language conflict in post-soviet linguistic landscapes · the study of linguistic landscape has...

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)canbenefitfromviewing themasdynamicphenomena and examining them in a diachronic context. Based on thechangesinthepost‑Soviet spacesince1991,fiveprocessesareidentifiedandexaminedinwithregardtolanguagechangeandlanguageconflict.It isfur‑therarguedthatthestudyoflinguisticlandscapeoffersausefultoolforpost‑SovietsociolinguisticsandforSlavicsociolinguisticsatlarge,andillustrationsareprovidedoftheinsightsaffordedbysuchinquiry.

1. Introduction

Whenwearriveinanewcountry,publicsigns,ads,andbillboardsareoftenthefirstformofcontactwehavewiththelanguageandscriptofthe place. If the country is multilingual, each instance of languagechoiceandpresentationinthepublicsignagetransmitssymbolicmes‑sagesregardinglegitimacy,centrality,andrelevanceofparticularlan‑guages and the people they represent (Shohamy 2006). It is only re‑cently,however, that the studyof linguistic landscape, i.e.,publicusesofwritten language,hasemergedasan independentareaofsociolin‑guistic investigation (e.g., Backhaus 2007; Gorter 2006c; Landry andBourhis1997;ScollonandScollon2003;ShohamyandGorter2009).

To date, only a few studies have examined post‑Soviet linguisticlandscapes (e.g., Brown 2007; Sadikhova and Abadi 2000; Sloboda2009;Yurchak2000).Consequently,thepresentpaperhastwointerre‑latedaims.My first aim is to highlightpotential contributionsof thelinguistic landscape approach to the study of language and identitypolitics inpost‑Sovietstates.Mysecondaimistoshowthatlinguisticandsocialchangesthathavetakenplaceinpost‑Sovietstatescanofferimportantcontributionstothestudyoflinguisticlandscape.Iwillbe‑ginwithanoverviewoftheoreticalandmethodologicalunderpinnings

248 ANETA PAVLENKO

of thisareaofresearch.Then, Iwilldiscuss linguistic landscapephe‑nomenacentral to theprocessesofderussificationand languageshiftinpost‑Sovietcountries.Iwillendwiththekeyquestionsthatneedtobeaskedwithregardto linguistic landscapes in futureworkonmul‑tilingualisminpost‑Sovietstates.

2. Linguistic Landscape: Theory and Methodology

Thestudyoflinguisticlandscapehascometoprominenceinthefieldof sociolinguistics only within 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) argues that as visualizations ofmodernity, linguistic landscapescan bring different qualities of contemporary urban experience intofocus,includingdifferentmanifestationsoflanguageconflict.Andin‑deed most research in this area has 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), and Wales(Couplandforthcoming).

To examine these complex negotiations, researchers commonlygather a representative collection of public signage from a particulararea,placingeachpictureinthecontextoftimeandplaceinwhichitwas taken (see Barni and Bagna 2009 for a discussion of the uses ofsoftware in thisdatacollection).These itemsare thenanalyzedquan‑titativelyandqualitatively,intermsofthefrequencyofappearanceofspecificlanguages;theorderoftheirappearanceinmultilingualsigns;the relationship between presumed translation equivalents in suchsigns; the prominence of particular languages as seen in the uses oforder, font size, and color; spatial locationandmobilityof the signs;materialthesignsaremadeof;andtheprimaryfunctionofthesigns,e.g., informational/indexical or symbolic. Reh (2004) suggested thatmultilingualsignsshouldalsobeanalyzedfrom thepointofviewofinformation arrangement: (i) duplicating, (ii) fragmentary, (iii) over‑lapping,and(iv)complementary,wheredifferenttypesofinformation

LANGUAGE CONFLICT IN POST-SOVIET LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPES 249

areprovided ineach language, transmitting somewhatdifferentmes‑sagestodifferentaudiences.

Thechoicesmadebyvarioussocialactorscanbeanalyzedfromavarietyoftheoreticalperspectives.Tounderstandhowpowerrelationsbetweenhegemonicandsubordinategroupsshapeandareshapedbylinguistic 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 offers another useful analytical perspective, in particular foranalyses of advertising (Backhaus 2006, 2007; Huebner 2006; Hult2009;LanzaandWoldemariam2009;Piller2001,2003).Potentiallinksbetweenlinguisticlandscape,linguisticdiversity,and languagemain‑tenancehavebeenexaminedthroughthelensofethnolinguisticvital‑ity(LandryandBourhis1997)andtheecologyoflanguage(Hult2009).Linguistsalsoexaminelinguisticlandscapeasanimportantsiteoflan‑guage contact and change (Huebner 2006, 2009; Piller 2003), whilesemioticiansare concernedwithways inwhich spatial and linguisticarrangementsconveymeanings(ScollonandScollon2003).

Since linguistic landscape research is still in its inception, severaltheoretical and methodological debates plague the field (Backhaus2007;Gorter 2006a;Huebner2009).The first involves the problemofrepresentativenessandscopeofasample:Howdoesoneselectarep‑resentativesample?Aredatafromonestreetoroneareasufficientforgeneralizationsaboutacityasawhole?Ifseveralstreetsorareasaretobe selected, how does one 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 of Russian in eastern andwesternUkraine, and Zabrodskaja (2009) highlighted discrepancies betweenareas inEstoniadominatedbyethnicEstoniansandthosedominatedbyethnicRussians.

250 ANETA PAVLENKO

Thesecondimportantquestionconcernstheunitofanalysisorthelinguistic sign (Gorter 2006a;Huebner2009).What constitutes anap‑propriate object for linguistic landscape inquiry? Should texts onmovingobjects,suchasbuses,beincluded?Whataboutprintedmat‑ter,suchasbooksorpostcards?Researchersvarywithregardtowhattheyconsiderthescopeofthe inquiry.Backhaus (2006)definesasignas“anypieceofwrittentextwithinaspatiallydefinableframe”(55),adefinitionthatfocusesonthingsvisibletopassersby,fromstreetsignsto commercialbillboards tohandwritten 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,road signs),andbottom‑upornon‑officialsigns, that issignsplacedbyautonomoussocialac‑tors, suchas commercial enterprises,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 toobroad and fails to capture the agency and social situatedness of thesigns,wherebythesamesignmaybereadastop‑downbysomeread‑ersandasbottom‑upbyothers.Thebottom‑upcategoryinparticularhaseliciteda lotofcritiquebecauseit lumpstogetherdifferent socialactorswhomaydisplay different degreesofpreoccupationwithoffi‑cial language policies. Large multinational corporations may aim topresentan internationallyrecognized image(globalsigns), localcom‑mercial enterprisesmay need to complywith local policies, and pri‑vateindividualsmaymaketheirchoicesbasedontheirownlinguisticcompetenciesandthoseofintendedreaders.

The concerns above are also related to the fourth problem in thefield, 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,currentbusinessownersarenotnecessarily theauthorsof thesignsandmaybeunawareofthereasonsbehindspecificlanguageand


wordchoices.Inrelationtoreadership,Calvet(1994)arguedthatChi‑nesesignsinatypicalParisianChineserestaurantmaybedirectedattheFrenchcustomersandcarryapredominantlysymbolicfunctionofgiving the restaurant its ‘air chinois’. In contrast, Chinese signs in arestaurantlocatedintheBellevilleareaofParis, inhabitedbyChinesespeakers, may carry primarily an informational function, addressingpeoplewhoknow the language. In thepost‑Soviet context, this com‑plexityisparticularlysalientwithregardtoRussian.Aswillbeshownlater, in some contexts it is difficult to determine whether Russianfunctions as a regional lingua franca, a language of interethnic com‑munication,oraminoritylanguage.

The fifth issue involves the languageor languagesof the sign—ithasbeenrepeatedlynotedthatcleardeterminationofthelanguagesisnotalwayspossible(Backhaus2006,2007;Huebner2006).Somesignsmayappealtolanguagemixing,play,andlexicalborrowing,display‑ing,forinstance,blendsofFrenchandDutch(Backhaus,2007)orEng‑lishwordswritten in Kanji, Hiragana, or Katakana (Backhaus 2006).Theissueofindeterminacyisparticularlyrelevanttotheworkinpost‑Sovietcountrieswherethreeproblemsarecommonlypresent.Thefirstinvolvesnewcoinage,seen,for instance, incommercialsigns inBakuthatappearinaLatinalphabetandcannotbeeasilyassignedtoapar‑ticularlanguage(SadikhovaandAbadi2000).Thesecondproblemin‑volves transliteration, seen, for example, inbusiness signs inUzbeki‑stan where Russian words may be written in a Latin alphabet, e.g.,ximchistka ‘drycleaner’s’orsalon krasoty ‘beautysalon’(Sharifov2007;see also Figure 8, p. 265). The third problem involves bivalency thatmayoccuringeneticallycloselanguages.Thus,inUkraine,signsdis‑playingbivalentwords suchaskafe ‘café’,bank ‘bank’, orvokzal ‘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?ScollonandScollon(2003:120)suggestthatthepreferredcodecommonlyap‑pearsontop,on the left,or in thecenterof thesign.Backhaus (2007)arguesthatthissemioticapproachisWesterninnature.Inhisanalysis

252 ANETA PAVLENKO

Figure 1.CafésigninKyiv,Ukraine,2007.(Reproducedwiththe

permissionoftheauthor,SvitlanaMelnyk.)

ofmultilingualsignsinTokyo,Backhaus(2006,2007)determinedcodepreferencethroughtheorderandsizeoffontortextsintherespectivelanguages, with size overruling order in cases where texts in largerfontareplaced ina subordinateposition.Huebner (2006)argues thatbothplacementandsizecanbeoffsetbyotherfeaturessuchascolor,images,andtheamountoftextinthe languageinquestion.InFigure1, for instance, prominence is determinedby the sizeof the font andadditionally 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,athornydebateattheheartofthefieldinvolvesthemeaningfulness of various approaches. Some scholars, like Back‑haus (2007),argue thatrandompicturesofcurious signsareunlikelytobeofsignificanceandonlyrigorousapproachestosampling,selec‑tion, and quantitative analysis can produce scientifically relevant re‑


sults.Others,likeCoupland(forthcoming),viewdistributionfrequen‑ciesaspurelydescriptiveandarguethat the fieldneeds todevelopatheoreticalaccountoflinguisticlandscaping,askingwhatforcesshapeparticular landscapes, whose designs and priorities they respond to,andwhatcompetingvaluesystemsmaybeatwork.

While these theoretical and methodological debates go on, re‑searchersworking in thisareastrive tobeasexplicitandtransparentaspossibleregarding(i) their theoreticalassumptions; (ii)geographicareas where the research was conducted and the rationale for thechoiceoftheseareas;(iii)typesofsignsexaminedandtherationalefortheir choice; (iv) schemes for categorizationandanalysis; and (v) thelargersignificanceoftheirfindingsforunderstandingoflanguageuse.Thisworkhasalreadyenrichedourunderstandingoflanguageuseinsocial settings and has great potential for expanding it further. Thepresent paper aims to contribute to this expansion by focusing on alargelyoverlookeddimensionoflinguisticlandscapes—theirdynamiccharacter.Todate,thefieldhasbeendominatedbysynchronic inves‑tigations that focusona single point in time, thus implicitly treatingpublic signage as static. Inwhat follows, I approach linguistic land‑scape not as a here‑and‑nowphenomenonbut as aprocess to be ex‑amineddiachronicallyand in the contextofother languagepractices.Among the many aspects that are subject to change, I will focus onone, namely language change in public signage. Iwill exploremani‑festationsofthischangeinthecontextofpost‑Sovietcountries.

3. Derussification and Language Shift in Post-Soviet Countries

Post‑Soviet countries offer a fruitful context for diachronic study oflinguistic landscapes because, in the past two decades, post‑Sovietsymbolic landscapes have undergone drastic changes reflecting bothnation‑buildingeffortsandtransition to thenewcapitalistandglobaleconomies. In 1991, the fourteen nation‑states that emerged from theruinsoftheSovietempireadoptedavarietyofdesovietizationpoliciestodistance themselvesboth fromRussiaandthe totalitarianpastandto accomplish a transition to the new economy. In the area of lan‑guage,thesepoliciesaimedatderussificationandashifttowardtitularlanguagesandEnglishas a new lingua franca.Azerbaijan,Moldova,Turkmenistan,andUzbekistanalsoimplementedatransitionfromtheCyrillictotheLatinalphabetinthetitularlanguage.Overthepasttwo

254 ANETA PAVLENKO

decades these language policies have been translated into practicesacrossavarietyofdomains(e.g.,officiallanguageuse,education,me‑dia, commerce),with varyingdegreesof success.Theoutcomes havebeen shaped by a variety of factors, including but not limited to 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 and Abadi’s(2000)study inAzerbaijan,Zabrodskaja’s(2009)work inEstonia,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 indirectreferences to thesituationbeforeandafter the fallof theUSSR (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 newbusiness class,whileBennett (2008) considers thesymboliccomebackoftheoldRussianorthography.Duetospacelimitations,however,inwhatfollowsIwillfocusexclusivelyonlanguagechoiceandoutlineatheoretical framework thathighlights fivemanifestationsof the shift‑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.An intendedshiftcanbemanifestedinthis symbolic arena ina numberofways,most dramatically throughlanguage erasure, that is deliberate removal of signage in a 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 signs with newsignswhere the offending language is now absent. This approach isthe most expensive but also the most effective because it leaves nophysicaltraceoftheotherlanguage;theerasurecanonlybemadeevi‑dent through comparisonof theoldandnewsignage.Theother twoapproaches are cheaper but also less effective than the first one be‑causethey leavebehindmaterialtraces—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,inaroadsign inUkraine, languageerasuretookplaceasachangeinscript,wheretheletters‘o’and‘ы’intheRussiannamesof thecitiesL’vovandStryjwerepaintedoverwith ‘i’and ‘и’,resulting in the Ukrainian names L’viv and StrIj (Figure 3 on thefollowingpage).

Theseapproachesmayoften coexist because, evenwitha contextofasinglecountry,languageerasuredoesnotproceeduniformly.Forinstance, Bilaniuk (2005), who conducted ethnographic fieldwork inUkrainein1991–92,notedthattheprocessofreplacementofRussian‑language and bilingual signswith Ukrainian‑language signs did nottake 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 intoUkrainian 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“madetheauthoritybackingUkrainianappear as poor and superficial as the changes on the signage”(Bilaniuk2005:95).

Giventhe factthatcoloniallanguagescommonlyremaininuseinpostcolonial countries (Simpson2007, 2008), the large‑scale derussifi‑cationofthepost‑Sovietspaceoffersnewpossibilitiesforthestudyoflanguage shift. Nevertheless, to date, it has not been examined in‑depth,inparticularinlinguisticlandscapes,theareawhereithadbeenmost conspicuous. Future studies of derussification in post‑Sovietlandscapeswill enrich our understanding of the change in 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 rights have been invoked at lengthwith regard to citizenshiptesting in Latvia and Estonia and the closing of Russian‑languageschoolsintheBalticcountriesand inUkraine(Pavlenko2008a).Littleattention, however, has been paid to the uses ofwritten language inthepublic space (but seeSadikhovaandAbadi 2000on concerns ex‑pressedbytheelderlyinAzerbaijan).YetShohamy(2006)arguesthatthisareacannotbe ignored, inparticularwhen localresidentsdonothavecompetenceinthelanguagesusedinpublicsignageandarethusunabletofollowstreetsignsandotherwritteninformation.Thisisnotan issue in Ukraine or Belarus, where the languages are geneticallyrelatedandthepopulations functionallybilingual,andso thechangeofsignagewasasymbolicgesturethatdidnotcauseanymajorincon‑veniencesandinsomecasesproceededunnoticed(cf.Brown2007). Itis, however, a concern in placeswhereRussian speakers did not—atleastinitially—havecompetenceinthetitular languages.Thus,futurework needs to examine how language erasure took place 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‑guage thathadbeeneliminated. In thepost‑Sovietcountries, the lan‑guagethatcametoreplaceRussianwasthegloballinguafrancaEng‑

258 ANETA PAVLENKO

lish. In Ukraine, for instance, Ukrainian‑Russian signswere replacedwith Ukrainian‑English signs as early as 1991 (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). The difference between these contexts and the post‑Soviet space is in the fact that in post‑Soviet countries English ap‑pearedasareplacementforRussian,whileinothercontextsitisalan‑guageaddedtothelandscape.

Thetwolanguagesdifferintheirsymbolicassociationsandalsointhelevelsoflanguagecompetence:atpresent,inthepost‑Sovietspace,levels of Russian‑language competence still supersede levels of Eng‑lish (Pavlenko 2008c). Consequently, it is likely that in post‑Sovietcountries,as inotherplacesaroundtheworld, thesymbolic functionof English—the language of prestige, internationalization, sophistica‑tion,andglobalvalues—eclipses itscommunicative functionasa lin‑guafranca(Curtin2009;Piller2001,2003;ScollonandScollon2003).InKyiv, for instance, in theearly1990sbusinesseswereamongthe firstplacestodisplayUkrainian‑Englishsigns,inaccordancewiththenewfashionforEnglish(Bilaniuk2005). InBaku,by2000,40%ofthestoresignsusedEnglishasaprimarylanguage(SadikhovaandAbadi2000).

Anexampleofsuchsymbolicusageisseeninthesigndisplayedinthe Kyiv café (Figure 1 on p. 252), that incorporates two Englishwords,VitaminandBatterfly, the lattereitheranerroneousrenditionof ‘butterfly’ or a neologism (Bilaniuk andMelnyk 2008). In the ab‑senceofanyclearinformationalfunctioncarriedbythetwowords,itislikelythattheyareusedfordisplaypurposes,tolendthesignan‘in‑ternational’ aura. Similar display appearances of English‑languagebrandnames, trademarks,and logosareseen inadvertisements foraWatermanpeninKyiv,Ukraine(Figure9onp.266),andforelectronicproducts by JVC in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (Figure 10 on p. 268) (forsimilar examples fromMoldova, see Ciscel 2008). In contrast, in the


Figure 4.DepartmentofPassportandVisaControl,Bishkek,

Kyrgyzstan,2007.(Reproducedwiththepermissionoftheauthor,AbdykadyrOrusbaev)

roadsigninwesternUkraine(Figure3onp.256)andinthesignovertheKyrgyzDepartmentforpassportandvisacontrol(Figure4above),English carries an informational function as a lingua franca of inter‑nationaltravel.

Notallsegmentsofthepost‑Sovietpopulationareequallypleasedwith the transition to English or to the Latin alphabet: older peopleoften appear annoyed by the incomprehensible words in the store‑fronts (Bilaniuk 2005; Sadikhova andAbadi 2000). In futurework, itwouldbe interesting to seehowandwhenEnglishappeared inpar‑ticular linguistic landscapes, how it is used in different contexts,whether ithas indeed replacedRussianasa linguafranca,at least insome contexts, and whomay benefit from or be inconvenienced bysuchareplacement.

3.3. Language Upgrading and Downgrading

Whileerasureandreplacementrepresentanextremecaseoflanguagedowngrading, a language can also be downgraded while remaining

260 ANETA PAVLENKO

part of the signage. Thus, anothermanifestation of an intended lan‑guage shift is a change of language status in the public signage re‑ferredtoaslanguage upgradingordowngrading.Thischangetakesplacethrough changes in presentation prominence, that is ordering, fontsize,color,andamountofinformationoffered ineachlanguage.Bothupgradinganddowngradingarevisibleinpost‑Sovietlinguisticland‑scapes.All fourteencountrieshaveupgradedthe titular languages inthe public signage,while downgrading Russian. Similar to languageerasure, language upgradinganddowngrading takeplacedifferentlyin different contexts even within the same country. Intriguing evi‑denceofsuchvariationcomesfromBrown’s(2007)studyofchangesinbilingual signage inBelarus.Thestudy showsthatbetweentheyears1984and1997theproportionofsignsinBelarusianandRussianvariedfromthepredominanceofRussianin1984,toexclusiveRussianusagein1986toequalusagein1991topredominanceofBelarusianin1997.More importantly, Brown (2007) shows that the distribution of lan‑guages in the signage varied across metro stops and lines, betweenmetro signage and other official signage, and also between the threecities 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,while names of private shops and businesses have been restricted toMoldovan (ormore specifically to the Latin script), although detailsmaybeofferedineitherlanguageorboth(Ciscel2007,2008).Aninter‑esting example of variation in prominence based on the intendedaudiencecomesfromKyrgyzstan.Inthebilingualannouncementofavoting place in Bishkek, seen in Figure 5 opposite, Kyrgyz precedesRussian in the top sign, while Russian appears on the left sign andKyrgyz on the right, creating an appearance of equality. In contrast,the sign in Figure 4 on the preceding page, announcing the Depart‑ment of passport and visa control, displays a different arrangement:Russiantopandcenter,flankedonthesidesbyKyrgyzandEnglish.InthiscaseRussianmaybeprioritizedasalinguafrancaoftransnationalmigrationandtravelinthepost‑Sovietspace.


Figure 5.Votingplace,Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan,2007.(Reproducedwith

thepermissionoftheauthor,AbdykadyrOrusbaev)

With theexceptionofBrown’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,differentiatingbetweenarrangements thatre‑flect linguisticcompetenciesof intendedaudiencesandthose thatre‑flect aspirations of particular governments (see alsoCoupland forth‑coming). In the post‑Soviet context particular attention needs to bepaidtothefunctionsofRussian,whichcanbealternativelyconceivedas aminority language, as a language of interethnic communication(andthusasecondlanguageofseveralminoritypopulations),andasaregionallinguafranca.

3.4. Language Regulation

Anothermanifestationoftheshift‑in‑progress,referredtohereaslan‑guage regulation, involves signs that attempt to manipulate languagechoice and use through content, a phenomenon that has not yet re‑ceivedattentioninlinguisticlandscapework.Todate,Ihavebeenableto differentiate between three types of signs that attempt to regulatelanguageuse inthepublicspace.Thefirstandthemostindirectcate‑

262 ANETA PAVLENKO

goryofsignsurgesitsaudiencestolearnand/orspeakparticularlan‑guagesingeneral.Oneexampleofsuchsignageisbillboardsthatwereinstalled inKazakhstan in 2007, the year of the Kazakh language, toappealtocitizens’languageloyalty.Thesebillboardssportedslogans,suchas“ItisaresponsibilityofeachcitizenoftheRepublicofKazakh‑stan to learn the state language”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:“Accordingtotheresolutionbytheparliament of Ukraine on February 28, 1989 ‘Regarding the state na‑ture and official status of theUkrainian language in institutions andorganizations’wespeakUkrainianhere”(Figure6opposite).Thelastclause, “we speakUkrainian here,” appears in redand in the largestfont,making it themostprominentpartof the sign.Thestatement issignedbyseveralagencies: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, the sign displayed in a L’viv trolley bus urgespeople to speakUkrainian correctly (Figure 7 opposite). Its openinglinesstate:“Attention!Let’sspeakcorrectly!”Theselinesarefollowedby two columns: the first, titled “incorrectly”, lists examples of Rus‑sianisms inUkrainian, and the second, titled “correctly”, offers stan‑dardUkrainian counterparts.The sign lists two agenciespresumablyresponsible 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, againstRussian language influenceonUkrainian (Figure7).Indoingso,theyformpartofalargermovementthatresurgedinthe1990s topromote linguisticpurism inUkrainian and toderussify thelanguage(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 scopeand social reception, while considering (i) sociolinguistic processesthat give rise to specific instances of language regulation; (ii) localcontexts inwhich particular signs appear; (iii) the timing of appear‑anceandthedurationofdisplayofsuchsigns;(iv)theintendedaudi‑ences; and, finally, (v) public uptake, i.e., reactions of differentstakeholders toparticular signsandthe impactof thesesignson lan‑guage use. In Russian‑dominant areas of Ukraine, according toBilaniuk (2005), the linguistic purism movement may have actuallyundermined the revival of Ukrainian, because it instilled insecuritiesinpeoplewhomayhaveotherwisebeenwillingtospeaktheir“imper‑fect”Ukrainian.

3.5. Transgressive Signs

Ashiftinprogress,andinparticularashiftimposedfromabove,can‑not proceedwithout tensions.Manifestations of such tensions in lin‑guistic landscapeare foundintransgressive signs.ScollonandScollon(2003:22–23)see transgressive signsassigns thatviolateconventionsonemplacement.Inthepresentpaper,thisdefinitionwillbeextendedto signs that violate or subvert official norms in the choice of eitherscriptorlanguage.ExamplesoftransgressivescriptsubversioncanbefoundinKishinev,Moldova,whereRussianbusinessownerssubverttheLatin‑onlyrulecreatedtopromotetheuseofMoldovanbyadopt‑ing English‑language—instead of Moldovan‑language—names fortheir shops (Ciscel 2008). In Uzbekistan, commercial enterprises usethe Latin script, now adopted for Uzbek, to transliterate Russiannames(Sharifov2007),orasinFigure8opposite,toplayfullycombineaRussianwordintheLatinalphabetpivo ‘beer’withaRussianwordinCyrillicbočkovoe‘draft(literally:fromabarrel)’.AndinBaku,Azer‑baijan, an owner of a stationery store kept his sign inCyrillicAzeri,insteadofLatin,toaccommodatehisoldercustomers(SadikhovaandAbadi2000).

Othersignsmayalsosubvertlanguagechoice,usingthelanguagenot sanctionedbyofficialnorms.Thus, inKyiv,Ukraine, commercialenterprises may adhere to Ukrainian‑language policy in permanentsignagewhilesubvertingitintemporarysigns.Thesesignsareprinted


Figure 8.Beersalonsign,Uzbekistan,2007.(Reproducedby

permissionfromhttp://www.fergana.ru)in Russian on a sheet of paper, enclosed in protective plastic casing,andpostedonwalls,doors,windows,orcolumns.Forinstance,inthewindow of a large bookstore LItera ‘Letter’, seen in Figure 9 on thefollowingpage,thenameofthesectionKanceljars’ka kramnicja‘Station‑erysupplies’,appearsinUkrainian, followedbythebrand‑nameWa‑terman in English, and then a typed up sign in Russian 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,asignoveranartgallerydisplays itsRussiannameMir iskusstva ‘ArtWorld’inlargefontandalsoinbrackets,whiletheUkrainiannameontop in much smaller font reads xudožnIj salon ‘art gallery’. Anotherstrategy is to display Russian or potentially bivalentwords, such asprodmar (abbreviation of ‘grocery store’) or kontrakt ‘contract’ in pre‑1917Russianspellingwitha“ъ”attheend,thussignalingtheirRus‑sianness(seealsoBennett2008).Russian‑languagealsocommonlyap‑

266 ANETA PAVLENKO

Figure 9. Bookstorewindow,Kyiv,Ukraine,2008.(Author’s picture)

pearsinprivateadsandingraffiti inKyiv.Lastbutnotleast,intheirstruggles over language, individual social actorsmay also appeal toupgrading and downgrading strategies, such as painting over signsandreplacingofficialnameswithnamesintheotherlanguage(Gorter2006b).

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


phenomenonof transgression isstillpoorlyunderstood. It ispossiblethatthesignsdiscussedheredivergefromtheofficiallanguagenormsbut fitwithinagreed‑upon local norms.To understand the degree towhich a particular signmay be transgressive, future studies need toexamine the norms and expectations regarding language and scriptchoice that function inparticular contexts atparticular times forpar‑ticularsocialactors.

3.6. Linguistic Landscapes and Language Practices

Sofar,thediscussionabovehasemphasizedtheneedtoexaminelin‑guisticlandscapesdiachronicallyasdynamicphenomena.Ihaveonlybrieflytouchedupontherelationshipbetweenpublicsignageandso‑cialactors.Yetthediscrepancy in languagechoicebetweentop‑downand bottom‑up signage discussed above suggests that in some post‑Sovietcountriestheremaybeariftbetweenofficiallanguagepoliciesand everyday language practices. A few linguistic landscape studiesthathaveconsidered languagepracticessuggest thatthefrequencyoflanguageuseinpublicsignagemaynotbeindicativeofitsuseinlan‑guagepractices.Forinstance,inacomparativestudyofBasqueintheBasque country and Frisian in Friesland (Netherlands), Cenoz andGorter (2006) found that Basquewasmuchmore visible in linguisticlandscape,duetoproactivelanguagepolicies,whileFrisianwasmorewidespreadas a languageoforal communication. In turn,Coupland(forthcoming) used census and survey data to argue that the use ofWelsh inthelinguisticlandscapeofWalesreflectsanaspirationalpo‑liticalideologyof“truebilingualism”andnotrealitiesofeverydaylan‑guageuse.

This aspirational ideologymay also be at play 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, indexing the nation in the public space (Brown2007;GigerandSloboda2008). In theabsenceofRussian,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) and trilingual signs (e.g., Figures 4, onp. 259, and10,below)addressaudienceswhoarelikelytobeeithermonolingual inRussianorbilingualinKyrgyzandRussian(Orusbaevetal.2008).

Inotherplaces,thesituation isreversedandmonolingualsignagemay appear in largely bilingual environments. Thus, in easternUkraine, official signs inUkrainian address an audience bilingual inUkrainianandRussian(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, such signsmayweave titular languages and the two linguafrancas,RussianandEnglish,arranginginformation inacomplemen‑

Figure 10.Billboard,Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan,2007.(Reproducedwiththe

permissionoftheauthor,AbdykadyrOrusbaev)


tarymanner(Reh2004),sothatparticularwordsortextsappearinonelanguage only. This non‑parallel bilingualism suggests that the textsaddress bi‑ and multilingual audiences, rather than monolingualspeakers of different languages, and is commonly encountered inAzerbaijan (Sadikhova andAbadi 2000), Belarus (Brown 2007; GigerandSloboda2008),Estonia(Zabrodskaja2009),Kyrgyzstan(Orusbaevet al. 2008), Moldova (Ciscel 2007, 2008), Ukraine (Bilaniuk 2005;BilaniukandMelnyk2008;Pavlenko2009), andUzbekistan (Sharifov2007).

4. Conclusions

Twointerrelatedargumentsweremadeinthispaper.First,Ihavear‑guedthatthestudyoflinguisticlandscapecanbenefitfromseeinglin‑guistic landscapes as dynamic phenomena and examining them in adiachronic manner. Using the changes that have taken place in thepost‑Sovietspacesince1991,Ihavehighlightedfiveprocessesthatcanbe examined in suchdevelopmental inquirywith regard to languagechangeandlanguageconflict.Second,Ihavearguedthatthestudyoflinguisticlandscapeoffersausefultoolforpost‑SovietsociolinguisticsandforSlavicsociolinguisticsatlarge.Ihaveusedthephenomenonofimposedlanguageshifttoexaminepotentialinsightsaffordedbysuchinquiry.

Toensure that the findings fromthestudyof linguistic landscapehavealargersignificanceforourunderstandingoflanguageuseinthepost‑Sovietspace,thefollowingquestionsneedtobeaddressedinfu‑ture inquiries.With regard to the Soviet erawe need to knowwhatlanguagesandscriptswereusedinthepublicsignageinthecontextinquestion. What ideologies did they reflect? What informational andsymbolicfunctionsdidtheycarryfortheirintendedaddressees?Whatwere the language competencies of the intended audiences, in par‑ticular the population inhabiting thearea? Basedon these competen‑cies,whose rightswere legitimizedandwhose rightsmayhavebeenviolated by particular choices? What, if any, discrepancies existedbetween language choices in public signage and actual languagepractices?

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?Whatinformationalandsymbolicfunctionsdotheycarryfortheintendedaudiences?Whatarethelanguagecompetenciesoftheseaudiences?Whose rights do particular choices legitimize andwhoselanguagerightsmaytheyviolate?Whatdiscrepanciesappearedinthisperiod between top‑down and bottom‑up signs and between publicsignageandlanguagepractices?

Questionsalsoneed tobeaskedwith regard to the impactof thechanges in question:What if any effect did the changes in linguisticlandscapes have on public perception of the languages in question?Whatifanyeffectdidtheyhaveonlanguagepractices?Didthederus‑sificationofthepublicspacecontributetothediminisheduseofRus‑sianandincreaseintheuseandprestigeofthetitularlanguages?Didit disadvantage speakerswho previously relied on Russian for navi‑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 urban multilingualism in Tokyo.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters.

Barni,MonicaandCarlaBagna.(2009)“Amappingtechniqueandthelinguistic landscape”. Elana Shohamy andDurkGorter, eds.Lin‑guistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.NewYork:Routledge,126–40.

Bennett,BrianP.(2008)“Abecedarianideologies:Theoldorthographyin the new Russia”. Paper presented at the seventeenth Sociolin‑guisticsSymposium,Amsterdam,April2008.

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


constructionof thepublicspace:Thecaseof Israel”.DurkGorter,ed.Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters,7–30.

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

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

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

Brown,N.Anthony. (2007)“Status languageplanning inBelarus: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‑nority languages”.DurkGorter,ed.Linguistic landscape: A new ap‑proach to multilingualism.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters, 67–80.

. (2009) “Language economy and linguistic landscape”. ElanaShohamyandDurkGorter,eds.Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.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) “Welsh linguistic landscapes ‘fromabove’ and ‘from below’”. Adam Jaworski and Crispin Thurlow,eds. Semiotic landscapes: Text, space, globalization. London:Continuum.

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

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

272 ANETA PAVLENKO

Gorter,Durk. (2006a) “Introduction:The studyof the linguistic land‑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 language policy”.ThomasRicento, ed.An introduction to language policy: Theory and method.Malden,MA:Blackwell,77–94.

Grin, François and François Vaillancourt. (1997) “The economics ofmultilingualism: 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 linguistic analysis of linguisticlandscapes”.ElanaShohamyandDurkGorter,eds.Linguistic land‑scape: Expanding the scenery.London:Routledge,70–87.

Hult, Francis M. (2009) “Language ecology and 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‑scape and ethnolinguistic vitality:An empirical study”. Journal of language and social psychology16(1):23–49.

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

Malinowski,David. (2009)“Authorship in the linguistic landscape: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, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory”.International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism 11(3–4):275–314.

. (2008b) “Russian inpost‑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”. Paper presented at the secondLinguistic Landscapesworkshop,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‑orientedtypology—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)“Linguisticlandscapeasan ecological arena: Modalities, meanings, negotiations, educa‑tion”. Elana Shohamy andDurk 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. Linguistic landscape: 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 apost‑Soviet linguistic market”. 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 Landscapes workshop,Siena,Italy,January2009.

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

language conflict in post-soviet linguistic landscapes · the study of linguistic landscape has...

Documents