1. Poster Print Size: This poster template is 24” high by 36” wide. It can be used to print any poster with a 2:3 aspect ratio including 36x54 and 48x72. Placeholders: The various elements included in this poster are ones we often see in medical, research, and scientific posters. Feel free to edit, move, add, and delete items, or change the layout to suit your needs. Always check with your conference organizer for specific requirements. Image Quality: You can place digital photos or logo art in your poster file by selecting the Insert, Picture command, or by using standard copy & paste. For best results, all graphic elements should be at least 150-200 pixels per inch in their final printed size. For instance, a 1600 x 1200 pixel photo will usually look fine up to 8“-10” wide on your printed poster. To preview the print quality of images, select a magnification of 100% when previewing your poster. This will give you a good idea of what it will look like in print. If you are laying out a large poster and using half-scale dimensions, be sure to preview your graphics at 200% to see them at their final printed size. Please note that graphics from websites (such as the logo on your hospital's or university's home page) will only be 72dpi and not suitable for printing. [This sidebar area does not print.] Change Color Theme: This template is designed to use the built-in color themes in the newer versions of PowerPoint. To change the color theme, select the Design tab, then select the Colors drop-down list. The default color theme for this template is “Office”, so you can always return to that after trying some of the alternatives. Printing Your Poster: Once your poster file is ready, visit www.genigraphics.com to order a high-quality, affordable poster print. Every order receives a free design review and we can deliver as fast as next business day within the US and Canada. Genigraphics® has been producing output from PowerPoint® longer than anyone in the industry; dating back to when we helped Microsoft® design the PowerPoint® software. US and Canada: 1-800-790-4001 Email: info@genigraphics.com [This sidebar area does not print.] Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages in Leeuwarden Pouran Seifi MA Multilingualism INTRODUCTION CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION REFERENCES Concerning the number of languages displayed in signs, results indicate that (25.61%) of the signs in Leeuwarden have two or more languages and almost (74.39%) of the sings are monolingual. Comparing with the results of Cenoz and Gorter (2006), the number of monolingual signs have increased as much as 9.61%. Dealing with the percentage of different languages on signs, the following results were obtained: Dutch as the state language 60.52%, English 10.93%, French 0.98%, Frisian 1.14%, German 0.33% and Latin 0.49%. Table1 compares the percentages of Dutch, Frisian, English, Dutch/Frisian, Dutch/English and other combinations and languages in 2006 and 2014. Dutch has increased for 9.48% and English for 3.2%. However, Frisian as minority language in Leeuwarden has dropped to almost one third. Application of Frisian on signs is approximately as much as other minority languages like French and other combinations. Dutch is apparently the dominant language of signs and English as an international language has clear presence in linguistic landscape of Leeuwarden. Moreover, Figure1 shows the first and prominent language on bilingual signs. Dutch is top language and English, as well. However, Frisian has the modest presence in multilingual signs. Regarding the font size of languages on multilingual and bilingual signs, English and Dutch have bigger font sizes but English ones are bigger than Dutch ones. Frisian and French have small sizes. Comparing with the work of Cenoz and Gorter (2006), it may be concluded that English font size on signs has grown and replaced with Dutch and Frisian has declined in size on signs in 2014. The corpus of this study includes 613 digital pictures taken by students MA multilingualism. Pictures were coded based on the coding schema developed by Hilton (2014). It includes 10 variables. Since the time limitation, I referred to the most general areas which include type of language of signs as being monolingual or bilingual, the number of languages on the signs, languages on the signs, the prominent or top language on the bilingual or multilingual signs and font size of bi/multilingual signs. Since the number of pictures in both studies are not equal, percentage of the data were obtained in order to compare them. Frisian is the second official language in Friesland but only Dutch dominates in this region and it is the omnipresent in the linguistic landscape of Leeuwarden. The process of globalization is made visible through the presence of English in the linguistic landscape. However, it seems that the process of localization or regionalization of Frisian language is very slow or invisible even going backward. Official language policy does not include the linguistic landscape in this region. The majority of buildings in Nieuwestad street are commercial and private ones that reflect the language policy on bottom-up signs. It would be better to include linguistic landscape of the streets with official buildings to find out the influence of language policy on top-down signs, as well. Moreover, application of English in commercial signs may indicate factual information and advertising to persuade the foreigners and mostly international students to purchase goods. Overall, as Cenoz and Gorter (2006) indicate, “the linguistic landscape seems to reflect the general sociolinguistic situation as well as the intentions of language policies for the minority language” (P. 74). It seems that language policy of the government regarding improving, supporting Frisian language as the second official language was not successful in this region. Frisian is the second official language in Friesland but only Dutch dominates in this region and it is the omnipresent in the linguistic landscape of Leeuwarden. The process of globalization is made visible through the presence of English in the linguistic landscape. However, it seems that the process of localization or regionalization of Frisian language is very slow or invisible even going backward. Official language policy does not include the linguistic landscape in this region. The majority of buildings in Nieuwestad street are commercial and private ones that reflect the language policy on bottom-up signs. It would be better to include linguistic landscape of the streets with official buildings to find out the influence of language policy on top-down signs, as well. Moreover, application of English in commercial signs may indicate factual information and advertising to persuade the foreigners and mostly international students to purchase goods. Overall, as Cenoz and Gorter (2006) indicate, “the linguistic landscape seems to reflect the general sociolinguistic situation as well as the intentions of language policies for the minority language” (P. 74). It seems that language policy of the government regarding improving, supporting Frisian language as the second official language was not successful in this region. According to Landry and Bourhis (1997), linguistic landscape indicates the visibility and noticeable part of languages on public and commercial signs in a specified region. They define this term precisely as “ the languages of public and commercial signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration.”(P. 25) Gorter and Cenoz (2006) state that one of the possibilities of language analysis in context is focusing on the written information that is available on language signs in a specific area. Friesland is a province in the North West of the Netherlands. It has 646.317 inhabitants. The capital and seat of the provincial government is the city of Leeuwarden. Frisian is the second official language and 54% of the population of Friesland’s mother tongue is Frisian. (Jongbloed- Faber, 2014) This study focuses on linguistic landscape of Nieuwestad Street in multilingual city of Leeuwarden where minority language of Frisian is spoken. This study analyses the use of minority language (Frisian), the state language (Dutch), English as an international language and other possible languages on language signs. It compares the use of those languages in two different times with referring to the study of Cenoz and Gorter in 2006 and the present time. The following questions will be answered: 1. What languages are displayed on linguistic landscape of Leeuwarden? 2. What are the characteristics of bilingual or multilingual signs? 3. What are the possible changes in linguistic landscape between 2006 and 2014? 1.Cenoz, J. & D. Gorter (2006). ‘Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 67-80. 2.Hilton, N. (2014). Minority Languages: The Case of Frisian, week 3 [coding scheme].Retrieved from https://nestor.rug.nl/webapps/portal/frameset. 3.Jongbloed-Faber, L. (2014). Frisians on social media: behavior, choices and motivations. Paper presented at the Mercator conference, Leeuwarden, Friesland. 4.Landry, R. & R.Y. Bourhis (1997).’Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23- 49. 1.Cenoz, J. & D. Gorter (2006). ‘Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 67-80. 2.Hilton, N. (2014). Minority Languages: The Case of Frisian, week 3 [coding scheme].Retrieved from https://nestor.rug.nl/webapps/portal/frameset. 3.Jongbloed-Faber, L. (2014). Frisians on social media: behavior, choices and motivations. Paper presented at the Mercator conference, Leeuwarden, Friesland. 4.Landry, R. & R.Y. Bourhis (1997).’Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23- 49. Figure 1: The first and prominent language on bi/multilingual signs. Table1. Language on Signs (Percentages)