“…Among the diverse objects of linguistic landscape scrutiny are schools (Dagenais et al 2009;Dressler 2015), train stations (Lock 2003;Backhaus 2006), science labs (Hanauer 2009); apartment buildings (Jaworski and Yeung 2010), post cards (Jaworski 2010), public monuments (Shohamy and Waksman 2009;Abousnnouga and Machin 2010), and cyberspace (Ivkovic and Lotherington 2009;Troyer 2012;Jones 2011). Linguistic landscapes have been investigated from a number of viewpoints, such as language policy and language ideology (Sloboda 2009;Marten 2010), national and ethnic identity (Trumper-Hecht 2009; Dray 2010) language awareness and education (Dagenais et al, 2009), marginalization of minority communities (Lou 2010), language switching and hybridization (Huebner 2009), linguistic input for language learning (Cenos & Gorter 2008;Dagenais et al 2009;Bolton 2012;Sayer 2010), and tourism and the commodification of culture (Kallen 2009;Piller 2010;Moriarty 2015).…”
This study investigates how the linguistic landscape both creates and reflects a tourist space on language choices in creating signs on Nimmanhemin Road in Chiang Mai, Thailand. In addition, the study explores what linguistic devices are used in the creation of signs on Nimmanhemin Road. Sign data are collected from both sides of Nimanhaemin Road. Every sign in front of stores was photographed and analyzed in terms of language choices and linguistic devices. The study reveals that tourism in Chiang Mai has influences on language choices in sign creation. Monolingual, bilingual and trilingual signs can be found on Nimmanhemin Road, normally written in Thai, English and / or Chinese. In terms of linguistic strategies, transliteration, word formation, lexical relations, speech acts and politeness strategies are demonstrated in my findings. The study has both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it challenges commonly held notions of bilingual organization of information and language prominence. Practically, the study has pedagogical applications and the study findings can be used for English language instruction.
“…Among the diverse objects of linguistic landscape scrutiny are schools (Dagenais et al 2009;Dressler 2015), train stations (Lock 2003;Backhaus 2006), science labs (Hanauer 2009); apartment buildings (Jaworski and Yeung 2010), post cards (Jaworski 2010), public monuments (Shohamy and Waksman 2009;Abousnnouga and Machin 2010), and cyberspace (Ivkovic and Lotherington 2009;Troyer 2012;Jones 2011). Linguistic landscapes have been investigated from a number of viewpoints, such as language policy and language ideology (Sloboda 2009;Marten 2010), national and ethnic identity (Trumper-Hecht 2009; Dray 2010) language awareness and education (Dagenais et al, 2009), marginalization of minority communities (Lou 2010), language switching and hybridization (Huebner 2009), linguistic input for language learning (Cenos & Gorter 2008;Dagenais et al 2009;Bolton 2012;Sayer 2010), and tourism and the commodification of culture (Kallen 2009;Piller 2010;Moriarty 2015).…”
This study investigates how the linguistic landscape both creates and reflects a tourist space on language choices in creating signs on Nimmanhemin Road in Chiang Mai, Thailand. In addition, the study explores what linguistic devices are used in the creation of signs on Nimmanhemin Road. Sign data are collected from both sides of Nimanhaemin Road. Every sign in front of stores was photographed and analyzed in terms of language choices and linguistic devices. The study reveals that tourism in Chiang Mai has influences on language choices in sign creation. Monolingual, bilingual and trilingual signs can be found on Nimmanhemin Road, normally written in Thai, English and / or Chinese. In terms of linguistic strategies, transliteration, word formation, lexical relations, speech acts and politeness strategies are demonstrated in my findings. The study has both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it challenges commonly held notions of bilingual organization of information and language prominence. Practically, the study has pedagogical applications and the study findings can be used for English language instruction.
“…Систематические исследования языковых ландшафтов были проведены западными социолингвистами также и на постсоветском пространстве: в Беларуси, Украине, Молдове, Латвии, Литве, Эстонии и Таджикистане (Brown 2007, Khudoikulova 2015, Marten 2010, Muth 2012, Pavlenko 2009, Zabrodskaja 2014, а также в зонах конфликта -в Приднестровье и Нагорном Карабахе (Muth 2014b(Muth , 2014a. Заинтересовались языковыми ландшафтами и ученые, работающие в России (Алос и Фонт 2014, Федорова 2014, Габдрахманова, Махмутов, Сагдиева 2012), также российские журналисты, культурологи, пишущие для масс медиа (Чайковская 2012), и исследователи, изучающие коммодификацию русского языка (Протасова 2013(Протасова , Павленко 2016(Протасова , Pavlenko 2017.…”
Полевые исследования, включая исследования, представленные в статьях в данном выпуске, показывают, что в последние десять лет русский язык стал одним из наиболее востребованных и распространенных языков в зарубежной сфере обслуживания, туризма и маркетинга -наряду с английским и китайским. Этот исторический момент открывает новые возможности для исследований русского языка за рубежом. В статье предлагается обзор социолингвистических методов, используемых в исследованиях функционирования русского языка за рубежом.
“…Language planning and policies (LPP) are created in order to either homogenize or to validate and promote linguistic diversity in a given socio-cultural context. In other words, language policies can be the reflection of a sociolinguistic situation, such as language practices, ideologies, choices and legislation, as well as a vehicle through which language policies are restructured, constructed, and implemented (Dal Negro, 2009;Marten, 2010;Sloboda, 2009). These policies also establish various linguistic goals under various approaches.…”
Section: Theoretical Framework: Language Planning and Policymentioning
During the Spanish regimen, Puerto Rican education was limited and restricted to Spanish language as the medium of instruction. It was not until the U.S. colonization of the island that public education was introduced. As a result, English replaced Spanish as medium of instruction in the new educational system. Immediately after, Puerto Rican elitists and politicians ignited a political movement against using English (Algren de Gutierrez, 1987), resulting in a language battle fought through a series of educational language policies. In the end, policymakers enacted a language policy that reinstated Spanish as the official language of Puerto Rico’s education system. Consequently, policymakers also strengthened the use of Spanish instruction in Puerto Rican schools and universities while English was taught as a subject through all grade levels (Canino, 1981). Thus, this policy secured the island’s status as a “monolingual Spanish speaking society”. In addition, the enactment of this language policy also legitimized English as a de jure second official language, with the possibility of recognizing Puerto Rico as a “bilingual speaking society”. This paper discusses the impact of these language policies on the use of Spanish and English in education and presents a case study of Guaynabo City to exemplify the effects of these language policies on a contemporary Puerto Rican society and its acceptance of or resistance to becoming an English-speaking society.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.