• Sanita Lazdiņa Dr. philol., Rezekne Academy of Technologies asociētā profesore un vadošā pētniece (LV)
  • Solvita Pošeiko Mg. philol., Pekinas Svešvalodu universitātes (Ķīna) Latviešu valodas un kultūras vieslektore, LU doktorante (LV)
  • Heiko F. Marten Dr. phil, Tallinas Universitāte, Vācu valodas un kultūras nodaļa (EE)





This paper gives an overview of activities which have been carried out in the fi eld of Linguistic Landscapes (LL) at Rēzekne University College (Rēzeknes Augstskola, RA) since 2008. Between 2009 and 2012, LL research was carried out within the framework of one of the work groups of the TILRA project funded by the European Social Funds (ESF). TILRA has had the overarching aim to support research in the humanities which may be helpful for understanding local identity and contribute to the regional development of Latgale. In this light, LL research has proven to be of high value for triggering effects in education at all levels, academic research and for enhancing discussions within politics and regional development. The paper fi rst provides a summary of the basic principles of the LL approach as they have been developed in the international linguistic community throughout the past decade. It addresses how the method has gained more and more popularity world-wide and moved from mostly quantitative and descriptive reports of the languages on signs in the public sphere to by far more interdisciplinary studies. Today, scholars in the fi eld of LL do research on signs of all kinds with regard to aspects such as functions of languages, semiotics, or the negotiation of and confl icts on ownership of and power in a territory. After this general introduction, the paper reports of how the LL method has been taken to the Baltic States, at fi rst in education and research at RA. The first of these activities were limited to Latvia (Rēzekne, Ventspils), but soon research was also taken to Lithuania (Alytus, Druskininkai) and Estonia (Pärnu, Narva). The paper then provides examples of the results of the research. On the one hand, a data base with almost 5,000 signs from the 6 towns in the Baltic States where research was carried out has been created. This data base allows for a detailed contrastive analysis of signs in the public sphere with regard to aspects such as the number and hierarchies of languages on the signs and their locations and functions. In cases of, for instance, signs at shops, also the type of shop is included. The research found 23 different languages, of which the titular languages of the Baltic States (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian) dominated, followed by English and Russian. English appears mostly as a language of high prestige, often with predominantly symbolic value. Other languages were rare, and also the regional language of Latgalian was identified on only a small proportion of the signs in Rēzekne. In total, about one third of the signs in the data base is multilingual, the other two thirds displaying only one language (most often, but not always, the respective titular language). On the other hand, the data base has been supplemented by qualitative data obtained through 46 interviews (conducted in Rēzekne, Narva and Druskininkai) with people working in the field of tourism, but also with passers-by in the streets. The interviews focus on e.g. roles of languages in tourism, reflections of regional identities in the LL or connections between the LL and language policies. With regard to tourism, English was found to be of highest importance as a lingua franca, but also Russian plays an important role. The research also asked explicitly whether small private signs may reflect linguistic or ethnic conflicts, but no such examples were found, and interviews confirmed that on a small, local level, the LL is not a place where such conflicts take place. The paper then reports of impacts which the LL activities have had with regard to the popularization of linguistic topics in society at large. By now, several schools in Latvia have used the LL approach in their activities and adapted it to their individual purposes. Other debates to which the LL research has contributed and where LL research and the publications created during the project have proven to have an impact on broader societal developments, are e.g. the relation between language use in private and in public domains, the functions of different languages in the internet, reflections of paralinguistic notions and the economic potential of languages, the latter in particular with regard to the Latgalian language. Finally, the paper highlights directions of future research. This includes the analysis of language contact in micro situations such as on specific notice boards or the use of LL data in discourse analytical studies. More broadly speaking, it is envisaged also to analyse existing LL patterns in the Baltic States in contrast to LL studies in other parts of the world, e.g. the role of Latgalian in the LL vis-à-vis other regional or minority languages in Europe. The paper also provides an overview of important publications which have been prepared or triggered as a result of the LL research, including several master theses and an on-going PhD project. In total, the paper thereby shows how the TILRA project has contributed to establishing research and awareness of the LL approach in the Baltic States, and how it at the same time has given LL research in the Baltic States a recognized standing among international LL researchers. The paper is supplemented by a list of LL publications, including many of those publications published by the project’s participants both in Latvian and international contexts, and by the questionnaire which served as a point of departure for the semi-structured interviews during the research.


Download data is not yet available.


Backhaus, Peter (2005). Signs of Multilingualism in Tokyo – a Diachronic Look at the Linguistic Landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 175/176. 103–121.

Baxter, Judith (2010). Discourse-Analytic Approaches to Text and Talk. Research Methods in Linguistics (ed. Lia Litosseliti). London, New York: Continuum. 117–137.

Ben-Rafael, Eliezer (2009). A Sociological Approach to the Study of Linguistic Landscapes. Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. (eds. Shohamy, Elana; Gorter, Durk)New York, NY & London: Routledge. 40–54.

Brown, Kara D. (2012). The Linguistic Landscape of Educational Spaces: Language Revitalization and Schools in Southeastern Estonia. In: D. Gorter & H.F. Marten & L. Van Mensel (eds.). Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 281–298.

Cenoz, Jasone, Gorter, Durk (2008). The Linguistic Landscape as an Additional Source of Input in Second Language Acquisition. Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. 257–276.

Cenoz, Jasone, Gorter, Durk (2009). Language Economy and Linguistic Landscape. Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (eds., Shohamy, Elana, Gorter, Durk). New York, NY & London: Routledge. 55–69.

Edelman, Loulou (2010). Linguistic Landscapes in the Netherlands: a Study of Multilingualism in Amsterdam and Friesland. Amsterdam Gorter, Durk (ed., 2006). Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

Gorter, Durk, Marten, Heiko F., Van Mensel, Luk (eds., 2012). Minority languages in the Linguistic Landscape.

Palgrave Macmillan.

Helot, Christine, Barni Monica, Bagna, Carla (eds., 2012). Linguistic Landscapes, Multilingualism and Social Change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Landry, Rodrigue, Bourhis, Richard Y. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Empirical Study.Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16 (1). 23–49.

Lazdina, Sanita, Poseiko, Solvita, Marten, Heiko F. (2008). Lingvistiskās ainavas metode – netradicionāls ceļš multilingvisma jautājumu izpētē un mācīšanā . Tagad 1, 43–49.

Lazdiņa, Sanita (2012). Latgaliešu valoda kā instruments Latgales reģiona attīstībā: lingvistiskās ainavas datitūrisma industrijas kontekstā. Latgalistikys kongresu materiali IV. Via Latgalica: humanitāro zinātņu žurnāls. Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Augstskola. 75–86.

Lazdiņa, Sanita (2013). A Transition from Spontaneity to Planning? Economic Values and Educational Policies

in the Process of Revitalizing the Regional Language of Latgalian (Latvia). Current Issues in Language Planning

(ed. Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle). Routledge (Taylor and Francis), iesniegts publicēšanai.

Litavniece, Lienīte, Murinska, Sandra (2012). Eiropas Sociālo fondu projekta „Teritoriālās identitātes

lingvokulturoloģiskie un sociālekonomiskie aspekti Latgales reģiona attīstībā” datubāzu veidošana un datu

apstrādes metodoloģija. Latviešu valoda digitālajā vidē. Rīga: LVA. 146–159.

Lou, Jia J. (2009). Situating Linguistic Landscape in Time and Space: A Multidimensional Study of the Discursive

Construction of Washington, DC Chinatown. Dissertation. Vashington: Georgetown University.

Kallen, Jeffrey (2009) Tourism and Representation in the Irish Linguistic Landscape. Linguistic Landscape:

Expanding the Scenery (eds., Shohamy, Elana, Gorter, Durk). New York: Routledge. 270–284.

Marten, Heiko F., Lazdina, Sanita (2009). The “Linguistic Landscape” Method as a Tool in Research and

Education of Multilingualism. Experiences from a Project in the Baltic States. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,

Studia Linguistica Upsaliensa 8. (eds. Anju Saxena, Ake Viberg). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. 212–225.

Marten, Heiko F. (2010). Linguistic Landscape under Strict State Language Policy: Reversing the Soviet Legacy

in a Regional Centre in Latvia. Linguistic Landscape in the City. (eds., Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Elana Shohamy and

Monica Barni).Bristol: Multilingual Matters.115–132.

Marten, Heiko F. (2012). “Latgalian is not a Language”: Linguistic Landscapes in Eastern Latvia and how they

Reflect Centralist Attitudes’. Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (D. Gorter, Durk, Marten Heiko,

Van Mensel, Luk). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 19–35.

Marten, Heiko F., Lazdiņa, Sanita, Pošeiko, Solvita, Murinska, Sandra (2012). Between Old and New Killer

Languages? Linguistic Transformation, Lingua Francas and Languages of Tourism in the Baltic States. Linguistic

Landscapes, Multilingualism and Social Change: Diversité des approches. (ed. Christine Hélot, Monica Barni,

Rudi Janssens & Carla Bagna). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 289–308.

Muth, Sebastian (2008). Multiethnic but multilingual as well? – The Linguistic Landscapes of Vilnius. 9.

Norddeutsches Linguistisches Kolloquium.

NLK08.pdf. 121–146.

Muth, Sebastian (2012a). Language, Power and Representation in Contested Urban Spaces:The Linguistic

Landscapes of Chisinau and Vilnius. Greifswald: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität.

Muth, Sebastian (2012b). The Linguistic landscapes of Chisinau and Vilnius – LL and the representation of

minority languages in two post-Soviet capitals. Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape” (eds. Gorter,

Durk, Heiko Marten and Luk van Mensel), Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. 204–224.

Pavlenko, Aneta (2009). Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes. Journal of Slavic Linguistics

(1–2). 247–274.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2010). Valodu funkcionēšana Jēkabpils un Preiļu rajona privātajā un publiskajā telpā.

Latgalistikys kongresu materiali II. Via Latgalica: humanitāro zinātņu žurnāls. 114–128.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2011). Valodu situācija Baltijas valstu lingvistiskajā ainavā. Latgale kā kultūras pierobeža II.

Latgales kongresa konferences rakstu materiāli. 232–243.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2012a). Lingvistiskā ainava – līdzeklis pragmatiskās kompetences apguvē un pilnveidē. Valodu

apguve: problēmas un perspektīva VIII. Liepāja. 272–285.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2012b). Valodu daudzveidība un funkcionalitāte Baltijas valstu lingvistiskajā ainavā. Apvienotais

Pasaules latviešu zinātnieku III kongress un Letonikas IV kongress „Zinātne, sabiedrība un nacionālā identitāte”.

Valodniecības raksti. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. 385– 397.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2012c). Afiša kā interaktīva zīme Rēzeknes pilsētas ainavā. VIA SCIENTIARUM I. (sast.

Dzintars, Normunds). Ventspils, Liepāja: SIA „Zelta rudens”. 225–243.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2012d). Telpas kategorija Latgales reģiona lingvistiskajā ainavā. Via Latgalica.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2012e). Valodas loma sociālās identitātes izveidē latgaliskajās tīmekļa vietnēs. Latgalistikys

kongresu materiali IV. Via Latgalica: humanitāro zinātņu žurnāls. 135–150.

Pošeiko, Solvita (2013). Grafiti pilsētvidē: vēsture, izveide, uztvere. Linguistica Lettica 21. Rīga: LU Latviešu

valodas institūts [iesniegts publicēšanai].

Puzey, Guy (2007). Planning the Linguistic Landscape: A Comparative Survey of the Use of Minority Languages

in the Road Signage of Norway, Scotland and Italy. Dissertation. Edinburgh.

Shohamy, Elana, Gorter, Durk (eds., 2009). Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. New York, NY &

London: Routledge.

Shohamy, Elana, Barni, Monica, Ben Rafael, Eliezer (eds., 2010) Linguistic Landscape in the City. Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Shohamy, Elana, Waksman, Shoshi (2009). Linguistic landscape as an ecological arena: Modalities, meanings,

negotiations, education. Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. (eds., Shohamy, Elana, Gorter, Durk). New

York, NY & London: Routledge. 313–331.

Spolsky Bernard; and Cooper, Robert L. (1991). The languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: Clarendon.

Zabrodskaja, Anastassia, Verschik, Anna (2013). Linguistic landscapes in the city: A case of Tallinn and Vilnius.

Dimensions of linguistic landscapes in Europe: Materials and methodological solutions. (eds. Koll, Amei, Stobbe,

Laitinen, Mikko, Zabrodskaja, Anastassia). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler

Verlag der Wissenschaften [forthcoming].







How to Cite