Contribution to the Special Issue for Linguistic and Education on “Studying the visual and material dimensions of education and learning”, edited by P. Laihonen and T.P. Szabó
Linguistic landscapes and trends in the study of schoolscapes
Durk Gorter
Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU
§ 1 Introduction
In the Editorial of this special issue the editors point out that Brown (2012) introduced the term ´schoolscape´ when she studied images and artefacts in the foyers and classrooms of the schools of the Võru community in Estonia. Brown found the schoolscapes represent
ideologies and identities about the local minority language. Her approach fits in with the wider field of linguistic landscape studies and in this article I will provide insights into some trends that emerge from recent publications about linguist landscapes, but only those that emphasize the dimensions of education and learning. For general overviews of linguistic landscapes studies the reader is, among others, referred to Gorter (2013) and Van Mensel, Vandenbroucke and Blackwood (2016). This final article places the studies included in the special issue in an emerging context of linguistic landscape studies about language learning and education.
Landry and Bourhis (1997) are frequently given credit for introducing the term
´linguistic landscape´, although that can be disputed (Gorter, forthcoming). Those authors actually proposed two definitions of the concept. First, the linguistic landscape refers to “the visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs”. The second definition tries to capture the concept as a whole and has been widely quoted:
‘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: 25).
This definition is basically a short list of six common types of signs, but variation in signage is of course much wider. For example, they do not mention posters, Morris columns,
1
sidewalk sandwich boards or more recent inventions such as flat-panel displays, interactive touch screens, or scrolling banners (see Gorter, 2013). Moreover, the signs listed in the definition are static inscriptions, whereas among others Sebba (2010) has suggested that linguistic landscapes studies can also include moving signs, such as protest banners, advertisements on buses, etc. Other researchers have proposed to expand the scope beyond the written texts displayed on signs and to include spoken words and how people interact with the signs (Shohamy & Waksman 2009: 313-314). A promising direction in linguistic landscape studies are investigations of semi-public institutional contexts, such as government buildings, museums, hospitals and including educational settings.
The aim of the various research publications under this umbrella term is well expressed in the scope of Linguistic Landscape: an international journal (established in 2015) when it refers to the “attempts to understand the motives, uses, ideologies, language varieties and contestations of multiple forms of ‘languages’ as they are displayed in public spaces”. Linguistic landscape studies have developed in important ways since the publication in 2006 of a special issue of the International Journal of Multilingualism (Gorter, ed., 2006) and the first full-length monograph “Linguistic Landscapes: a comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo” (Backhaus, 2006). According to Van Mensel, Vandenbroucke and Blackwood (2016) those two publications marked the beginning of a surge in publications that give shape to a specialized research field of linguistic landscape studies. The interest in linguistic landscapes has caught on rapidly and the field has expanded in different directions (Shohamy & Gorter, 2009). The number of publications about linguistic landscapes across the globe has increased steeply. In his exhaustive overview Backhaus (2007) listed only 30 linguistic landscape studies, but ten years later the specialized on-line bibliography already contains close to 600 publications in English (see:
www.zotero.org/groups/linguistic_landscape_bibliography). The field has a common focus on the investigation of languages on display in the public space and various publications are related to an educational setting.
The work of Landry and Bourhis (1997) was useful to draw attention to the relevance of how languages are used on public signs. Their data-collection actually took place in an educational context because the authors analyzed questionnaires answered by a group of some 2,000 Francophone secondary education students in Canada. Starting from the
framework of subjective ethnolinguistic vitality, questions were asked about the perception of the linguistic landscape. The findings indicated that the linguistic landscape emerges as an
2
independent factor that is strongly related to subjective vitality scores. The authors concluded that the linguistic landscape “may constitute the most salient marker of perceived in-group versus out-group vitality” (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 45).
A way forward for linguistic landscape research was pointed out by Shohamy and Waksman (2009: 326) who suggested that education as an institution offers opportunities to act as “as a powerful tool for … meaningful language learning”. Their example is the Haapala in Tel Aviv, Israel, a monument they treat as a linguistic landscape site andas a resource for learning about cultural and historical meaning. They proposed in general to treat the domain of education more in-depth because there are so many issues that can be studied about signage, especially when more languages are taught and used. As they argue,
investigations of educational linguistic landscapes can lead to understanding of what happens inside schools and be relevant for education research.
The focus of most linguistic landscape studies is on public space, but data were also collected in educational settings and some authors want to point out how signage can have a pedagogical or language learning application. In this contribution I will briefly discuss such linguistic landscape studies and I will distinguish between different types of publications.
First, studies which look into the linguistic landscape inside physical educational settings, i.e.
schoolscapes. Second, there are publications about linguistic landscapes and environmental print. Third, a section on linguistic landscapes related to English as a foreign language (EFL), followed by some studies where university students and teachers become involved in
investigating the linguistic landscape. Next some studies where students are the source of data about linguistic landscapes. Finally, a concluding section with some reflections on the usefulness of schoolscapes and educational applications in future studies. These short characterizations of some trends are intended to provide further background to the articles included in the current special issue.
§ 2. Schoolscapes: linguistic landscape inside educational settings
As said in the Introduction, Brown (2012) applied the term ´schoolscapes´ to her study of the regional language Võru, spoken in an area in the south of Estonia. She investigated signage inside schools, based on anthropological fieldwork and she looked into the re-emergence of the Võru language. She included in her research language related signs inside the classrooms but also in the entrance, foyer, and corridors as well as in a school museum and in the
3
curriculum. Local communities were largely invisible in formal education due to the long absence of the regional language from Kindergarten and primary schools. Based on the explanations of teachers and administrators, Brown identified ´enriching national culture´ and
´use as an historical artefact´ as the two main functions for the regional language. In the school space delicate negotiations over the reintroduction of the Võru language take place. In the current special issue Brown revisits about ten years later the same community and the schools from her earlier study. In her diachronic perspective she can address issues of enduring norms, changing practices and pedagogical opportunities. She finds a gradual shift towards more use of the regional language, mainly in the pre-primary stage, supported by language organizations and school leaders, which are more likely to be enduring when the changes in the schoolscape remain part of a recognizable and coherent image of the school.
Brown (this issue) concludes that “diachronic schoolscape research establishes a promising pathway for future inquiry”.
In a study in the Basque Country we examined the linguistic landscapes inside primary and secondary schools (Gorter & Cenoz 2015). We did not involve teachers or students, but we studied the school signage similar to how we studied the linguistic landscape in public space (Aiestaran, Cenoz & Gorter, 2010). In the linguistic landscape languages are used in different ways and they convey different meanings. Inside educational settings linguistic landscapes have characteristics that are different from public space. For example, the degrees of monolingualism and multilingualism are not the same. Further, the production of signs is often less professional because many signs are made by the students. Signs
produced by the students have a specific character, different from signs produced by
authorities or other external sign makers. Our analysis also revealed different communicative intentions of the signs in the schools. We identified various functions related to the teaching of both subject content and language learning, the development of an intercultural awareness, the teaching of values, and establishing behavioural rules, but also providing practical or commercial information.
Dressler (2015) applied some of these ideas about investigating schoolscapes. She examined the signage and sign-making practices in one elementary bilingual German-English school in Alberta, Canada from a nexus analysis perspective. She documented all language signs and, more in particular, she looked into the process of the production of signs and the decision making involved. A majority of signs were in English and the teachers are primarily responsible for sign making and placement (bottom-up). One of her findings is that the
4
linguistic landscape of the school favours English and does not contribute to the promotion of bilingualism in the German-English program.
Along similar lines Szabó (2015) compared the schoolscapes of four elementary and secondary schools in Budapest. Using an innovative method, he acted as a visitor who was guided by the teachers through the linguistic landscapes of the schools (from a ´tourist guide perspective´). Based on the observed differences in the schoolscapes in state and private schools and the interpretations given by the teachers, he could distinguish between two types of organizational culture, and related ideologies about language and nationalism. Also Laihonen and Todór (2017) provided an account of how signage is used in a school of a Hungarian speaking village in Romania. They used the schoolscape to look into issues
concerning the relationships between local, national and global identities. The last two studies are also discussed in Laihonen and Szabó (2017) where they are placed in a wider discussion about schoolscapes. They consider schoolscapes relevant for the visual literacy of children and teachers. The authors also focus on language ideologies reflected in schoolscapes, which can be analyzed as displays of a ‘hidden curriculum’ about language values.
§ 3 Linguistic landscapes and environmental print
Some researchers have taken materials from signage in public spaces into the schools in order to use them as learning materials and others have taken students out of the classroom to explore the linguistic landscapes outside the school, or a combination of both. As the studies below demonstrate, the linguistic landscape can be used for language learning, but even more as a powerful pedagogical tool to answer questions about language awareness, multilingual literacy, multimodality, identities, ideologies or the functions of signs.
A team of Canadian researchers documented literacy practices of bilingual and multilingual children from two elementary schools, one with a French immersion program in Vancouver and the other from a multicultural neighbourhood in Montreal (Dagenais, Moore, Sabatier, Lamarre & Armand, 2009). Based on ideas about the city as a text, they gave 10-11 year olds the task to examine language diversity in their own community by taking
photographs of signage that surrounds them. Through the intervention the children became more aware of the urban diversity and they learned to see their cities as “dense with signs that must be deciphered, read, and interpreted” (Dagenais et al., 2009: 255). The researchers
5
concluded that linguistic landscapes are useful in language awareness activities from a critical perspective.
The study by Dagenais et al. (2009), of course, brings to mind the tradition of work on
´environmental print´, that includes logos, words, labels, etc. and which is related to the development of young readers´ literacy skills in English monolingual contexts. For example, Giles and Tunks (2010) point to the research into the role of environmental print in literacy development and the benefits exposure to it provides for emergent readers. Those authors advise professionals working with young children to include all kinds of environmental print in the early childhood classroom. Bever (2012) explicitly combines both approaches in her study about bivalence of multimodal and multilayered signs of languages and scripts in contact in Ukraine. She suggests that language and print awareness can be developed in both monolinguals and bilinguals. However, I would argue that there seem to be some key
differences between the use of environmental print and the linguistic landscape for pedagogical purposes, which can be mainly related to the age groups concerned, the educational aims and the assumptions about language. The use of environmental print is often, but not exclusively, used for beginning readers and its aim is usually to support the development of reading (and writing) abilities based on ´real life´ materials taken from the surroundings of the child. Moreover, environmental print is mainly based on monolingual assumptions, commonly about learning English. In contrast, as we will also see below, the linguistic landscape in an educational context can be used with any age group, including university students and teachers. As a rule it is not only aimed at competence in a specific language but often at increasing language awareness. Those projects commonly deal with issues related to multilingualism, multiliteracy, and diversity.
For example, Chern and Dooley (2014) propose an ´English literacy walk´ inside and outside the classroom for teaching and learning about written English, in their case in Taipei, Taiwan. They acknowledge that their approach has roots in activities for emergent readers in English dominant societies such as ‘environmental print walks’, but due to globalization linguistic landscapes in urban centres around the world today are multilingual and multimodal. They orient their work to teaching practitioners and do not carry out any research, but they present several activities with as an aim that language educators can encourage their pupils “to approach unfamiliar print as a fascinating puzzle and to practise reading familiar print in the course of their everyday activities” (p. 114).
6
The difference between an environmental print approach and linguistic landscape is also clear in the study by Burwell and Lenters (2015) who worked together with teachers to design and implement a project called ´Word on the Street´ in Calgary, Canada. Groups of secondary school students (grade 10) in English Language Arts classes went on to explore the linguistic texts of their neighbourhood and produce a documentary. The parallel with the project by Dagenais et al (2009) is obvious. The researchers could demonstrate through qualitative analysis how the linguistic landscape can be part of a multiliteracy pedagogy and how it encourages the critical study of multimodality and linguistic diversity. So they did not focus so much on learning and teaching English per se, but on deepening understanding of diversity and multilingualism.
A similar approach was taken in a project in Portugal, a country seen as
predominantly monolingual, where Clemente, Andrade and Martins (2012: 267) applied a didactic strategy called ‘Learning to read the world, learning to look at the linguistic landscape’ among a group of 20 children of the first year in a primary school (6 years old).
The researchers developed eight lessons and could show that the children can improve their ability to recognize and read signs in different languages. In another context, but along the same lines, Poveda (2012) studied the use of what he calls ´literacy artefacts’ (political texts and graffiti) among students of a secondary school in Madrid. He included two groups of students, one with a predominately local Spanish background and a second group with Latin American immigrant background. He concluded that the linguistic landscape sends messages about the engagement with the academic and social life of the school and how the two groups perceive the diversity is related to the academic trajectories of the groups.
§ 4 Linguistic landscapes and English as a foreign language (EFL)
English as a global language can be found in linguistic landscapes around the world and it is a recurring theme of many linguistic landscape studies (Gorter, 2013). So it is not surprising that signage has found an application in English as a Foreign or a Second Language
(EFL/ESL) classes for university students. For example, Sayer (2010) engaged his students as languageinvestigators in a research project in Oaxaca, Mexico. The linguistic landscape became a pedagogicalresource, where the students learned to connect language in the street to the language of the class.Sayer reported how the students looked into the purposes, intended audiences and different meanings of English on signs in a predominately Spanish
7
environment. His project allowed students to reflect critically about the English language. In a similar vein, but through virtual means, Malinowski (2010) reported on the ´Culture in Place project´, in which English learners in Korea interacted through a dedicated website with Korean learners at a university in the US and where they discussed Korean-English images from signs in the linguistic landscape to foster reading abilities, develop fluency in the target language and enhance the learners´ motivation by using real places and activities.
In an EFL class of Japanese university students, Rowland (2013) required a group of 27 students to photograph and analyze English used on signs. The students were asked to answer the question “How and why is English used on signs in Japan?” His students collected public texts, such as advertisements and road signs, and discussed them in the EFL class. His study supported the idea that pedagogical linguistic landscape projects, in particular from authentic, contextualized multilingual input, can have benefits for EFL students in the development of students' symbolic competence and critical literacy skills. Rowland could corroborate the claims that language learners can benefit from the visual and literacy materials from the linguistic landscape. Another example comes from the publication by Barr (2016) who described a third year class on World Englishes in which a group of 20 Japanese university students had to photograph examples of English inscriptions from the linguistic landscape and then write a short 50-100 word description about each inscription. In the class the students carried out simple categorizations and basic analyses. The aim was not to learn English, but to help the students in choosing a topic for their graduation thesis.
§ 5 Students and teachers as linguistic landscape researchers
Linguistic landscape has also found applications outside EFL/ESL classes. Lazdina and Marten (2009) described a study in which university students participated in a research project to collect and analyze linguistic landscape data in medium sized cities in the Baltic States. They showed that the involvement of the students in this type of field work has as an advantage to increase awareness of multilingualism and a better understanding of hierarchies of language use and prestige. In another study Malinowski (2016) reported on how he
developed an undergraduate course at Berkeley university called “Reading the Multilingual City: Chinese, Korean, and Japanese in Bay Area Linguistic Landscapes”. The course was not only about the linguistic landscape inside the classroom, but the students also actively took part in it outside the classroom. He presents details of the design and outline of the
8
course, and how the students learn about critical seeing, how they engage in discussions with residents, and how the course relates to teaching language and teaching about language.
Following examples of linguistic landscape studies about the spread of English, Leung and Wu (2012) looked into the spread of Mandarin as global language and at other varieties of Chinese in the linguistic landscape of Chinatown in Philadelphia, US. They observed a mismatch between the language used on signage in the community and what is taught in the ‘Chinese’ language classroom. Without actually having implemented their ideas, they suggest that the linguistic landscape can be used “as a pedagogical resource to teach pragmatics, language forms, vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, grammatical features, etc”
when teaching Mandarin as a second, foreign, or heritage language.
Hancock (2012) described a project where student teachers become researchers of the linguistic landscape. He investigated how student teachers took part in a ‘camera safari’ to engage them in thinking about the multilingual community in which they live and how they respond differently to the English dominated linguistic landscape in the city of Edinburgh.
The linguistic landscape is used as an awareness raising technique “in order to prepare student teachers for the reality of multilingual schools” (p. 255). Hancock´s study showed that drawing the student’s attention to linguistic landscape heightened their awareness of linguistic diversity. In a similar vein Scarvaglieri and Fadia Salem (2015) used the linguistic landscape for training teachers in a series of workshops in Hamburg, Germany, which they call a form of “educational landscaping”. The teachers had to document the linguistic landscape of their own institution, work with those materials and reflect upon their own linguistic practices. Based on interview with the teachers, the researchers were able to demonstrate that the linguistic landscape project was suitable to promote an active
engagement of teachers with language and created a heightened level of language awareness.
Hewitt-Bradshaw (2014: 158) asked how “signs, images, and objects in the Caribbean LL can be used as teaching resources in literacy classrooms in Caribbean Creole environments?” She has not investigated any students, but she reflected on how teachers can develop critical language awareness and communicative competence. She concluded that the linguistic landscape has the potential to make language learning more motivating and appealing to Caribbean students. Interestingly she observed “the fact that texts in landscape are visible does not mean that students always see them, pay attention to them, read them, or understand how they work” (p. 171). The linguistic landscape is useful to develop students’
critical literacy, their pragmatic competence, and make them recognize the ways in which the 9
landscape seeks to influence them. Incorporating the linguistic landscapes of Caribbean societies in education can motivate students because it provides opportunities to link language and culture and it indigenizes educational resources.
A whole different audience was pursued in the EU funded project ´Beyond Signs in the City´ (Palova, 2008) which explored the linguistic landscapes in a series of cities across Europe. The objective was to promote the languages and cultures of the cities among visitors in different practical ways, such as videos, brochures, etc., but also to encourage language learning by providing simple materials based on signs. Barni, Kolyva, Machetti and Palova (2013) used the materials from the same project in order to gain further insights about the relation between linguistic landscape and language awareness and learning. They concluded that similarity and diversity in identity building can be illustrated by linguistic landscapes.
§ 6 Obtaining data about linguistic landscape from students
In the Introduction I mentioned that Landry and Bourhis (1997) questioned francophone students for their study on the perception of linguistic landscapes. Only a few other researchers have followed their example to collect data about linguistic landscape in an educational setting. Hornsby (2008) engaged in a long discussion on the development of Breton as a minority language and he mentioned that its increased presence in the linguistic landscape is an element of its “commodification”. He also included a short report on the results of a questionnaire (only four questions) among a small sample (n=36) of school children about their awareness of local signage in Breton. Although only a minority was aware of the Breton signs and menus of a local fast food restaurant, he found positive reactions to having the minority language Breton on signs in public places. We carried out a study among a total of 191 university students in the Basque Country, Spain and in Friesland, The Netherlands to obtain data about their attitudes towards the three languages in each context and about their perceptions and preferences of languages the linguistic landscapes (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). There were important differences in the way these students from two different multilingual settings perceive the linguistic landscape as more bilingual (in the Basque Country) or as more monolingual (in Friesland).
§7 Concluding reflections on linguistic landscapes for learning
10
Some years ago we started from the general assumption that languages displayed in public space can be useful for language learners (Cenoz & Gorter, 2008). We considered the potential use of languages on signs in public space as an additional source of input in second language acquisition (SLA), for acquiring pragmatic competence, and also to enhance language awareness. We identified examples of multilingual signs as authentic,
contextualized input and suggested that such signs can have a role in fostering multimodal literacy skills and multilingual competence by developing abilities in different languages. Our study showed that the linguistic landscape is a site that can function as an additional source of language input for learners (see also Gorter & Cenoz, 2007).
Taken together the publications discussed in the previous sections demonstrate that the linguistic landscape in an educational context provides a promising way to teach about languages, multilingualism, language awareness and literacy practices. The articles in this Special Issue take the investigation again further. The contributions are diverse ranging from a focus on the languages displayed in the physical school buildings and classrooms
(Pakarinen & Björklund; Brown; Savela), others link the school practices to out-of-school sites (Zheng, Liu, Tomei, Holden & Lu; Przymus & Kohler) and Tapio takes us back into the classroom through the use of Finnish sign language. All show directly or indirectly that an application of ideas from the field of linguistic landscapes studies can function as a
pedagogical tool and can be of great relevance to both educators and students. It is interesting to note that the projects and proposals mentioned above as well as the articles in the Special Issue have been carried out with or are aimed at rather different age groups, from relatively young children (emergent readers, first grade in primary), through secondary school students to university students, some of them in English courses and others being trained as teachers, as well as among teaching professionals.
In the case of education, the signage can be related to learning a second or third language, but more frequently to the issues around language awareness. The publications on schoolscapes in a wide sense demonstrate how questions about the functions of signs, multilingual literacy, multilingual competence, or sign language can be investigated.
However, there are publications that contain interesting proposals about a pedagogical
application of linguistic landscape, but are lacking any research effort to test the ideas. A goal of several projects is to increase language awareness and the linguistic landscape is seen as a useful pedagogical tool to reach that goal. However, solid empirical evidence that such a goal has been achieved is still scarce. The methodological framework introduced in this Special
11
Issue by Przymus and Kohler (which they call SIGNS) can be exemplary for other researchers. Educational studies of linguistic landscapes focus on multilinguality and multimodality, more than on learning to read or learning English as a first or second language. At the same time one can related all of this to the ´multilingual turn´ in applied linguistics (May, 2014), where there has been a shift from monolingual approaches and assumptions to a focus on multilingualism (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014). Environmental print approaches are based on monolingual assumptions and usually about early literacy (in English), in contrast linguistic landscape applications are often about language awareness. In a recent publication we have tried to link new trends in translanguaging to the study of linguistic landscapes (Gorter & Cenoz, 2015).
Schools have as a task to prepare students for the real world and today this implies they have to reflect a multilingual reality that surrounds them in the places they live and go to school (Gorter, 2015). In a recent programmatic article Malinowski (2015) argues strongly for the use of linguistic landscapes for language learning in the widest possible sense. He juxtaposes three modes of relating to, interacting with, and knowing the world in designing learning activities. These are known as “perceived,” “conceived,” and “lived” spaces based on the work of Lefebvre, and applied to linguistic landscape research by Trumper Hecht (2010). For language learners in linguistic landscapes, it would mean learners to do activities involving: 1. observing or documenting (perceived space); 2. interpreting or producing texts (conceived space) and 3. exploring their own responses or those of others (lived space). This seems like a promising way forward for teaching and for research. The contributions in this Special Issue are step in that direction.
Almost all students, except very young ones, own a smart phone with a digital camera and this gives a teacher the opportunity for learning assignments on linguistic landscapes. As Lazdina and Marten (2009: 212) remark the linguistic landscape is “an easy and enjoyable way of involving students into field work”. Not just in EFL/ESL courses, but also in courses on sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and many other fields. In this concluding article I have tried to present a series of earlier publications which make it obvious that the linguistic landscape items in public space offer relevant and useful possibilities for educational
activities in the classroom and in the community. The articles in this Special Issue all deal with studies that fit in with the trends outlined above, as schoolscapes or as pedagogical tools, or a combination. Taken together this Special Issue demonstrates that the linguistic landscape
12
has great potential for critical reflection among researchers and can enhance awareness about languages among learners and professionals.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the MINECO/FEDER under Grant EDU2015-63967-R and the Basque Government under Grant DREAM IT-714-13; UFI 11/54.
References
Aiestaran, J. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2010). Multilingual cityscapes: perceptions and preferences of the inhabitants of Donostia-San Sebastián. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben- Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.) Linguistic landscape in the city, (pp. 219-234). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Barni, M., Kolyva, K. Machetti, S., Palova, R. (2014). Linguistic Landscape Theory in Language Learning. In: Pixel (Ed.) Conference Proceedings, The Future of Education, 4th Conference Edition, Florence, Italy 12-13 June 2014 (pp. 333-336). Padova:
Libreriauniversitaria.it edizioni, Webster srl.
Barrs, K. (2016). The Typology of English in Japanese Society: Learning from the Linguistic Landscape. Proceedings of CLaSIC 2016, pp. 21 -29. Online at:
www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/CLaSIC/clasic2016/PROCEEDINGS/barrs_keith.pdf Bever, O. (2012). Linguistic Landscapes and Environmental Print as a Resource for
Language and Literacy Development in Multilingual Contexts. In M. Sanz & J. M. Igoa (Eds.), Applying language science to language pedagogy: Contributions of linguistics and psycholinguistics to second language teaching (pp. 321-341). Cambridge, England:
Scholars Publishing.
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).
Basingstroke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Burwell, C. & Lenters, K. (2015). Word on the street: Investigating linguistic landscapes with urban Canadian youth, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10:3,201-221, DOI:
10.1080/1554480X.2015.1029481
13
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2008). Linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 257-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2008.012 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). The perception of the linguistic landscape by students in two
multilingual contexts. Uporabno Jezikoslovje / Applied Linguistics Journal of the Slovenian Association of Applied Linguistics, 9-10, 264-279. (ISSN 1318-2838).
Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2014). Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In A. Creese & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. (pp. 239-254). Berlin: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7856-6_13 Chern, C. -l., & Dooley, K. (2014). Learning English by walking down the street. ELT
Journal, 68(2), 113–123. DOI: 10.1093/elt/cct067
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: Peter Lang.
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: Routledge.
Dressler, R. (2015). Signgeist: promoting bilingualism through the linguistic landscape of school signage. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(1), 128–145.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.912282
Giles, R.M. & K. W. Tunks (2010). Children Write Their World: Environmental Print as a Teaching Tool. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 38, 3, 23-30.
Gorter, D. (forthcoming). Methods and techniques for linguistic landscape research: about definitions, core issues and technological innovations. In: M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.) Expanding the linguistic landscape: Multilingualism, language policy and the use of space as a semiotic resource Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual interaction and minority languages: Proficiency and language practices in education and society, Language Teaching, 48, 1, 82-98.
DOI:10.1017/S0261444812000481.
Gorter, D. & Cenoz, J. (2014). Linguistic landscapes inside multilingual schools. In: B.
Spolsky, M. Tannenbaum, O. Inbar (Eds.) Challenges for Language Education and Policy: Making Space for People. (pp. 151-169). New York: Routledge Publishers.
14
Gorter, D. & Cenoz, J. (2015). Translanguaging and linguistic landscapes, Linguistic Landscape, 1, 1, 54-74. DOI: 10.1075/ll.1.1/2.04gor
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2007). Knowledge about language and linguistic landscape. In N.H.
Hornberger (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd revised edition, (pp.
343-355). Berlin: Springer Science. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_160
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: Peter Lang.
Hewitt-Bradshaw, I. (2014). Linguistic Landscape as a Language Learning and Literacy Resource in Caribbean Creole Contexts, Caribbean Curriculum, 22, 157–173. Online at: http://uwispace.sta.uwi.edu/dspace/handle/2139/40060
Hornsby, M. (2008). The Incongruence of the Breton Linguistic Landscape for Young Speakers of Breton. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(2), 127–138. DOI:10.2167/jmmd538.0
Laihonen, P. & T.P. Szabó (2017). Investigating visual practices in educational settings:
schoolscapes, language ideologies and organizational cultures. In: M. Martin-Jones &
D. Martin (Eds.) Researching multilingualism: Critical and ethnographic approaches.
(pp. 121–138). London: Routledge.
Laihonen and Todór (2017). The changing schoolscape in a Szekler village in Romania: signs of diversity in ´rehungarization´”. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 20, 3, 362-379, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051943
Landry, R. & Bourhis, R.Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23-49. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002
Lazdina, S. & Marten H. F. (2009). The “Linguistic Landscape” Method as a Tool in
Research and Education of Multilingualism: Experiences from a Project in the Baltic States. In A. Saxena & Å.Viberg (Eds.) Multilingualism Proceedings of the 23 Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics Uppsala University 1 – 3 October 2008. (pp.
212-225) Acta Universitats Upsaliensis Uppsala 2009 http://uu.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:275878/FULLTEXT03
15
Leung, G. Y., & Wu, M.-H. (2012). Linguistic landscape and heritage language literacy education: A case study of linguistic rescaling in Philadelphia Chinatown. Written Language & Literacy, 15(1), 114–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.15.1.06leu Malinowski, D. (2010). Showing seeing in the Korean linguistic cityscape. In E. Shohamy, E.
Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 199–215).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Malinowski, D. (2015). Opening spaces of learning in the linguistic landscape, Linguistic Landscape, an international journal, 1, 95-113. Doi 10.1075/ll.1.1-2.06mal
Malinowski, D. (2016). Localizing the Transdisciplinary in Practice: A Teaching Account of a Prototype Undergraduate Seminar on Linguistic Landscape, L2 Journal, 8(4).
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8q62w9j1
Palova, R. (2008). Beyond Signs in the city. Online at: www.signsinthecity.net
Poveda, D. (2012). Literacy Artifacts and the Semiotic Landscape of a Spanish Secondary School. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 61–88. Doi:10.1002/RRQ.010
Rowland, L. (2013). The pedagogical benefits of a linguistic landscape project in Japan.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 494–505.
Doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.708319
Sayer, P. (2010). Using the linguistic landscape as a pedagogical resource. ELT Journal, 64(2), 143-154. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccp051
Scarvaglieri, C. & Fadia Salem, T. (2015). “Educational Landscaping”: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung von Bewusstheit über Sprache und Kommunikation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 62, 1, 61-97. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2015-0003 Szabó, T.P. (2015). The management of diversity in schoolscapes: an analysis of Hungarian
practices, Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9, 1, 23–51. Online at:
http://apples.jyu.fi/article/abstract/353
Trumper-Hecht, N. (2010). Linguistic Landscpe in Mixed Cities in Israel from the perspective of ´walkers´: the case of Arabic. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M.
Barni (Eds.) Linguistic landscape in the city, (pp. 235-251). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
16
