Linguistic landscapes in education

Plurilingual education portal

Subject classification: this is an education resource.

Type classification: this resource is a course.

Starting Activity

Imagine you are a teacher arriving at a school in a city you are unfamiliar with. As you walk through the city, in your new neighborhood or on your way to school, you notice many public signs, advertisements and posters in multiple languages, some of which you can recognize while others not. You start to wonder how this could be used and integrated into education.

Some of the signs you see could be:

You start thinking:

How can you describe the signs you see?
Which languages do you identify? Are there languages that you do not identify?
What is the relationship between the diverse multimodal resources?

Objectives

At the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe the concept of the LL and other -scapes such as schoolscape)
Understand how the LL can be studied
Connect the LL to education
Make use of the LL as a pedagogical resource

Key words

Linguistic Llandscape, schoolscape, educationscape, language policies, critical language awareness

Introduction

The Linguistic Landscape (henceforth LL) is a dynamic fast developing field in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics, expanding to various research methodologies and epistemological perspectives. Research into LL began as an investigation into the presence, visibility and prominence of languages represented on signs and texts in public spaces. The seminal work of Landry and Bourhis (1997) is widely acknowledged as the beginning of LL research. Research now goes far beyond documenting language and other semiotic signs ( = any signs that communicate meaning) on the streets, in advertising, in street names, shops, graffiti, images, etc., and focuses more on examining LL in terms of power, ideology, activism and the willingness to change the space.

In this lesson, the LL is introduced as an area of research in and for education.

History of the concept

The LL broadly refers to the visibility and use of language in public spaces. LL research explores public spaces as “arenas of language use, representation, and controversy” (Shohamy, 2017, p. 44). The origins of LL research go back to studies of public signs in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the field began to grow more rapidly in the 1990s, alongside increased interest in LLs and ethnolinguistic vitality. Early LL studies were often quantitative. Researchers focused on documenting language diversity by counting signs and distinguishing between top-down signs (created by authorities) and bottom-up signs (created by individuals or unofficial groups). Shohamy (2017, pp. 45–61) refers to this first phase as “Documenting Diversity.” In the second phase, LL broadened its focus beyond language to include “images, sounds, drawings and movement, in line with current theories about multimodality” in public and semi-public spaces (Shohamy, 2011, p. 538). This gave rise to related concepts such as skinscapes, smellscapes, soundscapes etc.. The third phase of LL research centers on challenging the idea of cities as homogenous spaces. It examines the many ways people use elements of the linguistic landscape to make diversity—linguistic and otherwise—visible and recognized. In the fourth phase, researchers focus on smaller units such as neighborhoods, quarters, ghettos, villages, enclaves, parishes, or streets. This allows for a more detailed understanding of the context in which signs appear. Shohamy describes the fifth and last phase as “Engagement in Diversity: Critical Awareness and Activism” and highlights the growing number of LL studies in education.

To sum up the historical overview, LL research has evolved from focusing on linguistic signs to examining multimodal signs. Methodologically, it has shifted from a primarily quantitative approach to more qualitative and ethnographically oriented methods. Moreover, multimodal signs are now more explicitly situated within their historical and sociocultural contexts.

Definition

The historical overview has shown that the understanding of the LL has evolved significantly over the past few decades. We will now examine a presentation on LL and relate its content to the historical development of this field of research.


Reflection: What “is” the Linguistic Landscape?
In this video the LL and sociolinguistics researcher Jacki Lou talks about the concept of LL. How does Jackie Lou define LL? What differs from other possible definitions? Is her understanding more broad or narrow? How would you describe the LL visible in the short video?

LL for Education - inside and outside institutions

LL research in education covers the entire spectrum of the research perspectives outlined above. LL has a multifaceted contribution to education, from promoting language learning and supporting critical language awareness to questioning existing language hierarchies. To explore LL in the context of plurilingual education, we will first consider how it appears within schools, and then examine its role outside formal educational institutions.

The concept of the schoolscape was first introduced by Brown. It refers to the symbolic and physical environment of a school, where the curriculum is enacted and specific messages and values are officially endorsed and socially reinforced (Brown, 2005, p. 79). These school environments are filled with texts and images that help to construct, reproduce, and potentially transform language ideologies (Brown, 2012, p. 282). The study of schoolscapes—schoolscaping—involves analyzing the “school-based environment where place and text, both written (graphic) and oral, constitute, reproduce, and transform language ideologies” (Brown, 2012, p. 282). For the context of kindergartens, Brown (2018, p. 17) introduced the term kinderscape, which refers to the LL found in early childhood education settings. As we will see in practical examples, schoolscapes are powerful tools for making language policy visible and accessible in educational settings.

Along with the schoolscape, the LL offers rich opportunities for educational purposes such as early literacy development, raising critical language awareness, and supporting language learning. Two main approaches have been proposed for integrating LL into education: a) Learning in the LL, beyond the classroom, situating learning /teaching into the public space through walking, reflecting on and interacting with LLs (Malinowski et al., 2020). The focus is rather ethnographic, involving observing, documenting and analyzing the ‘secret life of languages around us’ (Malinowski et al., 2020) and, b) Learning through the LL, which takes place inside the classroom, bringing the public space into the classroom and reframing it as a classroom resource through multimodal transposition (Brinkmann et al., 2022). This approach involves developing educational materials and resources based on the documentation of the LL. The development and design of LL activities can follow the steps below (Malinowski, 2015) : (1) observing and recording the LL by visiting locations and photographing signs (perceived space); (2) analyzing or creating texts by examining different viewpoints and media representations of the area (conceived space); and (3) investigating how local people or others respond to signage, including students’ own reactions (lived space). Using these three perspectives to explore the linguistic landscape can significantly enrich students' learning experiences (Gorter & Cenoz, 2024).

Practical examples

A growing body of research highlights the important role of linguistic landscapes (LL)—both inside and outside educational institutions—for plurilingual education. These studies are also notable for their creative and diverse methodological and practical approaches.

One key area is the treatment of minoritised languages and language varieties. In this regard, Brown’s research on Võro culture and language (2001–2003, 2013–2014) is particularly significant. Her work is remarkable not only for introducing the concept of the “schoolscape” and using a diachronic methodology, but also for offering deep insights into how schools evolved over more than a decade. Based on intensive ethnographic research in rural Southeastern Estonia, Brown’s study included Võro language classes, interviews with Võro-language teachers, and an in-depth case study of a single school, using observation and photography across various spaces within the school.

For example, she found that regional and local artifacts were stored in peripheral, hard-to-access areas, often disorganized and dusty. In contrast, artifacts linked to Estonia and Europe were displayed prominently and in good condition. From this initial research period, Brown concluded that regional language, culture, and identity were marginalized within the Estonian education system. She argued that this stark asymmetry poses a serious threat to efforts aimed at revitalising the Võro language. Roughly ten years later, Brown returned to the same school and kindergarten settings, photographing visible signs of the regional language and interviewing the same teachers. Based on this new data, she identified three key forces—referred to as "engines" (Brown 2018: 15)—that drove change: (1) the availability of institutionally appropriate, familiar forms of materials in the regional language (e.g. Võro calendars), (2) the increasing market appeal of regional language and culture and (3) teachers’ commitment to immersion pedagogy.

Another practical example, this time in the context of urban diversity, also demonstrates the link between schoolscapes and language education policy. Menken et al. (2018) conducted a qualitative study of 23 schools involved in the CUNY-NYSIEB initiative, which supports multilingualism and professional development in multilingual contexts. Their research found that transforming the schoolscape acted as a “language policy mechanism” (Menken et al. 2018: 123): students’ languages were incorporated visually and orally into classroom activities and signage, and the prevailing language ideologies shifted toward plurilingualism and plurilingual practices. One of their main conclusions is that “transforming the physical LL by making students’ languages visible served as a stepping stone for many schools to make further changes” (Menken et al. 2018: 122).

Studies of schoolscapes—and of LL beyond schools—also offer valuable methodological insights. Collaborative approaches, visual ethnography, and multi-method research are common. Specific techniques such as “walking tours” and the “tourist guide technique” have proven especially useful (Biró 2016; Szabó 2015).

Take home messages

LL is concerned with multimodal semiotic signs that communicate meaning.
LL is closely linked to issues of language policy, power and ideology.
LL research has evolved from using primarily quantitative methods to adopting ethnographic and multi-method approaches.
The contextualisation of signs—understanding them within their social, cultural, and historical settings—has become increasingly important.
LL can be used as a valuable education resource and tool with multiple benefits.
Schoolscapes can function as a powerful mechanism for reflecting, implementing and transforming language policy.

Self assessment

Test

Choose the appropriate answers from the options provided to answer the questions (there may be more than one appropriate answers to some questions).

1. What does the term linguistic landscape refer to?

A. The number of languages spoken in a country

B. The visual display of languages in public spaces

C. The study of grammar and syntax

D. The official languages of a country

2. Which of the following best describes a top-down sign?

A. An advertisement or a billboard

B. A sign made by individuals

C. A sign issued by authorities or government institutions

D. A graffiti or mural

3. Today, LL research methodology is mostly concerned with

A. Ethnography – observing and understanding how people use and interpret signs in their daily lives.

B. Quantitative methods – counting languages on public signs.

C. Multimethod research – combining different research approaches to get a fuller picture.

D. Documenting signs – taking photos of and analysing signs found in public spaces.

4. For what purpose can the LL be used in education?

A. Promoting critical language awareness

B. Informing about the numbers of speakers of each language in the environment

C. Supporting language learning

D. Engaging in discussions about language ideologies

E. Reduce the number of languages used in class

Correct answers: 1B; 2 B, D; 3 A, C, D; 4 A, B, C, D.

Open Activity: LL Observation

Choose a specific place—such as a section of a street near a school—and analyze the linguistic landscape. Look at:

The context of a sign:
- where is it placed?
- who might have implemented it?
- who might have responded to it?
- what languages/varieties and other multimodal resources can be traced?
- how do they interrelate?
In which ways is the sign informative about social or linguistic debates and power issues?

Now, imagine how you could use this activity in your classroom. For example:

Let students take photos and discuss the signs they find
Reflect on which languages are visible and which are not, and why
Use the signs as a starting point to address issues of language diversity and power relations
Create multilingual signs together with students and have them manifested in the school/classroom

This activity could lead to a more long-term project on belonging, citizenship and inclusion.

Further ressources

Linguistic Landscapes. Learning and Teaching with Urban and Linguistic Landscapes talk at Columbia University Talk given by Elana Shohamy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9CjoCxRLsc

Bibliography

Biró, E. (2016). Learning schoolscapes in a minority setting. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 8(2), 109–21.

Brinkmann, L. M., MacMonagle, S., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (Eds.) (2022). Guidelines for introducing linguistic landscapes in (foreign) language learning and teacher education. Erasmus +. https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.10241

Gorter, D. & Cenoz, J. (2024). A Panorama of Linguistic Landscape Studies. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800417151

Brown, K. D. (2005). Estonian schoolscapes and the marginalization of regional identity in education. European Education, 37(3), 78–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108669771.034 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Brown, K. D. (2012). The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: Language revital- ization 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: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 281–98.

Brown, K. D. (2018). Shifts and stability in schoolscapes: Diachronic considerations of southeastern Estonian schools. Linguistics and Education, 44, 12–19.

Malinowski, D., Maxim, H., & Dubreil, S. (Eds.). (2020). Language teaching in the linguistic landscape. Mobilizing pedagogy in public space. Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55761-4

Malinowski, D. (2015). Opening spaces of learning in the linguistic landscape. Linguistic Landscape 1 (1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.1.1-2.06mal

Menken, K., Pérez Rosario, V., & Guzmán Valerio, L. A. (2018). Increasing multilingualism in schoolscapes. New scenery and language education policies. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 4(2), 101–27.

Shohamy, E. (2017). Linguistic landscape: Interpreting and expanding lan- guage diversities. In A. De Fina, D. Ikizoglu, & J. Wegner, (eds.), Diversity and Super-Diversity: Sociocultural Linguistic Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 37–63.

Szabó, T. P. (2015). The management of diversity in schoolscapes: An analy- sis of Hungarian practices. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(1), 23–51

Vetter E. (2022). Linguistic Landscapes in School. In: Stavans A, Jessner U, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Childhood Multilingualism. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press; 2022:623-648.

Credits

This resource has been created by Projet PEP (discuss • contribs) (Erasmus+ project, co-financed by the European Commission) : Anastasia Gkaintartzi (University of Thessaly), Eva Vetter & Paulina Wagner (Universität Wien)

Portal: Plurilingual education