Concluding remarks
Cooperative actions across the urban-rural border
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.24962Keywords:
linguistic landscapes, social practices, infrastructures for life, urbanization of rural areasAbstract
Concluding this issue of Sociolinguistic Studies on the crossing of the urban-rural border or divide in Linguistic Landscape research, this article takes up the questions formulated in the opening contribution by Yao and Xu. It thus addresses communicative affordances of rural vs. urban spaces, and sign-making and sign usage in rural areas. Drawing on the findings of the four studies from the Asian Pacific and Oceania included in this issue as well as the work by Charles Goodwin, this article suggests that Linguistic Landscape research of rural areas could pay more attention to how social practices of people build on each other, reuse the material culture accumulated in an environment by their predecessors and in this way develop certain types of infrastructure for its population, which changes the nature of rural space.
References
Banda, F., Jimaima, H. and Mokwena, L. (2019) Semiotic remediation of Chinese signage in the linguistic landscapes of two rural areas of Zambia. In A. Sherris and E. Adami (eds) Making signs, translanguaging ethnographies: Exploring urban, rural and educational spaces 74–90. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Blommaert, J. (2013) Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Crowley, T. (2000) The language situation in Vanuatu. Current Issues in Language Planning 1(1): 47–132. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200008668005.
Goodwin, C. (2018) Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gorter, D., Marten, H. F. and Van Mensel, L. (eds) (2012) Minority languages in the Linguistic Landscape. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hult, F. M. (2009) Language ecology and Linguistic Landscape analysis. In E. Shohamy and D. Gorter (eds) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the scenery 88–104. London: Routledge.
Karlander, D. (2021) Cities of sociolinguistics. Social Semiotics 31(1): 177–193. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1810550.
Mácha, P. (2020) Dvojjazycné nápisy na Tešínsku aneb tešínský venkov jako experiment s pluralitou [Bilingual signs in the Teschen region, or: Teschen countryside as an experiment with plurality]. Národopisná revue 30(3): 191–201.
Muth, S. (2015) ‘Ruralscapes’ in post-Soviet Transnistria: Ideology and language use on the fringes of a contested space. In M. Laitinen and A. Zabrodskaja (eds) Dimensions of sociolinguistic landscapes in Europe 199–231. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Pennycook, A. (forthcoming) Linguistic Landscapes and the city. In R. Blackwood, S. Tufi and W. Amos (eds.) The Bloomsbury Handbook of Linguistic Landscapes. London: Bloomsbury.
Pohunek, J. (2011) A Century of Czech tramping. Folklorica: Journal of the Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Folklore Association 16: 19–41. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17161/folklorica.v16i1.4207.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (2004) Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London and New York: Routledge.
Vizi, B. (2016) Territoriality and minority language rights. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 23(4): 429–453.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (2009) The discursive construction of national identity. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
