Redefining Linguistic Landscape- Regent Theatre - Term Paper Example

Redefining Linguistic Landscape---A Case of Regent Theatre Insert your name Insert tutor's name here Insert Institution here Insert a date Table of Contents 1.0.Purpose of the Study 2 2.0.Setting: Regent Theatre Semiotic Landscapes and Culture 3 3.0.Linguistic Landscape: A case of Regent Theatre Semiotic Landscapes 10 4.0.Language Policy: Semiotic Landscapes in Bilingual Signs and Assemblages 13 5.0.Sociolinguistic Literature: Sociolinguistic Space and Semiotic Landscapes 15 6.0.Recommendation 19 7.0.References 21 1.0. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to redefine linguistic landscape or, to be specific an assessment of signage. To conceptualise this position, I will approach data from the point of view of different researches, looking specifically at a data regarding redefining linguistic landscape in this particular locale. The objective of this study is not to enumerate the respective numbers of different languages and signage visible in the public sphere but to duel on the issue of semiotic and linguistic landscapes. To accomplish this task I shall look at the semiotic and linguistic aspects that help in redesigning linguistic landscape focusing specifically on language, images, textures, graphic space and language within small regions confined within Regent Theatre. We confine our data to streets and regions around Regent Theatre. This approach has, to the best of my understanding, not yet explored to the study of redefining linguistic landscape. As a result, this study will hopefully open new areas of study especially in analysis of the co-existence of semiotic and linguistic landscape within a confined region. Nevertheless, the argument on whether a place is a semiotic or linguistic landscape remains contested. Contestations in such debates have been advanced by the need to redesign the linguistic landscape. We purpose this study to look at setting and literacies as issues that are not only intertwined but key. There is consensus from studies such as Malcolm (2014) that semiotic landscape is no longer a fixed point. This finding therefore disputes earlier studies that had viewed semiotic landscape as a factor of an image of a picture mounted within a rigid place. Studies such as Backhaus (2006) have argued that assessment of a semiotic and linguistic landscape needs to look at the issue as a dynamic layout of objects and surfaces and indeed, this is the social fabric in which redesigning the linguistic landscape is contained. Contextualization of this debate draws recent contribution from Chmielewska (2010) who argued that a semiotic or linguistic landscape depends on how we read the world around us. 2.0. Setting: Regent Theatre Semiotic Landscapes and Culture The setting of this report is specific to close regions around Regent Theatre. We are confining our signage data (language, images, textures, graphic space and language) within the Theatre and specifically, Russell Street, Elizabeth Street, Little Collins Street and Flinders lane as the identified regions around and inside the Theatre. These regions have been chosen to understand how the linguistic landscape around the Theatre not only tells us about the signage data but they contain information that explains whether a place is a semiotic or linguistic landscape---a case where we succinctly redefine our linguistic landscape. As will be detailed in the image below, these regions define out setting as they provide data and unique perspective regarding the coexistence and competition of different space, languages and images and how they interfere and interact with each other in a given place. Historically, Regent Theatre as the setting is informed by language practices and understanding of language which is characterized by variations in propaganda, myths and ideologies. There has been transition in the setting where semiotic landscape is understood by the culture and manifestation of historical signage from past to present that not only defines the setting but signage with and around Regent Theatre. We observed that in the street regions leading to the theatre (Russell Street, Elizabeth Street, Little Collins Street and Flinders lane) a history of Australia’s national and native language is enforced in signs, adverts and placards one is likely to meet defines this setting within its historical context. The signage as defined in the setting is likely to affect any of the three types of viewing Chmielewska (2010) describes (tourist view, local view diasporic tourist and local lived and embodied) view because one is likely to conclude that the signage around this place is entirely Australian. While researching on prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage Spolsky (2009) observed that in most cases, description of a setting is by assessing the dominance of a given culture and how it can be constructed in defiance of existing or prevailing sociolinguistic aspects of a given region. Image 1: Setting Described in Culture Recent studies have broadened the scope of semiotic and linguistic landscape. Since activities around Regent Theatre (Russell Street, Elizabeth Street, Little Collins Street and Flinders lane) indicate that there is more to do with semiotic landscape as opposed to linguistic landscape, we narrow semiotic landscape and evaluate features that studies now consider to be determining a place to be more of semiotic than linguistic landscape. The first image representation in the image 1 above is ‘Cotton On.’ According to Helander (2016) semiotic landscape is not about ‘Cotton On’ or signage but it has to be a combination of the signage, setting and how the signage interacts with language code especially in public places. This is to mean that the scope of our setting covers the analysis of text, how they are displayed within a signage, emplacement, multimodality, and interaction order. We therefore picked image 1 above not only to explain the setting but enumerate on aspects such as a signage, emplacement, multimodality, and interaction order within the setting. According to the figure, one can easily recognise that setting is to emphasise culture in the place. This analysis was well captured in Chmielewska (2010) when he was looking at objects and texture and agreed that a description of setting entails a consideration of semiotic landscapes when there are other things including texture and embodiment of texture within a signage. Borrowing from Chmielewska (2010) it is possible to argue that we can use image 1 above to understand the setting, the physical and social world. Again, setting is that place which through signage one can derive their meaning to us. It is easily recognizable that the sense space may not be so physical instead within our setting, it fuses with different aspects of culture and order of message or information that has been captured in the picture. Recent studies such as Rymes (2010) noted that setting is that place which gives us what represents people, mediated by aspect of semiotic framing in that place. As such, image 2 below is creating Regent Theatre as a setting for identity and people’s sense of place in part through aspects of physical and geographical imaging. Image 2: Setting of the Theatre Anybody from Russell Street, Elizabeth Street, Little Collins Street and Flinders lane or who has visited the Theatre will definitely recognize the setting as the image is locating them in a given space thus able to claim ownership of specific place or in other words such as “Cold War Kids’ or FKA Twigs’ and those who are not coming from the aforementioned geographical areas are able to tell that they are excluded from them. We support this argument by comparing it with Chmielewska (2010) study which noted that setting can include graphic space. Image 2 above represents the specific spatial and material array, the specific cultural array and temporal meanings that can be interpreted easily by people around this setting. Fleetingly and subtly, strangers Regent Theatre may struggle to conceptualise Chmielewska (2010)’s specific cultural array that defines our setting or words that have been put as “Cold War Kids’ or FKA Twigs.’ Spolsky (2009) demonstrated how mobile, upper or middle class professionals who have visited a rural setting would experience their new geographical environment romantically---more landscape than land when compared with sedentary neighbours who apparently, would have stronger sense of concrete characteristic of the same terrain. Recently studies regarding public signage seem to be taking a more qualitative turn in understanding whether a setting can be regarded as linguistic or semiotic landscapes. Depending on different data sets, these researchers have noted the importance if transcending the purely linguistic element of different texts appearing in the public so as to further understand or grasp their multi-semiotic or multimodal nature. A shift in such understanding has resulted in a focus on the dynamism in interplay regarding visual elements, language as well as other semiotic means that can be regarded as ‘public signage (Blommaert, 2010; Entrikin, 1991). What we are seeing in these studies is a shift in the understanding of semiotic landscape to an extent that there is qualitative turn entailing a shift of attention from what was seen as static items to signage and artifact that are in motion and this include advertisement on public transport or in some cases, what Blommaert (2010) considers as T-shirts. The photograph below represents our 3rd image taken on 10th April 2017 outside a small retail store in the most crowded streets leading to Regent Theatre. To understand the aspect of semiotic landscape confined within culture and our setting, the shop is located in Elizabeth Street that most pedestrian use and connects to the commercial areas around the Theatre. Looking at the T-shirts there is intimate declaration of culture the place and this embedded in the word “Challenge Houdini”. As queer theorists have pointed, ‘a performance of heterosexuality must always be in some sense a performance regarding gender, since heterosexuality needs gender differentiation’ (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010, p. 271). Our concern in the image below is the extent of gender difference and its encoding in relation to queer theorists. The combination of queer theorists and gender difference brings us to the conclusion that cultural semiosis is at its best in the T-shirts. In the actual sense, the symbol of the T-shirt is likely to be interpreted as a symbol of a paradoxical act of cultural identification within Regent Theatre and largely within Elizabeth Street. Take a case where the T-shirt is viewed in terms of what Chmielewska (2010) considered as ‘tourist view’ there is a possibility that the T-shirt can be interpreted as a multi-semiotic or multimodal manifestation of Regent Theatre culture or better still, authentic souvenir. Image 3: Setting and Culture Tourist aside, Chmielewska (2010) had two possible views, (local view/diasporic tourist and local lived/embodied view). From either perspective Chmielewska would point that Regent Theatre is a place of semiotic micro-cosmos of wider gender order in which the society has provided distinctiveness when it comes to culture. As such culture is likely to be seen as complementary extremes of what Jaworski and Thurlow (2010) considers as a ‘dyad.’ By dyad Jaworski and Thurlow observed that it is often a form of social stratification and differentiation for culture to maintain or preserve normative status. From the T-shirt above possible conclusion shifts away from linguistic landscape to mark Regent Theatre as a place of semiotic landscape but specifically, semiotic materialisation of a perfectly heteronormative ideologies where men seems to be in love with culture. As a matter of fact, if indeed linguistic landscape is present in the Theatre or better still, if linguistic landscape researches were true to their radical roots in developing innovative methods in which space and language are imbricated in the production and reproduction of power in public settings then this research finds it challenging to understand how the Theatre as out setting would be considered a place of linguistic landscape or how linguistic landscape can be realised without assessing the cultured signs that surround streets of the Theatre. What amount to semiotic landscape should stretch beyond the three different views provided by Chmielewska (2010). Based on contemporary development in research and interpretation of different images on semiotics of public space it is possible to argue that explanation of public signage need not to be limited to Chmielewska multimodal analysis of object in three perspectives. Again, such view should not be limited to a critical multi-semiotic analysis as we on the T-shirt above. Instead, setting and semiotic signage beyond Chmielewska’s view means being sensitive to the needs and experiences of the people around the place where either semiotic or linguistic landscape exists. 3.0. Linguistic Landscape: A case of Regent Theatre Semiotic Landscapes We connect the Regent Theatre with its signage visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial. That is, we analyse data that were collected during a visit to the Regent Theatre and particular, in and around Regent Theatre. We confine out data in the understanding of mobility in semiotic landscape within the Chmielewska (2010) different types of views and in this case local (lived and embodied) view. From the one hand, regions around the Regent Theatre are not motivated by common affinities. Every part of the region is a nexus of each other with every language, history, labour migration, spatial constraints and language use relating with each other. Just like Chmielewska (2010) noted, semiotic assessment requires each geographical area to be assessed differently. We noted that as far as mobility in term of semiotic landscape was concerned, semiotic resources around the Theatre were taking different forms. This finding was shared by Chmielewska (2010) noting that language ideologies would not allow her to count the number of languages on multilingual signage as a means of exploring linguistic landscapes. The argument above is well contextualised by analysing data and specifically, photos around Regent Theatre. The study first aimed at connecting people and texts to a given characteristic of language as it was used around the Regent Theatre or better still in what Johnstone (2004) terms as ‘public signage.’ Figure 4 below suggests Elizabeth Street, Little Collins Street and Flinders lane the study visited in search of evidence regarding mobility in Regent Theatre’s linguistic landscapes. Borrowing from Elkins (2004) the image below was locked both by the sign representing the object and by the way that the sign represents the object. Putting it differently, the image expressed the difference existing between evidence of language in the moment and past mobility of people and language, objects, and texts. Using this image, we seek to assert that Regent Theatre as a place represents semiotic landscapes that can be used in different contexts. To begin with, the presence of indeterminate or bivalent features in the image below best explains history of the Theatre and its people as we are concerned with linguistic landscape as referring to a sign or announcement. Furthermore, it explains boundary-blurring and language contact. Just like Johnstone (2010) noted the wordings or English used in the image below show that there is much different status in Regent Theatre as means of everyday communication and perhaps national language for many residents than it does to other parts like the Aboriginals. Image 4: A case of Regent Theatre Semiotic Landscape Putting it in Chmielewska (2010) language, what we are seeing in the image above is 'Beware The Rhino' used as unique rhino 'hero' to deliver the safety message in an unexpected, memorable and importantly - a non-authoritarian way. This is what Chmielewska (2010) describes as the specific cultural array, temporal meaning and specific spatial and material array in the sense that the writing are mapping out a possibility of pathway for readers who are going about their business around Regent Theatre and specifically, different groups of people using either Russell Street, Elizabeth Street, Little Collins Street or Flinders lane going to the Theatre. It acts as an advertisement from the one hand but contextualises Chmielewska (2010) view of temporal meaning and specific spatial and material array on the other hand by inviting speculation regarding culture and people and linguistic competence regarding the presumed readers or people walking along the street. In a semiotic assemblage that seems to be dominated by the large wordings on the image above, it is possible to argue that there is semiotic landscape especially in the word ‘be alert around trams’ alongside traces of linguistic expression of the culture and history of the people. 4.0. Language Policy: Semiotic Landscapes in Bilingual Signs and Assemblages Studies have already recognized that unlike linguistic landscapes, semiotic landscapes are characterized by language, graphic space and images or symbols (Malcolm, 2014). However, the extent to which language policy relates with the setting gives direction on whether the setting is a semiotic or linguistic landscape. Drawing from this understanding the analysis turns to language policy and semiotic assemblages around Regent Theatre that connect the people’s social stratification of different languages. According to Malcolm (2014) analysis of semiotic landscape in ideologically filled streets or public space requires that graphic space and images or symbols form the basis of argument. Image 5 below represents what is happening around Regent Theatre and what people visiting the Theatre are likely to encounter. Accordingly, it provides and analysis of the place’s visual language or grammar regarding assemblage so as we can demonstrate what its composition suggests about semiotic landscape and sociolinguistic stratification around Regent Theatre and importantly, deliberate attempt to change people’s use of a language. To begin with, the image 5 below portrays what Moyer (2012) argued to be framing, salience and information value in establishment of the link between core preferences (where in this case, the writer is targeting those visiting the Theatre and as such, we are realizing that English has been preferred as a code/language ahead of other languages/native languages in Australia, meaning that language policy is at its best). Explaining the aspect of information value, the business has its name and that name apparently has been put in code that is widely acceptable (English) and as such, the owner of the business is also identifiable to the targeted customer since the name is easily identifiable among people from all walks of life walking towards the Theatre. Image 5: English and Tasmanian as Language Policy In the image 5 above, we are contextualizing Regent Theatre as a place of semiotic landscape rather than linguistic landscape. In this image we are not seeing language of the public road sign neither advertising billboards but it generates information about names of places, streets names, public places and shop signs and as such it infuses the use of certain language on people (from Tasmanian to English). It really supports Mallinson, Childs and Van Herk (2013) definition of language policy and a shift to semiotic landscape where there is definition of urban agglomeration, region and the linguistic landscape of a given territory (p. 16). The image further supports Ladegaard (2012) view that there is a special way in which landscape can generate meaning and combines different areas of scholarly interest into the understanding of a language policy. The ‘discourse of powerlessness and repression’ as argued by Ladegaard (2012) establishes ways in which image 5 provides a framework for evaluating past events and alternatives and or biases on the framing of language policy. Again, image 5 above could be interpreted to indicate that there are different social anxieties regarding people around Regent Theatre and this is indeed manifested in the semiotic landscape of the image despite the fact that Regent Theatre has been and will be a thoroughly multi-lingual city. Our semiotic assessment is supported in different ways by the image but problematized in other ways as well. For instance, residence of Regent Theatre reading the names, signs and advertisement get different meanings that might not differentiate whether the place is to a larger extent, semiotic landscape as we find. 5.0. Sociolinguistic Literature: Sociolinguistic Space and Semiotic Landscapes Places around Regent Theatre manifest different languages and its association with the society. The signs, advertisement and assemblages perfectly fit a given language fitting what can be termed as ‘duplication of bilingualism.’ According to Trechter (n.d) duplication of bilingualism is a situation where semiotic landscape is expressed by having the message in two different codes (languages). Around Flinders Street, adjacent to St Paul’s Cathedral there are signs and adverts that frame language as a separate as well as projecting mono-language attraction or readership towards society. While we found such instance to be rare, they were clear case of semiotic landscape institutions were seeking to ensure that visitors to the town and those who might not find their ways to different places have billboards that communicate in more than one language. Apparently, native languages were uncommon with cases of English-French or English-Spanish dominating. We were specific to cases of semiotic landscapes in bilingual signs and assemblages regarding Regent Theatre and we came across displays classifieds that acted as the Theatre’s commercial signage (apparently the signs and adverts we saw must have been produced by local producers, actors and actresses who were doing this with local and international audience in their minds, whether resident of the place or transient). We observed that the role of English-French or English-Spanish dominating served the role of mapping out the pathways of different expectations of people so as to serve a particular subset of people coming to the Theatre or within an assemblage that nevertheless appeared to maintain preference of English over other languages that were combined with English. Image 6: Language and Society The view of one language being preferred ahead of others has been argued widely in other researches. Backhaus (2010) observed that the fact that one language/code is preferred may not represent the interest or ideology in some way. However, we observed that the careful representation of natives, the Spanish, Chinese and English speaking people within town in the road signs, adverts, billboards and other forms of communications suggested that the assemblage was iconic of the social and economic policy of people’s socio-linguistic. Looking at image 6 participants and people in the street are directed and made aware on the location and proximity of the business venture---near the theatre. In summary, these signs are not attuned to different information attached to them instead; they serve to display complementary bilingualism in a given aspect of semiotic landscape such as image or billboard as argued by Backhaus (2010). Additionally, they are representation of the sociolinguistic of the streets and socio-economic activities around Regent Theatre, which commonly displays complementary bilingualism. We already recognise semiotic as the study of sings within a given area. However, the manner in which these signs are represented in around Regent Theatre attract attention in understanding aspects such as bivalency as well as diachronic value in sings as they are depicted around Regent Theatre. When one takes a walk between the roads it is easy for visitors to regard words on different signs as either culturally Australian or a representation of native communities within the country. It is only upon closer analysis and scrutiny that people from the region or those familiar with the place will be able to tell what is truly a representation of what is Australia and what represents native communities and their cultural orientations. This aspect is well represented in image 6 where the sign indicates a fusion of native language as borrowed from English. From the one hand, this image shows that to some extent, it may not be easy to discern a certain aspect of native language was unmarked and for that matter, treated as English. This writing further makes it difficult to understand semiotic landscape inform of bivalency because it might be assumed that perhaps the theatre is trying to market itself by showing that a given lexical items entered Aboriginal from national language and as such, has localised over time. Possible conclusion from the image is that words as embedded on the wall are locally inflected and as such, boundaries that formed larger Regent Theatre are consistently unclear in as much as our attempt was to claim signage around this place as purely Australia. Lack of clarity as exhibited in this image is also reflected in previous images where adverts were not distinct in what Australia is and what could be outside the boundaries of Australia. This is why Chmielewska (2010) questions whether the existence of images and writing within the signs are deeper meaning of semiosis or a true case of radical changes that takes shape of quaint theories of modernity. The writings in these images agree with Chmielewska (2010) conceptualisation of semiosis but they are merely shaped by wider political, social and economic re-ordering in Regent Theatre. Again, these re-ordering are necessitated by post economic and industrial advancement that continue to change patters of human transnational flows and mobility to and from Regent Theatre. It agrees with Johnstone, Andrus and Danielson (2006) findings that in some cases, semiotic landscape is about how a sign demonstrates interaction with culture and other discursive aspects such as nonverbal communication and visual images. We are basically interested in semiotic landscape that assess ways in which places provide meaning about people more so in interdisciplinary as well as in modern cross-section way. 6.0. Recommendation Basing on the researches, interpretations and understanding of research directions in redesigning linguistic landscape, the first recommendation is for researches to make actual sense of the relationship between politics, culture, space, identity and desire concerning space and signage. There are two distinct issues which are clear and have already captured in the research by Stroud and Mpendukana (2009). First, there are ordinary people within the large town and along the streets of Regent Theatre but this people live ordinary lives and inhabit what we saw as meaningful spaces. However, aspects of language policy have been widely researched by Van Mensel, Marten and Gorter (2012) where it was observed that future researches on linguistic landscape should focus on people and the associated signage rather than what precious studies found about signage. There is certainly more that could be done but we are focussing on the tradition of monolingualism which seems to be eroded by other languages. According to Szerszynski and Urry (2006) this is what this study adopts to be spaces inhabited by foreign landscapes. There is need for the introduction of city-wide language policy including multilingual signs but those which respects culture of the people. Third recommendation concerns streets along the town, especially those dominated by cafeteria which we learned that were subjected to the impacts of social inequality where religion, class, ethnic and citizenship hierarchies are indeed playing essential role in determining space. The interplay between the two issues helped this study to analyse the setting in terms of spatial semiotic. However, there is one thing that needs to be done; there is need for signage that can help us see even the most socially discriminated or powerless inhabitants of urban centres. Such signage will create these dwellers as social agents in what can be termed as ‘locally reproduced urban culture.’ Fourthly, Regent Theatre is filled with different signs of collective identities. Therefore when we argue that there is semiotic signage beyond chmielewska view we simply attribute architectural details, physical environment, graffiti, and commercial signs which provide different interpretations of semiotic landscape. As a result, future research could investigate why this difference exist. One factor the research could consider is reasons why native inhabitants are not having signage that identify them. Fifthly, this study has brought the aspect of sociolinguistic literature touching on space and semiotic landscape. We therefore recommend that future study to focus on how each language in the city (English, Tasmanian etc) are having their own linguistic landscape. A study could be done to investigate the link between either of the two languages to understand the gap in knowledge. 7.0. References Backhaus, P. (2006). Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 52–66. doi:10.1080/14790710608668385 Backhaus, P. (2010). Multilingualism in Japanese public space–Reading the signs. Japanese Studies, 30(3), 359–372. Bailey, A. J., Canagarajah, S., Lan, S., & Powers, D. G. (2016). Scalar politics, language ideologies, and the sociolinguistics of globalization among transnational Korean professionals in Hong Kong. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 312–334. Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chmielewska, E. (2010). Semiosis takes place or radical uses of quaint theories. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 274-291). London: Continuum. Entrikin, J. N. 1991. The Betweenness of Place: Towards a Geography of Modernity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Helander, K. R. (2016). The power of administration in the official recognition of indigenous place names in Nordic countries. In G. Puzey & L. Kostanski (Eds.), Names and naming: Peoples, places, perceptions and power (pp. 229–258). Bristol: Channel View Publishers. Jaworski, A. and C. Thurlow. 2010. Introducing semiotic landscapes. In A. Jaworski and C. Thurlow (eds) Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space. London: Continuum. 1–40. Johnstone, B. 2004. Place, globalization, and linguistic variation. In Carmen Fought (ed.) Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections. New York: Oxford University Press. 65–83. Johnstone, B. 2010. Language and geographical space. In P. Auer and J. E. Schmidt (eds) Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Vol. 1: Theories and Methods. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 1–18. Johnstone, B., J. Andrus, and A. E. Danielson. 2006. Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of ‘Pittsburghese.’ Journal of English Linguistics 34: 77–104. Malcolm, I. (2014) Social justice issues in the education of Aboriginal English speakers. Presented at the Language as a Social Justice Issue Conference held on the 26th November, 2014 at Edith Cowan University, Joondalup Campus, Perth, Western Australia. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/lsjic/5 http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=lsjic Mallinson, C., Childs, B. & Van Herk, G. (Eds.). (2013). Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications. Abington: Routledge. Moyer, M. G. (2012). Sociolinguistic perspectives on language and multilingualism in institutions. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Multilingualism, discourse and ethnography (pp. 34–46). Abington: Routledge Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–548). Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B. (2009). Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 25–39). New York: Routledge. Stroud, C. and S. Mpendukana. 2009. Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape: Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African township. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13/3: 363–386. Szerszynski, B. and J. Urry. 2006. Visuality, mobility and the cosmopolitan: Inhabiting the world from afar. British Journal of Sociology 57/1: 113–131. Trechter (Social Ethics for Sociolinguistics); Besnier (Responsibility in research participants in representation, Vignette 3a); Mann (Conducting research with vulnerable populations Vignette 3b); Ehrlich (Ethical dilemmas in the use of public documents Vignette 3c); Sadler (Real ethical issues in virtual world research Vignette 3d) Van Mensel, L., Marten, H. F., & Gorter, D. (2012). Minority languages through the lens of the linguistic landscape. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 319–323). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More