Conference, Poznan, Poland.
Kotze, C. R., & Du Plessis, T. (2010). Language visibility in the Xhariep – A comparison of the
linguistic landscape of three neighbouring towns, Language Matters, 41, 72-96.
Kuppens, A.H. (2009). English in advertising: Generic intertextuality in a globalizing media
environment. Applied Linguistics, 31,115–135.
Lado, B. (2011). Linguistic landscape as a reflection of the linguistic and ideological conflict in
the Valencian community. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8, 135-150.
Lai, M. L. (2012). The linguistic landscape of Hong Kong after the change of
sovereignty. International Journal of Multilingualism,10,3, 1-22.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An
empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23-49.
Leeman, J., & Modan, G. (2009). Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualized
approach to linguistic landscape. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13, 332–362.
Leeman, J., & Modan, G. (2010). Selling the city: Language, ethnicity and commodified space.
In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 182-
198). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lou, J. (2007). Revitalizing Chinatown into a heterotopia: A geosemiotic analysis of shop signs
in Washington, D.C.'s Chinatown. Space and Culture, 10, 170-194.
Lou, J. (2010). Chinese in the side: The marginalization of Chinese in the linguistic and social
landscapes of Chinatown in Washington, DC. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni
(Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 96-114). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Macalister, J. (2010). Emerging voices or linguistic silence?: Examining a New Zealand
linguistic landscape. Multilingua, 29, 55-75.
MacGregor, L. (2003). The language of shop signs in Tokyo. English Today, 19, 18-23.
Malinowski, D. (2009). Authorship in the linguistic landscape: A multimodal-performative view.
In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 107-
125). New York, NY: Routledge.
Marten, H. F., Van Mensel, L. & Gorter, D. (2012). Studying minority languages in the linguistic
landscape. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the
linguistic landscape (pp. 1-18). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
McArthur, T (2000). Interanto: The global language of signs. English Today, 16, 33-43
Mitchell, T. D. (2010). “A Latino community takes hold”: Reproducing semiotic landscapes in
media discourse. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language,
image, space (pp. 168-186). London, UK: Continuum.
Monnier, D. (1989). Langue d'accueil et langue de service dans les commerces à Montréal.
[Welcoming language and language of service at merchant locations in Montreal] Québec,
Canada: Conseil de la langue française.
Muth, S. (2012). The linguistic landscapes of Chişinău and Vilnius: Linguistic landscape and the
representation of minority languages in two post-Soviet capitals. In D.Gorter, H. F. Marten,
& L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 204-224).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
 27

Nunes, P. A. L. D., Onofri, L., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2008). Language diversity in urban
landscapes: An econometric study (April 2008). Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Working
Papers, 40. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1131202
Onofri, L., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2010). Economic preferences for
language diversity: Myth or reality? An attempt to estimate the economic value of the
linguistic landscape. SUSDIV Paper 15.2010. Milan, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
Retrieved from www.susdiv.org/uploadfiles/GC2010-015.pdf
Papen, U. (2012). Commercial discourses, gentrification and citizens’ protest: The linguistic
landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16, 56–80.
Pavlenko, A. (2010). Linguistic landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: A diachronic study. In E. Shohamy,
E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 133-150). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Puzey, G. (2009). Opportunity or threat? The role of minority toponyms in the linguistic
landscape. In W. Ahrens, S. Embleton, & A. Lapierre (Eds.), Names in multi-lingual, multi-
cultural and multi-ethnic contact: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of
Onomastic Sciences (pp. 821-27). Toronto, Canada: York University. Retrieved from
http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/handle/10315/4022
Puzey, G. (2011). Signscapes and minority languages: Language conflict on the street. In E.
Foust & S. Fuggle (Eds.), Word on the street: Reading, writing and inhabiting public space.
London, UK: Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies.
Radtke, O. & Yuan, X. (2011). “Please don't climb trees and pick flowers for the sake of life”--
Making sense of bilingual tourism signs in China. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 11, 389-407.
Reh, M. (2004). Multilingual writing: A reader-oriented typology—with examples from Lira
Municipality (Uganda). International Journal Sociology of Language, 170, 1-41.
Rosenbaum, Y., Nadel, E., Cooper, R. L., Fishman, J. A. (1977). English on Keren Kayemet
Street. In J.A. Fishman, R. L. Cooper, & A.W. Conrad (Eds.), The spread of English: The
sociology of English as an additional language (pp. 179-196). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An
assessment. In P.A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder,
CO & Oxford, UK: Westview Press.
Sayer, P. (2010). Using the linguistic landscape as a pedagogical resource. ELT Journal, 64, 143-
154.
Schlick, M. (2002). The English of shop signs in Europe. English Today, 18, 3-7.
Schlick, M. (2003). The English of shop signs in Europe. English Today, 19, 3-17.
Sebba, M. (2010). Discourses in transit. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic
landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 59-76). London, UK: Continuum.
Scollon, R., & Scollon-Wong, S. (2003). Discourses in place. London, UK: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shohamy, E., Ben-Rafael, E., & Barni, M. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistic landscape in the city.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Shohamy, E. & Ghazaleh-Mahajneh, M. A. (2012). Linguistic landscape as a tool for interpreting
language vitality: Arabic as a “minority” language in Israel. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L.
 28

Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 89-108).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Shohamy, E., & Waksman, S. (2009). Linguistic landscape as an ecological arena: Modalities,
meanings, negotiations, education. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape:
Expanding the scenery (pp. 313-331). New York, NY: Routledge.
Singh, U. N. (2002). Linguistic Landscaping: An overview. In N. H. Itagi & S. K. Singh (Eds.),
Linguistic landscaping in India with particular reference to the new states (pp 7-19).
Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Sloboda, M., Szabó-Gilinger, E., Vigers, D., & Šimičić, L. (2010). Carrying out a language
policy change: Advocacy coalitions and the management of linguistic landscape. Current
Issues in Language Planning, 11, 95-113.
Spolsky, B. (2009a). Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy
& D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 25-39). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (2009b). Language management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. & Cooper, R. L. (1991). The languages of Jerusalem. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Stewart, P., & Fawcett, R. (2004). Shop signs in some small towns in northern Portugal. English
Today, 20, 56-58.
Stroud, C., & Mpendukana, S. (2009). Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape:
Multilingualism, mobility, and space in a South African township. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 13, 363-386.
Stroud, C., & Mpendukana, S. (2010). Multilingual signage: A multimodal approach to
discourses of consumption in a South African township. Social Semiotics, 20, 469-493.
Szabó-Gilinger, E., Sloboda, M., Šimičić, L., & Vigers, D. (2012). Discourse coalitions for and
against minority languages on signs: Linguistic landscape as a social issue. In D. Gorter, H.
F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 263-
280). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Tan, P. K. W. (2009). Building names in Singapore: Multilingualism of a different kind. In W.
Ahrens, S. Embleton, & A. Lapierre (Eds.), Names in multi-lingual, multi-cultural and
multi-ethnic contact: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences
(pp. 929-942). Toronto, Canada: York University. Retrieved from
http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10315/4036/icos23_929.pdf?sequence=1
Taylor-Leech, K. J. (2012). Language choice as an index of identity: Linguistic landscape in
Dili, Timor-Leste. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9, 15-34.
Troyer, R. (2012). Linguistic landscape: Bibliography of English publications. Retrieved from
www.wou.edu/~troyerr/linguistic_landscape_biblio.html
Tufi, S., & Blackwood, R. (2010). Trademarks in the linguistic landscape: Methodological and
theoretical challenges in qualifying brand names in the public space. International Journal
of Multilingualism, 7, 197-210.
Tulp, S. M. (1978). Reklame en tweetaligheid: Een onderzoek naar de geographische
verspreiding van franstalige en nederlandstalige affiches in Brussel.[Commercials and
bilingualism: a study into the gepgraphic distribution of French and Dutch advertisements in
Brussels]. Taal en sociale integratie, 1, 261-288.
Wetzel, P. J. (2010). Public signs as narrative in Japan. Japanese Studies, 30, 325-342.