Article published In:
Linguistic Landscape: Online-First Articles

An ethnographic Linguistic Landscape analysis of a Berlin street market

Exploring language attitudes through market signs

ORCID logo | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
This study investigates the diverse Maybachufer Market in Berlin using an ethnographic Linguistic Landscape (LL) analysis that integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches. The paper focuses on the complex interplay between social dynamics at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels and language use in this multilingual and multiethnic urban space. The market signs mirror social and spatial settings and relevant language attitudes. The linguistic choices are shaped by and oriented towards (1) national language ideologies despite the multilingual and multiethnic environment; (2) dominant market languages; and (3) commercial gain, targeting specific customers and enhancing marketing strategies. By focusing on language attitudes and language use on market signs, this paper provides insights into the semiotic relevance of signs, societal language ideologies, and local communicative practices in multiethnic urban settings, contributing to the broader discourse on societal multilingualism and the benefits of ethnographic LL analyses in capturing the essence of diverse urban spaces.
Keywords: Linguistic Landscapes, urban linguistic diversity, multilingual and multiethnic settings, language attitudes, language ideologies, linguistic variation, ethnographic approach
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual orientation and theoretical underpinnings
  • 3.Social and historical context in the research area
    • 3.1Macro-level — Language ideologies and perceptions in Germany
    • 3.2Meso-level — Maybachufer Market and ethnolinguistic diversity
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Data
    • 4.2Categorisation and evaluation
    • 4.3Triangulation
  • 5.Findings
    • 5.1Market signs
    • 5.2Languages in the LL of the market
    • 5.3Language Mixing and Variation
    • 5.4Written vs. spoken language
    • 5.5Language distribution, micro-ecologies, and targeted language use
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 November 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.22031.dum
References (39)
References
Adami, Elisabetta (2020). Shaping public spaces from below: The vernacular semiotics of Leeds Kirkgate Market. Social Semiotics, 30 (1), 89–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barni, Monica & Bagna, Carla (2015). The critical turn in LL: New methodology and new items in LL. Linguistic Landscape, 1 (1–2), 6–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan (1997). Style as audience design. In Nikolas Coupland & Adam Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 240–249). London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben-Rafael, Eliezer, Shohamy, Elena, Amara, Muhammad & Trumper-Hecht, Nira (2001). Linguistic Landscape and multiculturalism: A Jewish-Arab comparative study. Unpublished research report.Google Scholar
(2006). Linguistic Landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. In Durk Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A new approach to multilingualism (pp. 7–30). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan (2013). Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan & Maly, Ico (2014). Ethnographic Linguistic Landscape analysis and social change: A case study. (Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 100).Google Scholar
Brown, James Dean (2004). Research methods for applied linguistics: Scope, characteristics, and standards. In Alan Davies & Catherine Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 476–500). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary & Hall, Kira (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7 (4–5), 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, Peter (2004). Languages and communities in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone & Gorter, Durk (2006). Linguistic Landscape and minority languages. In Durk Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A new approach to multilingualism (pp. 67–80). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duman, İrem & Lin, Daiying (2021). Linguistic Landscape im hochdiversen urbanen Raum: Das linguistische Bild zweier Berliner Märkte. In Heiko Marten & Evelyn Ziegler (Eds.), Linguistic Landscapes im deutschsprachigen Kontext: Forschungsperspektiven, Methoden und Anwendungsmöglichkeiten im Unterricht und Sprachmarketing (pp. 163–196). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Duman Çakır, İrem (2022). Negotiation of resources in everyday activities of a multilingual Berlin street market: A linguistic ethnography approach. Multilingua, 42 (3), 395–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12 (4), 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Elizabeth, Gogolin, Ingrid & Clyne, Michael (2010). The Janus face of monolingualism: a comparison of German and Australian language education policies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11 (4), 439–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaiser, Leonie & Matras, Yaron (2020). Defining the position of ‘community’ in the study of Linguistic Landscapes. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 6 (2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gogolin, Ingrid (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster, New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Gorter, Durk (Ed.) (2006). Linguistic Landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar (1972). The Ecology of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hélot, Christine (2021). Pushing Back Monoglossic Ideologies of Language: Towards Transformative and Inclusive Pedagogies for 21st Century Multilingual Classrooms. In Latisha Mary, Ann-Birte Krüger & Andrea S. Young (Eds.), Migration, Multilingualism and Education: Critical Perspectives on Inclusion (pp. 3–15). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, Daniel, Rath, Jan & Vertovec, Steven (2014). Urban markets and diversity: towards a research agenda. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (1), 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hua, Zhu, Otsuji, Emi & Pennycook, Alastair (2017). Multilingual, multisensory and multimodal repertoires in corner shops, streets and markets: introduction, Social Semiotics, 27 (4), 383–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huebner, Thom (2006). Bangkok’s Linguistic Landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing and language change. In Durk Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A new approach to multilingualism (pp. 31–52). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
İçpınar, Canset & Taşdemir, Ebru (2011). Markt der Sehnsüchte, TAZ (30 November, 2011; taz-Serie Orte der Migration).Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam & Thurlow, Crispin (2010). Introducing semiotic landscapes. In Adam Jaworski & Crispin Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Image, text, space (pp. 1–40). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lou, Jackie Jia (2017). Spaces of consumption and senses of place: a geosemiotic analysis of three markets in Hong Kong. Social Semiotics, 27 (4), 513–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makoni, Sinfree & Pennycook, Alastair (Eds.) (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Marten, Heiko F. (2019). The monolingual habitus of German society challenging the interests of an autochthonous minority language: Linguistic Landscapes in the Sorbian ‘capital’ of Bautzen / Budyšin. Apples — Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13 (3), 77–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohliger, Rainer (2011). Sinn und Deutung — Erste Schritte auf der Berliner Route der Migration. In Ulrich Raiser (Ed.), Stadt ist Migration: die Berliner Route der Migration — Grundlagen, Kommentare, Skizzen (pp. 10–26). Berlin: Der Beauftragte des Senats von Berlin für Integration und Migration.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair (2018). Linguistic Landscapes and Semiotic Assemblages. In Martin Pütz & Neele Mundt (Ed.), Expanding the Linguistic Landscape: Linguistic Diversity, Multimodality and the Use of Space as a Semiotic Resource (pp. 75–88). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfaff-Czarnecka, Joanna (2011). From ‘identity’ to ‘belonging’ in social research: Plurality, social boundaries, and the politics of the self. Working Papers in Development Sociology and Social Anthropology 3681. University of Bielefeld. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ron & Scollon, Suzie Wong (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumann, Kathleen (2022). „Frische Brot, lecker Brot, taze Brot“ — Eigene Muster in der Adjektivverwendung auf einem mehrsprachigen Wochenmarkt. Linguistik Online, 115 (3), 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumann, Kathleen, Freywald, Ulrike, Duman, İrem & Yüksel, Serkan (2021). Language contact at the market — Patterns and routines in multilingual encounters at an urban street market in Berlin, poster presented at the RUEG Conference — Dynamics of Language Contact: New Perspectives on Emerging Grammars, Variation and Change. (Virtual Conference) Berlin, February 21–23, 2021.Google Scholar
Vogl, Ulrike & Hüning, Matthias (2010). One nation, one language? The case of Belgium. Dutch Crossing, 34 (3), 228–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike (2015). ‘This migrants’ babble is not a German dialect!’: The interaction of standard language ideology and ‘us’/‘them’ dichotomies in the public discourse on a multiethnolect. Language in Society, 44 (3), 341–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike & Pohle, Maria (2016). „Ich geh Kino“ oder „… ins Kino“? Gebrauchsrestriktionen nichtkanonischer Lokalangaben. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 35 (2), 171–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike, Tracy, Rosemarie & Sennema, Anke (2020). Deutschpflicht auf dem Schulhof?: Warum wir Mehrsprachigkeit brauchen. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Yüksel, Serkan & Duman, İrem (2021). Code-Switching auf einem hochdiversen urbanen Wochenmarkt: Kommerz, Kommunikation und Identität. Linguistik Online, 110 (5), 157–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar