A review of research on the relationship between linguistic landscape and space

Scholars in different research fields of linguistic landscape [Landry & Bourhis 1997: 25; Ben-Rafael 2009: 43] have given various definitions of linguistic landscape. The research aim of linguistic landscape is mainly language signs, including public places’ signs, street signs, billboards, warning signs, shop signs, slogans, tourist brochures, tourist attraction language and other signs displayed in the public eye. The focus of linguistic landscape research is to examine the construction methods and processes of language symbols between language planning departments, language users and language recipients, the spatiality of linguistic landscapes, and the relevant information and symbolic meanings contained in linguistic landscapes. At first, the core background of linguistic landscape research was “public space”, but with the deepening and expansion of studies in this field, the research scope has extended from public space to different spaces such as private space, indoor space and virtual space [Shang Guowen & Zhao Shouhui 2014a: 214; 2014b: 88].

Looking at the current situation in linguistic landscape research at home and abroad, Landry & Bourhis first proposed the authoritative academic research term “linguistic landscape” in 1997 [Landry & Bourhis 1997: 23]. Based on this，linguistic researchers at home and abroad have carried out related research from the perspective of review and empirical studies. Specifically, the comprehensive research mainly covers the overall situation of the linguistic landscape research field (a comprehensive overview of the background, methods, theories, prospects and challenges of linguistic landscape research), the analysis dimension and theoretical construction of linguistic landscape, the development process of linguistic landscape research and linguistic landscape research stage [Landry & Bourhis 1997: 27; Shang Guowen & Zhao Shouhui 2014b: 87; Li Lisheng 2015: 6; Fu Wenli & Bai Limei 2017: 46; Xu Ming 2017: 60; Wu Xili & Zhan Ju & Liu Xiaobo 2017: 172; Zhang Tianwei 2020: 52]. These review articles by scholars at home and abroad more comprehensively reflect the current theoretical system and theoretical construction of linguistic landscape research at home and abroad. Under the background of the theoretical basis and theoretical innovation of linguistic landscape research, scholars in the field of linguistic landscape research at home and abroad have carried out empirical research. The current empirical research on linguistic landscape mainly covers the perspective of multilingualism, urban linguistic landscape research [Cenoz & Gorter 2006: 270; Barni & Bagna 2010: 8; Kallen & Dhonnacha 2010: 24], and sociolinguistic and sociological dimension urban linguistic land- scape research [Backhaus 2006: 56; Ben-Rafael 2009: 42; Huebner 2009: 77], research on linguistic landscape of urban blocks [Backhaus 2006: 54; Tian Feiyang & Zhang Weijia 2014: 40], research on the dimension of linguistic landscape and spatial relationship [Ron Scollon & Suzie Wong Scollon 2003: 3; Blommaert 2006: 20; Jaworski & Thurlow 2010: 10; Pennycook 2010: 14; Lu Deping 2022: 1] and other research dimensions of the linguistic landscape.

In the existing research on the dimension of linguistic landscape and spatial relationship at home and abroad, there are two main research clues in current linguistic landscape studies [ibid.: 2]. The first research clue is language orientation, and the second is spatial orientation. Among them, the language orientation of linguistic landscape research focuses on “language in spatial symbols”, that is, “language status issues concerned by language policy and language planning, and language power issues concerned by sociolinguistics” [Blommaert 2013:126]. The spatial orientation of linguistic landscape research focuses on “symbols in space”, that is, “the urban spatial characteristics that characterize urban social practices expressed in language and other multimodal signs in the linguistic landscape” [Pennycook 2010:67].

Definition and Function of Linguistic Landscape

Based on the authoritative definition of linguistic landscape proposed by Landry & Bourhis, other well-known scholars have also proposed different definitions of the research nature of linguistic landscape. “The symbolic architecture presented in a visual public space can be regarded as a linguistic landscape, because the language it expresses and the symbols it uses are the ‘things’ happening in that social space” [Ben-Rafael 2009: 41]. In the monograph Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space , co-published by Jaworski & Thurlow in 2010, the definition of “linguistic landscape” is deepened. It has been expanded into a “semiotic landscape” and defined as “any public space that is visible and shaped by people’s intentional intervention in meaning construction” [Jaworski & Thurlow 2010: 2]. Therefore, the method of multimodal discourse analysis is often used in the research related to linguistic landscape, and linguistic landscape is no longer regarded as just a reflection of the sociolin-guistic situation in a certain spatial field, but as a geographical space in the form of speech.

Multimodality

The Relationship betweenUrban

Linguistic Landscape and Space

Urban linguistic landscape research mainly involves two dimensions of “language in spatial symbols” and “symbols in space” [Lu Deping 2022: 3], that is, language symbols in linguistic landscape research and non-linguistic symbols. Combined with the theme of this research review, this section will start from two aspects related to the analysis of language symbols and non-linguistic symbols in urban linguistic landscape and the research dimension of urban linguistic landscape and spatial relationship.

The Relationship between Linguistic Landscape and Space in Urban Cases

Following theoretical study of place semiotics, linguistic landscape research can also refer to the SPEAKING model for linguistic analysis to sort out the multiple relationships between language means and social meaning [Huebner 2009: 77].

The above studies have paid attention to the “spatiality” of linguistic landscape from different research perspectives, research levels and research dimensions, that is, “(social) space” is one of the main elements of linguistic landscape composition. In order to further explore and analyze the relationship between linguistic landscape and space, the current linguistic landscape research should use the “representation of space”, that is, to regard language in a specific space as “independent of nature”. This research idea is obviously different from the idea of analyzing various modal elements of linguistic landscape from the micro level mentioned above. In comparison, the “spatial representation idea” of linguistic landscape research should regard linguistic landscape objects as a whole to explore the relationship between the linguistic landscape and the social space in which it is located.

Research on the Relationship between Linguistic Landscape and Space in Specific Urban Areas

Specific to the relevant research aspects of the linguistic landscape and spatial relationship in a specific urban area, the current research on the linguistic landscape and spatial relationship in a specific urban area by scholars in related fields at home and abroad mainly focuses on two research dimensions. The first research dimension is the multilingual dimension. The research on the relationship between the linguistic landscape and space in a specific urban area in the multilingual dimension is mainly based on quantitative auxiliary analysis, combined with qualitative research methods and analytical methods. Based on quantitative analysis, it explains the phenomenon of multilingualism, and further reveals the language policy and language management behind the multilingualism. For example, Ben-Rafael et al. contrasted single- and mixed-resident Israeli cities and the linguistic landscape of Jerusalem [Ben-Rafael et al. 2006: 23]. Hult explored and analyzed the relationship between linguistic landscape and language ecology. His hypothesis is that “linguistic landscape analysis can be used for multilingual ecological studies” [Hult 2009: 90].

In current research on the relationship between linguistic landscape and space in specific urban areas by scholars in related fields at home and abroad, the second main research dimension is the spatial perspective of linguistic landscape research. Pennycook mentioned the viewpoints of spatial production theory and spatial lexicon in metrolingualism [Pen- nycook 2010: 21], that is, space is not pre-existing, but is constructed through people’s social events, urban language life. Blommaert believes that “in the visual public space, the information presented is basically non-neutral. Relatively speaking, they always highlight the corresponding social structure, power and hierarchy to a certain extent” [Blom-maert 2013: 30].

The above studies, both the multilingual dimension of linguistic landscape research and the spatial perspective dimension of linguistic landscape research have paid attention to the relationship between linguistic landscape and space.

Research on Urban StreetLinguistic Landscape

As far as the research on urban street linguistic landscape is concerned, some scholars in related fields at home and abroad have carried out relevant research on it, and these studies also have certain inspiration and references. Specifically, Backhaus conducted an empirical study of the multilingual linguistic landscape in the streets of Tokyo [Back-haus 2006: 56]. His research focuses on the differences between official multilingual signage and nonofficial multilingual signage. A lot of space is devoted to analyzing the frequency distribution of multiple languages in official and non-official signs. The findings showed that in the sample of official signage, 99 % of people placed Japanese in a more prominent position, while the situation was more balanced for unofficial signs, and in the sample of linguistic landscape analysis, almost 40 % showed that there is an inverse relationship between Japanese and other languages” [Backhaus 2008: 63]. This phenomenon suggests that the dominance of Japanese in the two different types of signage differs. It can be explained through the two dimensions of linguistic power and solidarity.

Xu Ming took the representative blocks along Beijing Metro Line 2 and 16 districts as the research objects, and analyzed 13,772 valid linguistic landscape samples collected [Xu Ming 2018: 60]. The research results show that in the presentation of the language code of Beijing’s linguistic landscape, Chinese occupies an absolute dominant position, and at the same time shows a relatively obvious multilingualism.

The above-mentioned scholars’ research on urban street linguistic landscape basically focuses on the specific analysis of various elements, mainly through the analysis of the language code level to reveal and explain the language behind the linguistic landscape, such as language policy and language construction. The similarity between this study and those of the above scholars is that the research objects are all urban street linguistic landscapes.

Conclusion

We live in the age where the highest density of linguistic landscapes can be found everywhere. Rapid developments in the fields of new media and information technology have made the linguistic landscape more diverse than ever. The emergence of the term “linguistic landscape” and its related research, on the one hand, has improved the understanding of the linguistic landscape of visual public space and indoor space, and provided scholars interested in understanding linguistic landscape with more information on the field of language research. Knowledge environment is necessary to conduct relevant research. As an emerging research field, although the linguistic landscape has attracted the attention of many disciplines, it still faces many problems and difficulties at the theoretical and methodological level, which need to be solved before going further.

Thus, the above observations on international and domestic linguistic landscape research show that this growing field of research has attracted the attention of foreign scholars as well as Chinese scholars. However, from the current situation of linguistic landscape research abroad, more fruitful research results have been obtained. To gain insight into the linguistic landscape, we use a different perspective. Foreign scholars mainly carry out linguistic landscape research from multilingual dimensions, sociolinguistics and sociology dimensions, linguistic landscape and spatial dimensions, and other dimensions. The sociolinguistic and sociological methods of linguistic landscape research are the main viewpoints of international linguistic landscape research in recent years. The linguistic landscape is inevitably linked with social factors. Since the beginning of linguistic landscape research, most of the studies have adopted the perspective of “social”, including the study of linguistic landscape from the perspectives of second language acquisition and spatiality. It is also often associated with a sociological perspective [Lou 2016: 26].