Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Landscape
Vol. 9:1 (2023) ► pp.86–106

Does the Linguistic Landscape influence happiness?

Framing perceptions of language signs among speech communities in Germany

ORCID logo | Universität Duisburg-Essen
This paper investigates the potential relationship between multilingual landscapes and minority speech community members’ sense of subjective well-being. It focuses on three speech communities located in Germany: Chinese, Japanese, and Turkish. Drawing on interviews with members of these speech communities, it analyzes how individuals perceive their engagement with public displays of their language in terms of happiness and in the context of the host society. Integration, which is prominent in both Happiness studies and Linguistic Landscape research, is identified as a key theme influencing the emotional interaction between signs and sign readers. The paper’s aim is to integrate a subject-focused approach into the study of Linguistic Landscapes that can better address how individuals perceive and interact with language signs in multilingual and multi-ethnic settings.
Keywords: ethnic minorities, Linguistic Landscape, urban, life satisfaction, integration
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Three communities
  • 3.Bridging happiness and the Linguistic Landscape
  • 4.Methods
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1The LL signifying group dependency
    • 5.2Transboundary interaction
    • 5.3Selective representation
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.21013.mal
References (41)
References
Amadasi, S. (2014). Beyond belonging. How migrant children actively construct their cultural identities in the interaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Family Studies, 19 (1).Google Scholar
Amos, H. W. (2016). Chinatown by numbers: Defining an ethnic space by empirical linguistic landscape. Linguistic Landscape, 2 (2), 127–156.Google Scholar
Amponsem, G. (1996). Global trading and business networks among Ghanaians: An interface of the local and the global (Doctoral dissertation).
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic Landscapes. A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Baranova, V., & Fedorova, K. (2019). ‘Invisible minorities’ and ‘hidden diversity’in Saint-Petersburg’s linguistic landscape. Language & Communication, 68 1, 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barni, M., & Bagna, C. (2015). The critical turn in LL: New methodologies and new items in LL. Linguistic Landscape, 1 (1–2), 6–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben-Rafael, E. (2009). A sociological approach to the study of linguistic landscapes. Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. (eds.) 2009. Linguistic Landscape. Expanding the scenery. New York and London: Routledge, 40–54.Google Scholar
Ben-Rafael, E., & Ben-Rafael, M. (2016). Berlin’s linguistic landscapes: two faces of globalization. Blackwood, R., Lanza, E., & Woldemariam, H. (eds.). Negotiating and contesting identities in linguistic landscapes, London: Bloomsbury, 197–213.Google Scholar
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International journal of multilingualism, 3 (1), 7–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackwood, R. (2015). LL explorations and methodological challenges: Analysing France’s regional languages. Linguistic Landscape, 1(1–2), 38–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2017). Society through the lens of language: A new look at social groups and integration. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, No. 178.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25 (3), 197–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse studies, 7 (4–5), 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, J., & Liebscher, G. (2011). Language attitudes, migrant identities and space. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2121, 91–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Extra, G., & Yağmur, K. (2011). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Mapping linguistic diversity in multicultural cities. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (5), 1173–1184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaiser, L., & Matras, Y. (2020). Defining the position of ‘community’in the study of linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 6 (2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garvin, R. T. (2010). Responses to the Linguistic Landscape in Memphis, Tennessee: and Urban Space in Transition. Shohamy, E., Barni, M. & Ben-Rafael, E. (eds.). Linguistic Landscape in the City. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 252–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2015). Small stories research. De Fina, A. & Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.). The Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33 1, 190–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadjar, A., & Backes, S. (2013). Migration background and subjective well-being a multilevel analysis based on the European social survey. Comparative Sociology, 12 (5), 645–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haybron, D. M. (2003). What do we want from a theory of happiness?. Metaphilosophy, 34 (3), 305–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, M. (2015). The happiness of international migrants: A review of research findings. Migration Studies, 3 (3), 343–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, M., & Bartram, D. (2019). Bringing Happiness Into the Study of Migration and Its Consequences: What, Why, and How?. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 17 (3), 279–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30 (1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kogan, I., Shen, J., & Siegert, M. (2018). What makes a satisfied immigrant? Host-country characteristics and immigrants’ life satisfaction in eighteen European countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19 (6), 1783–1809. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landry, R. & R. Y. Bourhis. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 161: 24–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J., & Modan, G. (2009). Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualized approach to linguistic landscape 1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13 (3), 332–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pappenhagen, R., Scarvaglieri, C., & Redder, A. (2016). Expanding the linguistic landscape scenery? Action theory and ‘Linguistic Soundscaping’. Blackwood, R., Lanza, E., & Woldemariam, H. (eds.). Negotiating and contesting identities in linguistic landscapes. London: Bloomsbury, 147–162.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. & Crul, M. (2012). Comparative integration context theory: Participation and belonging in diverse European cities. Crul, M., & Schneider, J. & Lelie, F. (eds.). The European second generation compared: Does the integration context matter? Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 19–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. In Language and Communication, 231, 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroud, C., & Mpendukana, S. (2009). Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape: Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African township 1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13 (3), 363–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabó, T. P., & Troyer, R. A. (2017). Inclusive ethnographies: Beyond the binaries of observer and observed in linguistic landscape studies. Linguistic Landscape, 3 (3), 306–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, B. (2010). Dealing with urban diversity: Promises and challenges of city life for intercultural citizenship. Political theory, 38 (5), 631–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veenhoven, R. (2013). Conditions of happiness. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Vertovec, S. (2006). The emergence of super-diversity in Britain. ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Working Paper, 25 1.Google Scholar
Virta, E., Sam, D. L., & Westin, C. (2004). Adolescents with Turkish background in Norway and Sweden: A comparative study of their psychological adaptation. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 45 (1), 15–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wee, L., & Goh, R. B. (2019). Language, space and cultural play: Theorising affect in the semiotic landscape. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, E., Schmitz, U., & Uslucan, H. H. (2020). Community Ma(r)king in the linguistic landscape of the Ruhr Metropolis. Linguistic Landscape, 6 (2), 183–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Attitudes toward visual multilingualism in the linguistic landscape of the Ruhr Areas. Pütz, M. & Mundt, N. (eds.). Expanding the linguistic landscape: Linguistic diversity, multimodality and the use of space as a semiotic resource. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 264–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kajszczarek, Dawid
2023. Linguistic landscape in film works and video games. Homo Ludens :1(15) ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.