ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ ЛАНДШАФТ КАК ОБЪЕКТ СОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИКИ

Научная статья
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18454/RULB.6.24
Выпуск: № 2 (6), 2016
PDF

Аннотация

Данная статья посвящена описанию лингвистического ландшафта как объекта исследования социолингвистики. Исследуются различные подходы к определению лингвистического ландшафта. Определяются его функции, субъекты и структурные элементы.

Linguistic landscape (LL) is a relatively new branch of sociolinguistics which emerged due to an increasing interest in multilingualism, language ecology, globalization tendencies where languages interact in creating the global environment. Studies in LL are based on research into linguistics, sociology, law, economics, psychology, etc. Simultaneously research into and analysis of LL serve as a diagnosis of the state of social, cultural, political and economic structures of society.

Traditionally LL is defined as an amount of languages presented in written form on a certain territory, in other words, it is “the use of language in its written form in the public sphere [3, P. 2]”. The LL of a given territory is made up of “the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on governmental buildings” [5, P. 25]. The definition implies that LL includes administrative signs (public signs of regional, national or municipal levels) and both private (signs on shops, banks, billboards, means of transport) and spontaneous signs (graffiti, café menu boards), which reflect the multilingual character of a territory [5, P. 27].

E. Shohamy gives a broader definition of LL, including multiple contextual factors specifying the role of the language in space. According to the scholar, LL is a tool of reconceptualization of a language policy concerning public space and man in the social-communicative system. Nowadays LL in multiple works is defined as a construct which beside language elements includes images, sounds, movement, music, smells, graffiti, clothes, food, buildings, history, as well as people involved in the space and interacting with and within LL in different ways [7, P. 154].

LL is a heterogeneous and multi-layered system in a given territory. It includes signs from different social and language levels occupying particular places in the hierarchy of the territory and interacting as elements interrelating with each other, completing each other and differing from each other in the aspect of planning (official) or randomness (graffiti, wall inscriptions). To classify the signs the following parameters are to be considered: the author of the sign, the addressee (pedestrian, driver), a social situation, the way the signs reflects the space [6, P. 3].

LL is a historical phenomenon conditioned by social changes in the structure and hierarchy of communities and languages. Research into LL was promoted by the appearance and development of new technologies presenting texts in space, by increasing globalization, migration processes and international contacts. Thus, multilingual European states promote signs with texts in minority languages. The main tendency reflecting changes in the LL of post-soviet Russia is the increase in signs in English, French, Japanese and other languages.

There are two sides involved in creating LL as subjects. On the one hand, they are those who actively create LL or make and install elements of LL. On the other hand, there are people who read texts as components of LL, decode, oppose and discuss them in real and virtual communication, destroy or ignore them. The subjects are individuals or large and small social groups.

Research into LL as a semiotic space involves studying its components which attract attention. The recently introduced term “visuality” is defined as an ability to attract attention both to the meaning of the sign delivered by the language and to its visual aspects such as typography, layout, semiotic spacing, colour, spatial and kinetic arrangements  [7, P. 154].

One of the aspects of LL which is of great importance in the modern world is multilingualism that is the use of different languages within a given territory. The types of interrelations between the languages within the LL of a given administrative territory are the following:

1)    an official language and a language with a high international status (Russian and English, French, Japanese etc.);

2)    an official language of a state and a regional official language or a local language (Russian and Tatar in Kazan);

3)    an official language and a language with a high status in a particular domain (Italian in music) or a language of a big immigrant diaspora (Hindi in London);

4)    a combination of different types.

The appearance of English-language public signs in the countries where English does not have any official status reflects language globalization trends, spread of brand names and involvement in the global market. The increase in the number of public signs in minority languages speaks about the growth of their status, tendencies in changing attitudes to them. The use of a particular language in LL is conditioned by different factors, among which E. Shohamy mentions a rational choice, representation, private and collective identities, power, rights, globalization and multilingualism [7, P. 153]. The comparative analysis of administrative and private signs provides a clear picture of a relative status of different linguistic codes in a given territory.

LL performs several functions: informative, symbolic [5, P. 25], cultural, historical, educational, social etc.

The informative function is viewed as providing information of the linguistic diversity of a specified area and the level of the area involvement in globalization processes. Thus English plays a significant part in the names of cafes, restaurants, night clubs, as well as in graffiti and private signage in Russia. When international events are held in a Russian city English becomes an official language in signage, catering spheres etc. Secondly, signs in minority languages define geographical and administrative borders of the minority language areas. For example, the use of the bilingual Sami-Finnish signs in the north of Finland is defined by the law of 1990 [4, P. 114].

The symbolic function is connected with the status of the language, the demographic and institutional power of the ethnic group [5, P. 27]. This function has to do primarily with signs on administrative buildings. Thus the use of Gaelic in the south-east of Scotland which is not a traditional Gaelic-language area is a tribute to one of the historical languages of Scotland. Tourists coming by car to Edinburgh from England see the sign Welcome to Scotland / Failte gu Alba on the English-Scottish borderline.

The role of bilingual signs in cultural legacy is not to be underestimated [3, P. 88]. The British Ordnance Survey defines the use and graphics of Gaelic and Welsh signs basing on the importance of preserving Gaelic and Welsh cultures and providing the rights of minority communities in Scotland and Wales. Local authorities decide on the order of English / Celtic texts on signs [2, P. 11].

The European Charter for Regional and Minority languages justifies the use or adoption of traditional and correct forms of place-names in regional or minority languages which is done in respect of the language users [1, P. 8]. The challenging point here is which place name, English or Celtic, is original and which element was translated or borrowed. This problem is caused by historical changes in linguistic borders. The status of a place name often depends on the status of the language. It results in ignoring attitude to Celtic-language signs.

Educationally speaking, signs in minority languages or any other languages but official ones teach elements of another language to viewers and can motivate them to study the cultures and the languages.

The social function is connected with the local and national identities and it reveals the attitude of social groups to the problem of signage. The choice of the language indicates social problems and interethnic relations in society. Those who support only-English signs in Great Britain argue that bilingual signs are not safe as they distract drivers from driving. Opposition to bilingual signs in Great Britain also leads to vandalism like destruction English texts on signs in traditional Celtic areas.

The psychological function of LL is described through the attitude the subjects of LL experience at the vision of elements of LL and describe them as (un)pleasant, beautiful, ugly, (in)correct, etc. For example, a guidebook invites tourist to visit Skye and enjoy the beauty of Gaelic signs. Another example to illustrate the function is that it has become common to produce and buy clothes, souvenirs with texts.

To sum up, language communities use LL as a means of communication and interaction with globalization processes in the modern world. LL reflects social, political, cultural, economic and language phenomena in modern society.

Список литературы

  • European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. – Strasbourg : Council of Europe,1992.

  • Gaelic names policy. Ordnance Survey. – London : The Stationery Office, 2009.

  • Gorter D. Linguistic landscape: a new approach to multilingualism / D. Gorter. – Bristol : Multilingual Matters, 2006.

  • Helander K. R. Sámi language toponymy in linguistic landscapes. The function of place names in language policy / K. R. Helander // Congressus Duodecimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Oulu 2015. Plenary Papers. – Oulu : Oulun yliopisto, 2015. – P. 111-132.

  • Landry R. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study / R. Landry, R. Y. Bourhis // Journal of Language and Social Psychology. – 1997. – Vol. 16. – Iss. 1. – P. 23-49.

  • Scollon R. Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World / R. Scollon, S. Wong Scollon. – London : Routledge, 2003.

  • Shohamy E. LL research as expanding language and language policy / E. Shohamy // Linguistic Landscape. – Iss. 1:1/2 (2015). – P. 152–171.