Why diachronicity matters in the study of linguistic landscapes

Abstract

It is commonly argued that the proliferation of urban writing known as linguistic landscapes represents “a thoroughly contemporary global trend” (Coupland, 2010: 78). The purpose of this paper is to show that linguistic landscapes are by no means modern phenomena and to draw on our shared interest in multilingual empires to highlight the importance of diachronic inquiry and productive dialog between sociolinguists of modern and ancient societies. We will argue that while signs do operate in aggregate, the common focus on all signsat a single point in time on one streetis problematic because the interpretation of signs is diachronic in nature, intrinsically linked to the preceding signs in the same environment and to related signs elsewhere, and the process of reading “back from signs to practices to people” (Blommaert, 2013: 51) is not as unproblematic as it is sometimes made to look.

Multilingualism, urban change and gentrification in the landscape of a Brussels neighbourhood

“…Alternatively, real-time longitudinal studies document (socio)linguistic change by monitoring the same variable or the same location's LL at various moments over time (e.g;Pavlenko 2010;Papen 2012;Blommaert 2013;Peck and Banda 2014). In this paper, I align with Pavlenko and Mullen's (2015) argument that we need to adopt more historically-sensitive readings of contemporary multilingual signage and address the ways in which history continues to impact the present public space. In particular, processes of urban change and gentrification require a viewpoint that assesses the complexity of present-day landscapes in light of historical development and the role played by private, commercial and institutional actors at different moments in time.…”

The Latvian Language in the Linguistic Landscape of Daugavpils (The Middle of the 19th Century - Today)

“…She has worked with archive materials and research of other scientists on historical texts in order to Þ nd out which languages have been used in the linguistic landscape of Kiev, from the 9 th century until today. In her research, she discusses the factors which have inß uenced language changes over time: the geopolitical situation, RussiÞ cation, nationalisation, and globalisation (Pavlenko, 2010;Pavlenko, Mullen, 2015). Additionally, Peter Backhaus has compared the peculiarities of formation of coexisting old (1997) and new (2003) language signs in the linguistic landscape of the capital of Japan, Tokyo, describing novelties and changes (Backhaus, 2005).…”

Vilnius memoryscape

“…However, "the most influential political parties at the time decided to support the reconstruction" (Žilinskaite, 2008: 93) As we can see, the transformation tactic of the opening spaces or "spatial mapping" (Pavlenko, Mullen, 2015: ) in the cultural landscape is grounded on the reflective or mimetic approach of representation (Hall, 2002), which is based on the assumption that meaning remains in the monuments, places and buildings, thus, continuing the historical counter-dialogue of past and present powers and creating the new memoryscape. That is why the removal of monuments thought to be mimetic of the old regime and identity is usually followed by the erection of new monuments and buildings, which signify new meanings and help to construct new memories and identities.…”