Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes

8/3/2019 Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-conflict-in-post-soviet-linguistic-landscapes 1/28

Journal of Slavic Linguistics 17(1–2): 247–274, 2009.

Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes

Aneta Pavlenko

Abstract. In this article it is argued that the study of linguistic landscapes(publicusesofwrittenlanguage)canbenefitfromviewingthemasdynamicphenomena and examining them in a diachronic context. Based on thechangesinthepost‑Sovietspacesince1991,fiveprocessesareidentifiedand

examinedinwithregardtolanguagechangeandlanguageconflict.Itisfur‑therarguedthatthestudyoflinguisticlandscapeoffersausefultoolforpost‑SovietsociolinguisticsandforSlavicsociolinguisticsatlarge,andillustrationsareprovidedoftheinsightsaffordedbysuchinquiry.

1. Introduction

Whenwearriveinanewcountry,publicsigns,ads,andbillboardsareoftenthefirstformofcontactwehavewiththelanguageandscriptofthe place. If the country is multilingual, each instance of languagechoiceandpresentationinthepublicsignagetransmitssymbolicmes‑

sagesregardinglegitimacy,centrality,andrelevanceofparticularlan‑guagesand the people theyrepresent (Shohamy 2006). It is onlyre‑cently,however,thatthestudyoflinguistic landscape ,i.e.,publicusesofwrittenlanguage,hasemergedasan independentareaof sociolin‑guistic investigation (e.g., Backhaus 2007; Gorter 2006c; Landry andBourhis1997;ScollonandScollon2003;ShohamyandGorter2009).

Todate,only a fewstudieshave examinedpost‑Soviet linguisticlandscapes (e.g., Brown 2007; Sadikhova and Abadi 2000; Sloboda2009;Yurchak2000).Consequently,thepresentpaperhastwointerre‑latedaims.Myfirstaimistohighlightpotentialcontributionsofthelinguistic landscape approach to the study of language and identitypoliticsinpost‑Sovietstates.Mysecondaimistoshowthatlinguisticandsocialchangesthathavetakenplaceinpost‑Sovietstatescanofferimportantcontributionstothestudyoflinguisticlandscape.Iwillbe‑ginwithanoverviewoftheoreticalandmethodologicalunderpinnings



248 ANETA PAVLENKO

ofthisareaofresearch.Then,Iwilldiscuss linguistic landscapephe‑

nomenacentralto theprocessesofderussificationandlanguageshiftinpost‑Sovietcountries.Iwillendwiththekeyquestionsthatneedto beaskedwithregardto linguisticlandscapesinfutureworkonmul‑tilingualisminpost‑Sovietstates.

2. Linguistic Landscape: Theory and Methodology

Thestudyoflinguisticlandscapehascometoprominenceinthefieldof sociolinguisticsonlywithin the last decade (for an overview, seeBackhaus2007).AfoundationalarticlebyLandryandBourhis(1997)defineslinguisticlandscapeas“thelanguageofpublicroadsigns,ad‑vertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shopsigns, and public signs on governmental buildings” (25). But whatmakes public signage worthy of investigation? Coupland (forthcom‑ing)arguesthatas visualizations ofmodernity, linguistic landscapescan bring different qualities of contemporary urban experience intofocus,includingdifferentmanifestationsoflanguageconflict.Andin‑deedmost research in this areahas been conducted in multilingualsocieties and communities, including Israel (Ben‑Rafael et al. 2006;Spolsky and Cooper 1991; Suleiman 2004), Quebec (Landry andBourhis 1997), Basque country (Cenoz and Gorter 2006), andWales(Couplandforthcoming).

To examine these complex negotiations, researchers commonly

gatherarepresentativecollectionofpublicsignagefromaparticulararea,placingeachpictureinthecontextoftimeandplaceinwhichitwas taken(seeBarni and Bagna 2009 foradiscussionof the usesofsoftwareinthisdatacollection).Theseitemsarethenanalyzedquan‑titativelyandqualitatively,intermsofthefrequencyofappearanceofspecificlanguages;theorderoftheirappearanceinmultilingualsigns;the relationship between presumed translation equivalents in suchsigns;the prominence ofparticular languagesas seen inthe usesoforder,fontsize,andcolor;spatiallocationandmobilityofthesigns;materialthesignsaremadeof;andtheprimaryfunctionofthesigns,e.g., informational/indexical or symbolic. Reh (2004) suggested that

multilingualsignsshouldalsobeanalyzedfromthepointofviewofinformation arrangement: (i) duplicating, (ii) fragmentary, (iii) over‑lapping,and(iv)complementary,wheredifferenttypesofinformation



LANGUAGE CONFLICT IN POST-SOVIET LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPES 249

areprovidedineachlanguage,transmittingsomewhatdifferentmes‑

sagestodifferentaudiences.Thechoicesmadebyvarioussocialactorscanbeanalyzedfroma

varietyoftheoreticalperspectives.Tounderstandhowpowerrelations betweenhegemonicandsubordinategroupsshapeandareshapedbylinguistic landscape, scholars may draw on Bourdieu’s (1991) ideasaboutsymbolicpower(e.g.,Ben‑Rafaeletal.2006).Tounderstandtheeconomicunderpinningsofvariouschoicesandoptionstheymayap‑pealtoGrin’s(2006;GrinandVaillancourt1997)workoneconomicsofmultilingualism or to contingent valuation method (e.g., Cenoz andGorter 2009). Recent work on globalization and commodification ofEnglish offersanother useful analyticalperspective, inparticular foranalyses of advertising (Backhaus 2006, 2007; Huebner 2006; Hult2009;LanzaandWoldemariam2009;Piller2001,2003).Potentiallinks betweenlinguisticlandscape,linguisticdiversity,andlanguagemain‑tenancehavebeenexaminedthroughthelensofethnolinguisticvital‑ity(LandryandBourhis1997)andtheecologyoflanguage(Hult2009).Linguistsalsoexaminelinguisticlandscapeasanimportantsiteoflan‑guage contact and change (Huebner 2006, 2009; Piller 2003), whilesemioticiansareconcernedwithways inwhichspatial andlinguisticarrangementsconveymeanings(ScollonandScollon2003).

Sincelinguisticlandscaperesearchisstillinitsinception,severaltheoretical and methodological debates plague the field (Backhaus2007;Gorter2006a;Huebner2009).Thefirstinvolvestheproblemof

representativenessandscopeofasample:Howdoesoneselectarep‑resentativesample?Aredatafromonestreetoroneareasufficientforgeneralizationsaboutacityasawhole?Ifseveralstreetsorareasareto be selected, howdoesone go about selecting them?Huebner(2006)showsthatadifferenceinsampleselectionbetweenhisownstudyandthatofSmalley(1994)ledtoaverydifferentunderstandingoftheroleof English in the linguistic landscape of Bangkok. These issues alsoneedtobeconfrontedonalargerscale,intermsofrepresentativenessof particular cities. In the post‑Soviet space, for instance, Brown’s(2007) study revealed differences in distribution of Belarusian andRussiansignagebetweenMinsk,Vitebsk,andGrodno,Bilaniuk(2005)

noteddifferences in the treatment ofRussianin eastern andwesternUkraine, and Zabrodskaja (2009) highlighted discrepancies betweenareasinEstoniadominatedbyethnicEstoniansandthosedominated byethnicRussians.



250 ANETA PAVLENKO

Thesecondimportantquestionconcernstheunitofanalysisorthe

linguisticsign(Gorter2006a;Huebner2009).Whatconstitutesan ap‑propriate object for linguistic landscape inquiry? Should texts onmovingobjects,suchasbuses,beincluded?Whataboutprintedmat‑ter,suchasbooksorpostcards?Researchersvarywithregardtowhattheyconsiderthescopeoftheinquiry.Backhaus(2006)definesasignas“anypieceofwrittentextwithinaspatiallydefinableframe”(55),adefinitionthatfocusesonthingsvisibletopassersby,fromstreetsignstocommercialbillboardstohandwritten stickers ‘push’and‘pull’onentrance doors. In turn, Shohamy and Waksman (2009) argue thatlinguistic landscape inquiry should incorporate all types of mul‑timodal discourses—“what is seen, what is heard, what is spoken,whatisthought”(313).

Thethirdareaofdebateinvolvesanalyticalcategoriesusedforun‑derstanding the sign authorship. Several researchers distinguish be‑tweentop‑downorofficialsigns,thatissignsplacedbythegovernmentandrelatedorganizations(e.g.,streetnames,roadsigns),and bottom‑upornon‑officialsigns,thatissignsplacedbyautonomoussocialac‑tors,suchascommercialenterprises,privateorganizations,and indi‑viduals (e.g., shop signs, personal announcements) (Backhaus 2006,2007; Ben‑Rafael et al. 2006). Coupland (forthcoming) and Huebner(2009) argue that while this distinction is informative, it is also too broadand fails to capturethe agencyand social situatedness of thesigns,wherebythesamesignmaybereadastop‑downbysomeread‑

ersandasbottom‑upbyothers.Thebottom‑upcategoryinparticularhaseliciteda lotofcritiquebecauseit lumpstogetherdifferentsocialactorswhomaydisplay differentdegreesofpreoccupationwithoffi‑cial language policies. Large multinational corporations mayaim topresentaninternationallyrecognizedimage(globalsigns),localcom‑mercialenterprisesmay need tocomplywith localpolicies,andpri‑vateindividualsmaymaketheirchoicesbasedontheirownlinguisticcompetenciesandthoseofintendedreaders.

The concernsabove arealso relatedtothefourthproblem inthefield, the difficulty of determining the sign’s authorship, primaryfunctions, and intended addressees. In relation to authorship,Mali‑

nowski’s (2009) study of bilingual Korean‑English business signs inOakland, California, showed that because businesses often changehands,currentbusinessownersarenotnecessarilytheauthorsof thesignsandmaybeunawareofthereasonsbehindspecificlanguageand




wordchoices.Inrelationtoreadership,Calvet(1994)arguedthatChi‑

nesesignsina typicalParisianChineserestaurantmaybedirectedattheFrenchcustomersandcarryapredominantlysymbolicfunctionofgivingthe restaurant its ‘air chinois’. In contrast, Chinesesigns inarestaurantlocatedintheBellevilleareaofParis,inhabitedbyChinesespeakers,may carry primarily an informational function, addressingpeoplewhoknowthelanguage.Inthepost‑Sovietcontext,thiscom‑plexityisparticularlysalientwithregardtoRussian.Aswillbeshownlater, in some contexts it is difficult to determine whether Russianfunctionsasaregionallinguafranca,alanguageofinterethniccom‑munication,oraminoritylanguage.

Thefifthissueinvolvesthelanguageorlanguagesofthesign—ithasbeenrepeatedlynotedthatcleardeterminationofthelanguagesisnotalwayspossible(Backhaus2006,2007;Huebner2006).Somesignsmayappealtolanguagemixing,play,andlexicalborrowing,display‑ing,forinstance,blendsofFrenchandDutch(Backhaus,2007)orEng‑lishwordswritten inKanji,Hiragana,orKatakana (Backhaus2006).Theissueofindeterminacyisparticularlyrelevanttotheworkinpost‑Sovietcountrieswherethreeproblemsarecommonlypresent.Thefirstinvolvesnewcoinage,seen,forinstance,incommercialsignsinBakuthatappearinaLatinalphabetandcannotbeeasilyassignedtoapar‑ticularlanguage(SadikhovaandAbadi2000).Thesecondproblemin‑volvestransliteration, seen, for example, inbusiness signsinUzbeki‑stan whereRussianwordsmay bewritten ina Latin alphabet, e.g.,

ximchistka‘drycleaner’s’or salon krasoty‘beautysalon’(Sharifov2007;seealso Figure8, p.265). The third problem involves bivalency thatmayoccuringeneticallycloselanguages.Thus,inUkraine,signsdis‑playingbivalentwordssuchaskafe‘café’,bank‘bank’,or vokzal‘rail‑roadstation’canbereadasbothUkrainianandRussian.InasignfromacaféinKyiv,Ukraine(seeFigure1onthefollowingpage),themostprominentword,kafe ,belongstobothlanguages(BilaniukandMelnyk2008).

Language prominence or, in Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) terms,“code preference”, is another issue debated vigorously in the field.Howdoweinterpretthevisualhierarchyinareliablemanner?Scollon

andScollon(2003:120)suggestthatthepreferredcodecommonlyap‑pearsontop,ontheleft,orinthecenterofthesign.Backhaus(2007)arguesthatthissemioticapproachisWesterninnature.Inhisanalysis



252 ANETA PAVLENKO

Figure 1.CafésigninKyiv,Ukraine,2007.(Reproducedwiththepermissionoftheauthor,SvitlanaMelnyk.)

ofmultilingualsignsinTokyo,Backhaus(2006,2007)determinedcode

preferencethroughtheorderandsizeoffontortextsintherespectivelanguages,with size overrulingorder in cases where texts in largerfontareplacedina subordinateposition.Huebner(2006)arguesthat bothplacementandsizecanbeoffsetbyotherfeaturessuchascolor,images,andtheamountoftextinthelanguageinquestion.InFigure1,forinstance,prominenceisdeterminedbythesizeofthefontandadditionally by the placement. In the post‑Soviet space, this issuedeserves close attention, since Western preferences for top or leftplacement may not necessarily be dominant in Central Asia or theTranscaucasus.

Lastbutnotleast,athornydebateattheheartofthefieldinvolvesthemeaningfulnessof various approaches.Some scholars, like Back‑haus(2007),arguethatrandompicturesofcurious signsareunlikelytobeofsignificanceandonlyrigorousapproachestosampling,selec‑tion, andquantitativeanalysis canproduce scientifically relevant re‑




sults.Others,likeCoupland(forthcoming),viewdistributionfrequen‑

ciesaspurelydescriptiveandarguethatthefieldneedstodevelopatheoreticalaccountoflinguisticlandscaping,askingwhatforcesshapeparticular landscapes,whose designs andpriorities they respond to,andwhatcompetingvaluesystemsmaybeatwork.

While these theoretical and methodological debates go on, re‑searchersworkingin thisareastrivetobeasexplicitandtransparentaspossibleregarding(i)theirtheoreticalassumptions;(ii)geographicareas where the research was conducted and the rationale for thechoiceoftheseareas;(iii)typesofsignsexaminedandtherationalefortheirchoice; (iv) schemesforcategorizationandanalysis;and (v) thelargersignificanceoftheirfindingsforunderstandingoflanguageuse.Thisworkhasalreadyenrichedourunderstandingoflanguageuseinsocial settingsand has great potential for expanding it further. Thepresent paper aims tocontribute to this expansion by focusing onalargelyoverlookeddimensionoflinguisticlandscapes—theirdynamiccharacter.Todate,thefieldhasbeendominatedbysynchronicinves‑tigationsthatfocusonasinglepointintime,thusimplicitlytreatingpublic signageas static. Inwhat follows, I approach linguistic land‑scapenotasahere‑and‑nowphenomenonbutasaprocesstobeex‑amineddiachronicallyandinthecontextofotherlanguagepractices.Among the manyaspectsthatare subject tochange, Iwill focusonone,namelylanguage changeinpublicsignage. Iwill exploremani‑festationsofthischangeinthecontextofpost‑Sovietcountries.

3. Derussification and Language Shift in Post-Soviet Countries

Post‑Soviet countries offer a fruitful context fordiachronic study oflinguistic landscapes because, in the past two decades, post‑Sovietsymbolic landscapes have undergone drastic changes reflectingbothnation‑buildingeffortsandtransitiontothenewcapitalistandglobaleconomies.In 1991, thefourteennation‑statesthat emergedfromtheruinsoftheSovietempireadoptedavarietyofdesovietizationpoliciestodistancethemselvesbothfromRussiaandthetotalitarianpastandto accomplish a transition to the new economy. In the area of lan‑

guage,thesepoliciesaimedatderussificationandashifttowardtitularlanguagesandEnglishasanewlinguafranca.Azerbaijan,Moldova,Turkmenistan,andUzbekistanalsoimplementedatransitionfromtheCyrillictotheLatinalphabetinthetitularlanguage.Overthepasttwo



254 ANETA PAVLENKO

decades these language policies have been translated into practices

acrossavarietyofdomains(e.g.,officiallanguageuse,education,me‑dia, commerce),withvaryingdegreesof success.Theoutcomeshave beenshapedbya variety of factors, including butnot limitedto thedemographicsofthecountry,people’sattitudestowardparticularlan‑guages,andpoliticalorientationofindividualgovernments(Pavlenko2008a,b,c).Throughout,linguistic landscapehasemergedasaspacewherelanguageconflictshavebecomeparticularlyvisible.

As already mentioned earlier, to date only a few sociolinguisticstudieshaveexaminedpost‑Sovietlinguisticlandscapes.TheybecamethecentralfocusofBrown’s(2007)andSloboda’s(2009)studiesinBel‑arus, Pavlenko’s (2009) research in Ukraine, Sadikhova andAbadi’s(2000)studyinAzerbaijan,Zabrodskaja’s(2009)workinEstonia,andYurchak’s(2000)andBennett’s(2008)researchinRussia.Theyalsobe‑came an integral component of larger studies conducted in Belarus(GigerandSloboda2008),Kyrgyzstan(Orusbaevetal.2008),Moldova(Ciscel2007,2008),andUkraine(Bilaniuk2005;BilaniukandMelnyk2008).Brown’s(2007)andPavlenko’s(2009)studiesofferdirectexami‑nations of changes through particular periods of time, while otherstudiescontributetoourunderstandingofthechangesthroughdirectand indirectreferencestothesituationbeforeandafterthefalloftheUSSR (e.g., Sadikhova and Abadi 2000). Undoubtedly, semioticchanges in post‑Soviet landscapes are broader and more profoundthan a change in the languages and scripts used in public signage.

Yurchak’s(2000)analysis,forinstance,illuminatesprivatizationofthepublic space, visible in the names given to enterprises by the new businessclass,whileBennett(2008)considersthesymboliccomebackoftheoldRussianorthography.Duetospacelimitations,however,inwhatfollowsIwillfocusexclusivelyonlanguagechoiceandoutlineatheoreticalframeworkthathighlightsfivemanifestationsoftheshift‑in‑progress: language erasure, language replacement, language up‑grading and downgrading, language regulation, and transgressivesignage.

3.1. Language Erasure

The visibility of the public space and the fact that it is primarilyshapedbypublicauthoritiesmakesitacentralarenaforenforcementoflanguagepolicies,creationofparticularnationalidentities,andma‑




nipulationofpublicpractices.Anintendedshiftcanbemanifestedin

thissymbolicarenainanumberofways,mostdramaticallythroughlanguage erasure , that isdeliberate removal of signage ina particularlanguage. In the post‑Soviet space, it was Russian—and sometimesCyrillic script in general—that became subject to language erasure,most prominently in the Baltic countries, the Transcaucasus, Turk‑menistan,andUzbekistan.

Thereexistthreepossiblewaysoferasingalanguagefromlinguis‑tic landscape. The first involves replacement of old signswith newsignswhere theoffending language is now absent.This approachisthe most expensive but also the most effective because it leaves nophysicaltraceoftheotherlanguage;theerasurecanonlybemadeevi‑dentthroughcomparisonoftheoldandnewsignage.Theothertwoapproachesare cheaper but also less effective than the first one be‑causetheyleavebehindmaterialtraces—andthusreminders—oflan‑guage erasure. Thus, the second approach involves deletion (e.g.,paintingover)ofpartsofbilingualsigns.ThisapproachisevidentinastreetsigninRiga,Latvia,wheretheRussiannameonthebottomlinehas been painted over with a lighter blue color (Figure 2 on thefollowingpage).Thethirdapproach,adoptedwithgeneticallyrelatedlanguages that use the same script, involves modification of singleletters.Forexample,inaroadsigninUkraine,languageerasuretookplaceasachangeinscript,wheretheletters‘o’and‘ы’intheRussiannamesofthecities L’vovandStryjwerepaintedoverwith‘i’and‘и’,

resulting in the Ukrainian names L’viv and StrI j (Figure 3 on thefollowingpage).

Theseapproachesmayoftencoexistbecause,evenwithacontextofasinglecountry,languageerasuredoesnotproceeduniformly.Forinstance, Bilaniuk (2005), who conducted ethnographic fieldwork inUkrainein1991–92,notedthattheprocessofreplacementofRussian‑language andbilingual signswith Ukrainian‑language signsdidnottake place in the same manner throughout the country. In L’viv, acomplete replacement of all street signs occurred “practically over‑night”(Bilaniuk2005:95),whileinKyivtheauthoritiesatfirstoptedtomodify letters in existing signs, thus changing Russian words into

Ukrainian as quickly and inexpensively as possible. The researcherarguedthatthisapproachdetractedfromthenormalizingforceoflan‑



256 ANETA PAVLENKO

Figure 2.StreetsigninRiga,Latvia,2007.(Source:A.Kuz’min,http://ru.wikipedia.org ,RusskijjazykvLatvii)

Figure 3.RoadsigninwesternUkraine,2007.(Source: Russianname,http://ru.wikipedia.org ,Ukrainizatsija)




guageinstitutionalizationand“madetheauthoritybackingUkrainian

appear as poor and superficial as the changes on the signage”(Bilaniuk2005:95).

Giventhefactthatcoloniallanguagescommonlyremaininuseinpostcolonialcountries (Simpson2007, 2008), the large‑scalederussifi‑cationofthepost‑Sovietspaceoffersnewpossibilitiesforthestudyoflanguage shift. Nevertheless, to date, it has not been examined in‑depth,inparticularinlinguisticlandscapes,theareawhereithadbeenmost conspicuous. Future studies of derussification in post‑Sovietlandscapeswillenrichour understanding of the changein linguisticregimes, while studies of the consequences of language erasure, in‑cludingpublicreceptionofthenewsigns,willaddinsightstoourun‑

derstandingoflanguageplanning.Thisstudyalsohaspotentialtocontributetoourunderstandingoflanguage rights. To date, in the work on post‑Soviet countries, lan‑guage rightshave beeninvokedat lengthwith regardto citizenshiptesting in Latvia and Estonia and the closing of Russian‑languageschoolsintheBalticcountriesandinUkraine(Pavlenko2008a).Littleattention,however, has beenpaid to the usesofwritten language inthepublicspace(butseeSadikhovaandAbadi2000onconcernsex‑pressedbytheelderlyinAzerbaijan).YetShohamy(2006)arguesthatthisareacannotbeignored,inparticularwhenlocal residentsdonothavecompetenceinthelanguagesusedinpublicsignageandarethusunabletofollowstreetsignsandotherwritteninformation.Thisisnot

an issue in Ukraine or Belarus, where the languages are geneticallyrelatedandthepopulationsfunctionallybilingual,andso thechangeofsignagewasasymbolicgesturethatdidnotcauseanymajorincon‑veniencesandinsomecasesproceededunnoticed(cf.Brown2007).Itis,however,aconcerninplaceswhereRussianspeakersdidnot—atleastinitially—havecompetenceinthetitularlanguages.Thus,futureworkneeds to examine how languageerasuretookplace in variouscontexts,andwhetheritaffectedthewelfareofparticularpopulations.

3.2. Language Replacement

Another manifestation of the shift‑in‑progress involves language re‑ placement , where a new language takes over the functions of a lan‑guagethathadbeeneliminated. Inthepost‑Sovietcountries,thelan‑guagethatcametoreplaceRussianwasthegloballinguafrancaEng‑



258 ANETA PAVLENKO

lish. In Ukraine, for instance,Ukrainian‑Russian signswere replaced

with Ukrainian‑English signs as early as1991(Bilaniuk 2005). As inotherpost‑Sovietcountries,thischangesymbolizedthetransitionfromSoviet totalitarianism to western‑style cosmopolitanism and globalvalues (Bilaniuk and Melnyk 2008; Ciscel 2008; Pavlenko 2008c;SadikhovaandAbadi2000).InandofitselftheuseofEnglishisnotauniquephenomenon.Studiestodatehavedocumentedagrowingsa‑lience of English in linguistic landscapes of Ethiopia (Lanza andWoldemariam2009),Japan(Backhaus2006,2007),Israel(Ben‑Rafaeletal. 2006), Netherlands (Cenoz and Gorter 2006), Spain (Cenoz andGorter2006),Sweden(Hult2009),Taiwan(Curtin2009),andThailand(Huebner 2006).Thedifference between these contextsand the post‑Soviet space is in the fact that in post‑Soviet countries English ap‑pearedasareplacementforRussian,whileinothercontextsitisalan‑guageaddedtothelandscape.

Thetwolanguagesdifferintheirsymbolicassociationsandalsointhelevelsoflanguagecompetence:atpresent,inthepost‑Sovietspace,levelsofRussian‑languagecompetence still supersede levels ofEng‑lish (Pavlenko 2008c). Consequently, it is likely that in post‑Sovietcountries,as inotherplacesaroundtheworld,thesymbolicfunctionofEnglish—the languageofprestige, internationalization, sophistica‑tion,andglobalvalues—eclipsesitscommunicativefunctionasa lin‑guafranca(Curtin2009;Piller2001,2003;ScollonandScollon2003).InKyiv,forinstance,in theearly1990sbusinesseswereamongthefirst

placestodisplayUkrainian‑Englishsigns,inaccordancewiththenewfashionforEnglish(Bilaniuk2005).InBaku,by2000,40%ofthestoresignsusedEnglishasaprimarylanguage(SadikhovaandAbadi2000).

Anexampleofsuchsymbolicusageisseeninthesigndisplayedinthe Kyiv café (Figure 1 on p. 252), that incorporates two Englishwords,VitaminandBatterfly,thelattereitheranerroneousrenditionof ‘butterfly’ or a neologism (BilaniukandMelnyk2008). Inthe ab‑senceofanyclearinformationalfunctioncarriedbythetwowords,itislikelythattheyareusedfordisplaypurposes,tolendthesignan‘in‑ternational’ aura. Similar display appearances of English‑language brandnames,trademarks,andlogosareseeninadvertisementsfora

WatermanpeninKyiv,Ukraine(Figure9onp.266),andforelectronicproducts by JVC in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (Figure 10 on p. 268) (forsimilarexamples fromMoldova, seeCiscel 2008). In contrast, in the




Figure 4.DepartmentofPassportandVisaControl,Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan,2007.(Reproducedwiththepermission

oftheauthor,AbdykadyrOrusbaev)

roadsigninwesternUkraine(Figure3onp.256)andinthesignovertheKyrgyzDepartmentforpassportandvisacontrol(Figure4above),English carries an informational function asa lingua francaof inter‑nationaltravel.

Notallsegmentsofthepost‑Sovietpopulationareequallypleasedwith the transition toEnglish or to the Latin alphabet:olderpeopleoften appear annoyed by the incomprehensible words in the store‑fronts(Bilaniuk2005;Sadikhova andAbadi 2000).In futurework, itwouldbeinterestingtoseehowandwhenEnglishappearedinpar‑ticular linguistic landscapes, how it is used in different contexts,whetherithasindeedreplacedRussianasalinguafranca,atleastinsomecontexts, and whomay benefit fromor be inconveniencedbysuchareplacement.

3.3. Language Upgrading and Downgrading

Whileerasureandreplacementrepresentanextremecaseoflanguagedowngrading, a language canalso be downgradedwhile remaining



260 ANETA PAVLENKO

part of the signage.Thus, anothermanifestationofan intended lan‑

guage shift is a change of language status in thepublic signage re‑ferredtoaslanguage upgradingordowngrading.Thischangetakesplacethrough changes in presentation prominence, that is ordering, fontsize,color,andamountofinformationofferedineachlanguage.Bothupgradinganddowngradingarevisibleinpost‑Sovietlinguisticland‑scapes.All fourteencountrieshaveupgradedthetitular languages inthepublicsignage,while downgrading Russian.Similar to languageerasure,languageupgradinganddowngradingtakeplacedifferentlyin different contexts even within the same country. Intriguing evi‑denceofsuchvariationcomesfromBrown’s(2007)studyofchangesin bilingualsignageinBelarus.Thestudyshowsthatbetweentheyears1984and1997theproportionofsignsinBelarusianandRussianvariedfromthepredominanceofRussianin1984,toexclusiveRussianusagein1986toequalusagein1991topredominanceofBelarusianin1997.More importantly, Brown (2007) shows that the distribution of lan‑guages in the signage variedacross metro stops and lines, betweenmetrosignageandotherofficialsignage,andalsobetweenthethreecities studied, with Belarusian dominating the signage in Grodno,RussianinVitebsk,andbilingualsignageappearingmostprominentlyinMinsk.Lastbutnotleast,whilemostbilingualsignsrepresentedthetitularlanguageBelarusianfirst,therewerealsonewsignswhereRus‑sian,thesecondstatelanguageinBelarus,appearedfirst.

Differences across contexts were also documented in Moldova,

wheregovernmentofficesignsnowappearinMoldovanandRussian,whilenamesofprivateshopsandbusinesseshavebeenrestrictedtoMoldovan (ormore specifically to theLatin script), although detailsmaybeofferedineitherlanguageorboth(Ciscel2007,2008).Aninter‑esting example of variation in prominence based on the intendedaudiencecomesfromKyrgyzstan.Inthebilingualannouncementofavoting place inBishkek, seen in Figure5 opposite, KyrgyzprecedesRussian in the top sign, whileRussianappears on the left sign andKyrgyz on the right, creating anappearance of equality. Incontrast,the sign in Figure 4 on the preceding page, announcing the Depart‑ment ofpassport and visa control, displays a different arrangement:

Russiantopandcenter,flankedonthesidesbyKyrgyzandEnglish.InthiscaseRussianmaybeprioritizedasalinguafrancaoftransnationalmigrationandtravelinthepost‑Sovietspace.




Figure 5.Votingplace,Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan,2007.(Reproducedwiththepermissionoftheauthor,AbdykadyrOrusbaev)

WiththeexceptionofBrown’s(2007)study,however,todate,ex‑

aminationofupgradinganddowngradinginlinguisticlandscape—beit in post‑Soviet countries or elsewhere—has been restricted to thehere‑and‑now arrangements in public signage. In future studies, itwouldbeinformativetoexaminehow,when,andwhythechangesinpresentation of particular languages took place and what symbolicmessages were transmitted through such changes. These analysesneedtoplacemultilingualsignsinthecontextoflocallanguageprac‑ticesandcompetencies,differentiatingbetweenarrangementsthatre‑flect linguisticcompetenciesof intendedaudiencesandthosethatre‑flect aspirationsofparticulargovernments(see alsoCouplandforth‑coming). In the post‑Soviet context particular attention needs to bepaidtothefunctionsofRussian,whichcanbealternativelyconceivedasaminority language, asa languageof interethnic communication(andthusasecondlanguageofseveralminoritypopulations),andasaregionallinguafranca.

3.4. Language Regulation

Anothermanifestationoftheshift‑in‑progress,referredtohereas lan‑ guage regulation , involves signs that attempt tomanipulate language

choice and use through content, a phenomenon thathas not yet re‑ceivedattentioninlinguisticlandscapework.Todate,Ihavebeenabletodifferentiatebetweenthree typesof signs that attemptto regulatelanguageuseinthepublicspace.Thefirstandthemostindirectcate‑



262 ANETA PAVLENKO

goryofsignsurgesitsaudiencestolearnand/orspeakparticularlan‑

guagesingeneral.Oneexampleofsuchsignageisbillboardsthatwereinstalled inKazakhstanin2007, the year of the Kazakhlanguage, toappealtocitizens’languageloyalty.Thesebillboardssportedslogans,suchas“ItisaresponsibilityofeachcitizenoftheRepublicofKazakh‑stantolearnthestatelanguage”and“Kazakh,speakKazakhwithaKazakh!”(Smagulova2008).

Thesecond,moredirect,typeofsignsurgespeopletospeakapar‑ticular language here‑and‑now. For instance, a now infamous signplaced near the cash register in a Philadelphia restaurant, Geno’sSteaks,urgescustomerstospeakEnglishbecausetheyareinAmerica.Inasimilarvein,thesign,displayedinaclinicinL’viv,Ukraine,urgespeopletospeakUkrainianstating:“Accordingtotheresolutionbytheparliamentof Ukraineon February 28,1989 ‘Regarding thestatena‑tureandofficialstatusoftheUkrainianlanguageininstitutionsandorganizations’wespeakUkrainianhere”(Figure6opposite).Thelastclause,“wespeakUkrainianhere,”appearsinredandinthelargestfont,makingitthemostprominentpartofthesign.Thestatementissignedbyseveralagencies:Administration(presumablyoftheclinic),aswellasRukh‘Movement’, Memorial‘Memorial’,andProsvita‘Educa‑tion’,allofwhichappeartobenon‑governmentalorganizations.

The third type of sign promotes correct usage of particular lan‑guages. For example, thesign displayed ina L’viv trolleybusurgespeople to speakUkrainian correctly (Figure7 opposite). Itsopening

linesstate:“Attention!Let’sspeakcorrectly!”Theselinesarefollowed by twocolumns:the first, titled “incorrectly”, lists examplesofRus‑sianisms inUkrainian,and thesecond, titled“correctly”,offersstan‑dardUkrainian counterparts.The sign lists twoagenciespresumablyresponsible for its wording, Svoboda ‘Liberty’, presumably anotherNGO, and Upravlinnia transportu LMR ‘L’viv municipal transportadministration’.

Effectivelyconveyingtheonenation–onelanguageideology,bothsigns rally, indirectly, against Russian language use (Figure 6) and,directly,againstRussianlanguage influence onUkrainian (Figure7).Indoingso,theyformpartofalargermovementthatresurgedinthe

1990stopromotelinguisticpurisminUkrainianandtoderussifythelanguage (Bilaniuk2005).Wedonotknowmuch,however,aboutei‑therthespreadortheuptakeofsuchsigns.




Figure 6.Signinaregionalclinic,L’viv,Ukraine,2007.(Source:Russianname,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainization)

Figure 7.Signinatrolleybus,L’viv,2007.(Source:Vodnik,http://ru.wikipedia.org ,RusskijjazyknaUkraine)



264 ANETA PAVLENKO

Future study of language regulation needs to examine its scope

and social reception, while considering (i) sociolinguistic processesthat give rise to specific instances of language regulation; (ii) localcontexts inwhichparticular signsappear; (iii) the timingof appear‑anceandthedurationofdisplayofsuchsigns;(iv)theintendedaudi‑ences; and, finally, (v) public uptake, i.e., reactions of differentstakeholders toparticularsignsandtheimpactofthesesignson lan‑guage use. In Russian‑dominant areas of Ukraine, according toBilaniuk (2005), the linguistic purism movementmay have actuallyundermined the revivalofUkrainian,becauseit instilled insecuritiesinpeoplewhomayhaveotherwisebeenwillingtospeaktheir“imper‑fect”Ukrainian.

3.5. Transgressive Signs

Ashiftinprogress,andinparticularashiftimposedfromabove,can‑notproceedwithouttensions.Manifestationsofsuchtensionsinlin‑guisticlandscapearefoundin transgressive signs.ScollonandScollon(2003:22–23)seetransgressivesignsassignsthatviolateconventionsonemplacement.Inthepresentpaper,thisdefinitionwillbeextendedtosigns that violateor subvert officialnorms in the choice of eitherscriptorlanguage.ExamplesoftransgressivescriptsubversioncanbefoundinKishinev,Moldova,whereRussianbusinessownerssubverttheLatin‑onlyrulecreatedtopromotetheuseofMoldovanbyadopt‑

ing English‑language—instead of Moldovan‑language—names fortheir shops (Ciscel 2008). InUzbekistan, commercial enterprises usethe Latin script, now adopted for Uzbek, to transliterate Russiannames(Sharifov2007),orasinFigure8opposite,toplayfullycombineaRussianwordintheLatinalphabet pivo‘beer’withaRussianwordinCyrillicbočkovoe‘draft(literally:fromabarrel)’.AndinBaku,Azer‑ baijan, anownerofa stationerystorekept his sign inCyrillicAzeri,insteadofLatin,toaccommodatehisoldercustomers(SadikhovaandAbadi2000).

Othersignsmayalsosubvertlanguagechoice,usingthelanguagenot sanctionedbyofficialnorms.Thus,inKyiv,Ukraine, commercial

enterprises may adhere to Ukrainian‑language policy in permanentsignagewhilesubvertingitintemporarysigns.Thesesignsareprinted




Figure 8.Beersalonsign,Uzbekistan,2007.(Reproducedbypermissionfromhttp://www.fergana.ru)

inRussianon a sheetofpaper,enclosed inprotectiveplastic casing,andpostedonwalls,doors,windows,orcolumns.Forinstance,inthewindow of a large bookstore LI tera ‘Letter’, seen in Figure 9 on thefollowingpage,thenameofthesectionKanceljars’ka kramnicja‘Station‑erysupplies’,appearsinUkrainian,followedbythebrand‑nameWa‑

terman in English, and then a typed up sign inRussian that statesKseroksa net‘Wehavenoхerox’.Thelatterappearstobeadialogicsigncreated in response to repeated inquiries and its choice of languagemayreflectthecompetenceofthesignwriters(storepersonnel)ortheintended audience (despite its Ukrainian‑language name, the storehouseslargeholdingsofRussian‑languagebooks).

SomebusinessesalsosubverttheUkrainian‑languagenorminthepermanentsignage,eitherstraightforwardlyorplayfully.Forinstance,asignoveranartgallerydisplaysitsRussianname Mir iskusstva‘ArtWorld’inlargefontandalsoinbrackets,whiletheUkrainiannameontop inmuch smaller font reads xudožnI j salon ‘art gallery’. Anotherstrategy is to display Russianorpotentiallybivalentwords, such as

prodmar (abbreviation of‘grocery store’)orkontrakt ‘contract’ inpre‑1917Russianspellingwitha“ъ”attheend,thussignalingtheirRus‑sianness(seealsoBennett2008).Russian‑languagealsocommonlyap‑



266 ANETA PAVLENKO

Figure 9. Bookstorewindow,Kyiv,Ukraine,2008.(Author’s picture)pearsinprivateadsandingraffitiinKyiv.Lastbutnotleast,intheirstrugglesover language, individual socialactorsmay alsoappeal toupgrading and downgrading strategies, such as painting over signs

andreplacingofficialnameswithnamesintheotherlanguage(Gorter2006b).

Todate,signsthatsubvertscriptandlanguagenormshavenotre‑ceived much attention in the study of linguistic landscape and the




phenomenonoftransgressionisstillpoorlyunderstood.Itispossible

thatthesignsdiscussedheredivergefromtheofficiallanguagenorms butfitwithinagreed‑uponlocalnorms.Tounderstandthedegreetowhich aparticular signmaybe transgressive, future studiesneed toexamine the norms and expectations regarding language and scriptchoicethatfunctioninparticularcontextsatparticulartimesforpar‑ticularsocialactors.

3.6. Linguistic Landscapes and Language Practices

Sofar,thediscussionabovehasemphasizedtheneedtoexaminelin‑guisticlandscapesdiachronicallyasdynamicphenomena.Ihaveonly brieflytouchedupontherelationshipbetweenpublicsignageandso‑cialactors.Yetthediscrepancyinlanguagechoicebetweentop‑downand bottom‑up signage discussed above suggests that in some post‑Sovietcountriestheremaybeariftbetweenofficiallanguagepoliciesand everyday languagepractices.A fewlinguistic landscape studiesthathaveconsideredlanguagepracticessuggestthatthefrequencyoflanguageuseinpublicsignagemaynotbeindicativeofitsuseinlan‑guagepractices.Forinstance,inacomparativestudyofBasqueintheBasque country and Frisian in Friesland (Netherlands), Cenoz andGorter(2006)foundthatBasquewasmuchmorevisibleinlinguisticlandscape,duetoproactivelanguagepolicies,whileFrisianwasmorewidespreadasalanguageoforalcommunication.Inturn,Coupland

(forthcoming)used censusand survey data toargue that the use ofWelshinthelinguisticlandscapeofWalesreflectsanaspirationalpo‑liticalideologyof“truebilingualism”andnotrealitiesofeverydaylan‑guageuse.

This aspirational ideologymayalso beatplay in linguistic land‑scapesofsomepost‑Sovietcountries.AsinthecaseofWales,itmaybereflected in bilingual signs placed by officials in a predominantlymonolingual context. Thus, in Belarus, official signs use BelarusianandRussian,whileRussianalonedominateseverydaylanguageprac‑tices. As a result, Belarusian appears to carry a ritualized symbolicfunction,indexingthenationinthepublicspace(Brown2007;Giger

andSloboda2008).IntheabsenceofRussian,however,Belarusian,agenetically close language, can also be used for informational pur‑poses.ThisisnotthecaseinKyrgyzstan,wheremonolingualRussianspeakerscannoteasilyreadKyrgyz.There,bilingual(e.g.,Figure5on



268 ANETA PAVLENKO

p.261)andtrilingualsigns(e.g.,Figures4,onp.259,and10,below)

addressaudienceswhoarelikelytobeeithermonolingualinRussianorbilingualinKyrgyzandRussian(Orusbaevetal.2008).

Inotherplaces,thesituationisreversedandmonolingualsignagemay appear in largely bilingual environments. Thus, in easternUkraine,officialsignsinUkrainianaddressanaudiencebilingualinUkrainianandRussian(BilaniukandMelnyk2008). Insuchcontexts,we may witness a discrepancy between top‑down and bottom‑upsigns,withthelatterservingasanarenaofcontestationofexistinglin‑guisticregimes(e.g.,Figure9onp.266;seealsoCiscel2007,2008).

Most importantly, and regardless of how particular nations areimagined by their respective governments, bottom‑up signs in lin‑guistic landscapes—including those in post‑Soviet countries—com‑monlyaffirmacomplexmultilingualreality.AsseeninFigures1,8,9,and 10, suchsignsmayweave titular languages and the two linguafrancas,RussianandEnglish,arranginginformationinacomplemen‑

Figure 10.Billboard,Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan,2007.(Reproducedwiththepermissionoftheauthor,AbdykadyrOrusbaev)




tarymanner(Reh2004),sothatparticularwordsortextsappearinone

language only.This non‑parallel bilingualism suggests that the textsaddress bi‑ and multilingual audiences, rather than monolingualspeakers of different languages, and is commonly encountered inAzerbaijan (SadikhovaandAbadi 2000), Belarus (Brown2007; GigerandSloboda2008),Estonia(Zabrodskaja2009),Kyrgyzstan(Orusbaevet al. 2008), Moldova (Ciscel 2007, 2008), Ukraine (Bilaniuk 2005;BilaniukandMelnyk2008;Pavlenko2009),andUzbekistan(Sharifov2007).

4. Conclusions

Twointerrelatedargumentsweremadeinthispaper.First,Ihavear‑guedthatthestudyoflinguisticlandscapecanbenefitfromseeinglin‑guisticlandscapesasdynamicphenomenaandexamining them inadiachronicmanner. Using the changes that have taken place in thepost‑Sovietspacesince1991,Ihavehighlightedfiveprocessesthatcan beexaminedinsuchdevelopmental inquirywith regardto languagechangeandlanguageconflict.Second,Ihavearguedthatthestudyoflinguisticlandscapeoffersausefultoolforpost‑SovietsociolinguisticsandforSlavicsociolinguisticsatlarge.Ihaveusedthephenomenonofimposedlanguageshifttoexaminepotentialinsightsaffordedbysuchinquiry.

Toensurethatthefindingsfromthestudyoflinguisticlandscape

havealargersignificanceforourunderstandingoflanguageuseinthepost‑Sovietspace,thefollowingquestionsneedtobeaddressedinfu‑ture inquiries.Withregard tothe Soviet eraweneed toknowwhatlanguagesandscriptswereusedinthepublicsignageinthecontextinquestion. What ideologies did they reflect? What informational andsymbolicfunctionsdidtheycarryfortheirintendedaddressees?Whatwere the language competencies of the intended audiences, in par‑ticular thepopulationinhabiting thearea? Basedonthese competen‑cies,whoserightswerelegitimizedandwhoserightsmayhavebeenviolated by particular choices? What, if any, discrepancies existed between language choices in public signage and actual language

practices?Similarly, with regard to the post‑Soviet era,we need to know:

Whatarethenewconstellationsoflanguagesandscriptsinthepublicsignage in the context in question? What ideologies shape these



270 ANETA PAVLENKO

choices?Whatinformationalandsymbolicfunctionsdotheycarryfor

theintendedaudiences?Whatarethelanguagecompetenciesoftheseaudiences?Whose rightsdoparticular choices legitimize andwhoselanguagerightsmaytheyviolate?Whatdiscrepanciesappearedinthisperiod between top‑downand bottom‑up signs andbetweenpublicsignageandlanguagepractices?

Questionsalsoneedtobeaskedwithregardtotheimpactofthechangesin question:What ifanyeffectdidthe changes in linguisticlandscapes have on public perception of the languages in question?Whatifanyeffectdidtheyhaveonlanguagepractices?Didthederus‑sificationofthepublicspacecontributetothediminisheduseofRus‑sianandincreaseintheuseandprestigeofthetitularlanguages?Diditdisadvantage speakerswhopreviouslyrelied onRussianfornavi‑gatingthepublicspace?

Itismysincerehopethatfuturestudiesinpost‑Sovietcontextswillengagewiththesequestionsandintegratethelinguisticlandscapeap‑proachwithinlargerethnographicandsociolinguisticprojects,consid‑eringlinkagesanddiscrepanciesbetweenvisualrealityandeverydaylanguage practices, both from a synchronic and a diachronicperspective.

References

Backhaus,Peter.(2006)“MultilingualisminTokyo:Alookintothelin‑guisticlandscape”.DurkGorter,ed.Linguistic landscape: A new ap‑

proach to multilingualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,52–66.

. (2007) Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urbanmultilingualism in Tokyo.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters.

Barni,MonicaandCarlaBagna.(2009)“Amappingtechniqueandthelinguistic landscape”.ElanaShohamyandDurkGorter,eds.Lin‑

guistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.NewYork:Routledge,126–40.

Bennett,BrianP.(2008)“Abecedarianideologies:Theoldorthography

inthenewRussia”.Paper presented at theseventeenthSociolin‑guisticsSymposium,Amsterdam,April2008.

Ben‑Rafael, Eliezer, Elana Shohamy,MuhammadHasanAmara, andNira Trumper‑Hecht. (2006) “Linguistic landscape as symbolic




constructionof thepublicspace:ThecaseofIsrael”.DurkGorter,

ed.Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,7–30.

Bilaniuk,Laada.(2005)Contested tongues: Language politics and culturalcorrection in Ukraine.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Bilaniuk,LaadaandSvitlanaMelnyk.(2008)“Atenseandshiftingbal‑ance:BilingualismandeducationinUkraine”. International journalof bilingual education and bilingualism11(3–4):340–72.

Bourdieu,Pierre.(1991)Language and symbolic power.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Brown,N.Anthony. (2007)“Status languageplanninginBelarus:Anexaminationofwrittendiscourseinpublicspaces”.Language Policy6:281–301.

Calvet,Louis‑Jean. (1994)Les voix de la ville: Introduction a la sociolin‑

quistique urbaine.Paris:PayotetRivages.Cenoz,JasoneandDurkGorter.(2006)“Linguisticlandscapesandmi‑

noritylanguages”.DurkGorter,ed. Linguistic landscape: A new ap‑ proach to multilingualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,67–80.

. (2009) “Languageeconomy and linguistic landscape”.ElanaShohamyandDurkGorter,eds. Linguistic landscape: Expanding thescenery.London:Routledge,55–69.

Ciscel,MatthewH.(2007)The language of the Moldovans: Romania, Rus‑sia, and identity in an ex‑Soviet republic.Lanham:LexingtonBooks.

. (2008) “Uneasy compromise: Language and education inMoldova”.International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism11(3–4):373–95.

Coupland,Nikolas. (forthcoming)“Welshlinguistic landscapes ‘fromabove’ and ‘frombelow’”.Adam Jaworski and Crispin Thurlow,eds. Semiotic landscapes: Text, space, globalization. London:Continuum.

Curtin, Melissa L. (2009) “Languages on display: Indexical signs,identities,andthelinguisticlandscapeofTaipei”.ElanaShohamyand Durk Gorter, eds.Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.London:Routledge,221–37.

Giger,Markus andMarián Sloboda. (2008) “Language managementandlanguageproblemsinBelarus:Educationandbeyond”. Inter‑national journal of bilingual education and bilingualism 11(3–4):315–39.



272 ANETA PAVLENKO

Gorter,Durk.(2006a)“Introduction:Thestudyofthe linguisticland‑

scape as a new approach to multilingualism”. Durk Gorter, ed.Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,1–6.

. (2006b) “Further possibilities for linguistic landscape re‑search”. Durk Gorter, ed. Linguistic landscape: A new approach to

multilingualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,81–89. , ed. (2006c) Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilin‑

gualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters.Grin,François. (2006)“Economic considerations in languagepolicy”.

ThomasRicento, ed. An introduction to language policy: Theory and

method.Malden,MA:Blackwell,77–94.Grin, François and François Vaillancourt. (1997) “The economics of

multilingualism: Overview and analytical framework”. Annual

review of applied linguistics17:43–65.Huebner, Thom. (2006) “Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environ‑

mentalprint,codemixing,andlanguagechange”.DurkGorter,ed.Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,31–51.

. (2009) “A framework for the linguisticanalysisof linguisticlandscapes”.ElanaShohamyandDurkGorter,eds.Linguistic land‑scape: Expanding the scenery.London:Routledge,70–87.

Hult, FrancisM. (2009) “Language ecologyand linguistic landscapeanalysis”. Elana Shohamy and Durk Gorter, eds.Linguistic land‑

scape: Expanding the scenery.London:Routledge,88–104.Landry, Rodrigue and Richard Y. Bourhis. (1997) “Linguistic land‑

scapeandethnolinguisticvitality:Anempirical study”. Journal of language and social psychology16(1):23–49.

Lanza,ElizabethandHintWoldemariam. (2009)“Language ideologyand linguistic landscape: Language policyandglobalization in aregional capital of Ethiopia”. Elana Shohamy and Durk Gorter,eds.Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.London:Routledge,189–205.

Malinowski,David.(2009)“Authorshipinthelinguisticlandscape:Amultimodal‑performativeview”.ElanaShohamyandDurkGorter,

eds.Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.London:Routledge,107–25.

Orusbaev, Abdykadyr, Arto Mustajoki, and Ekaterina Protassova.(2008) “Multilingualism, Russian language, and education in




Kyrgyzstan”. International journal of bilingual education and bilin‑

gualism11(3–4):476–500.Pavlenko, Aneta. (2008a) “Multilingualism in post‑Soviet countries:

Language revival, languageremoval, andsociolinguistic theory”.International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism 11(3–4):275–314.

.(2008b) “Russianinpost‑Sovietcountries”. Russian linguistics32(1):59–80.

,ed.(2008c) Multilingualism in post‑Soviet countries.SpecialissueofInternational journal of bilingual education and bilingualism11(3–4).

. (2009) “Linguistic landscapes in Ukraine: Yesterday, today,tomorrow”. Paperpresented at thesecondLinguisticLandscapesworkshop,Siena,Italy,January2009.

Piller, Ingrid. (2001) “Identity constructions in multilingualadvertising”.Language in society30:153–86.

. (2003) “Advertising as a site of language contact”. Annual

review of applied linguistics23:170–83.Reh, Mechthild. (2004) “Multilingual writing: A reader‑oriented

typology—with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda)”.International journal of the sociology of language170:1–41.

Sadikhova, Farida and Marjan Abadi. (2000) “Where’s the Azeri?Trends among store signs in Baku”. Azerbaijan international 8(1):38–39. [Available at http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/

81_folder/81_articles/81_storenames.html .]

Scollon, Ron and Suzie Wong Scollon. (2003) Discourses in place:Languages in the material world.London:Routledge.

Sharifov, Omar. (2007) “The Uzbek language exists in two graphicforms simultaneously and neither seems capable of ousting theother”. April 28, 2007. [Available at http://enews.ferghana.ru/

article.php?id=1954.]Shohamy, Elana. (2006) Language policy: Hidden agendas and new

approaches.NewYork:Routledge.Shohamy, Elana and Durk Gorter, eds. (2009) Linguistic landscape:

Expanding the scenery.NewYork:Routledge.Shohamy,ElanaandShoshiWaksman.(2009)“Linguisticlandscapeas

an ecological arena: Modalities, meanings, negotiations, educa‑tion”. Elana ShohamyandDurk Gorter, eds.Linguistic landscape:Expanding the scenery.NewYork:Routledge,313–31.



274 ANETA PAVLENKO

Simpson, Andrew, ed. (2007) Language and national identity in Asia.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. .(2008)Language and national identity in Africa.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Sloboda, Marián. (2009) “State ideology and linguistic landscape: Acomparativeanalysisof(post)communistBelarus,CzechRepublic,and Slovakia”. Elana Shohamy and Durk Gorter, eds. Linguisticlandscape: Expanding the scenery.NewYork:Routledge,173–88.

Smagulova, Juldyz. (2008) “Language policies of kazakhization andtheirinfluenceonlanguageattitudesanduse”.International journal

of bilingual education and bilingualism11(3–4):440–75.Smalley, William A. (1994) Linguistic diversity and national unity:

Language ecology in Thailand.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Spolsky, Bernard and Robert L. Cooper. (1991) The languages of

Jerusalem.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Suleiman, Yasir. (2004) A war of words: Language and conflict in the

Middle East.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Yurchak, Alexei. (2000) “Privatize your name: Symbolic work in a

post‑Soviet linguisticmarket”. Journal of sociolinguistics 4(3): 406–34.

Zabrodskaja, Anastassia. (2009) “Linguistic landscape in post‑SovietEstonia:LinguamosaicofRussian,Estonian,English,andFinnish”.Paper presented at the second Linguistic Landscapesworkshop,Siena,Italy,January2009.

Curriculum,Instruction,andTechnologyinEducation Received:RitterHall451 Revised:TempleUniversity1301CecilB.MooreAvenuePhiladelphia,PA19122‑[email protected]

Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes

Documents

Transcript of Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes