1. From CASA* to andegrand The Linguistic Landscape at the University of Szczecin A qualitative analysis 1Laura Zieseler, B.A.

2. From CASA* to andegrand Structure  Introduction  The University of Szczecin  The Study: object, analytical frameworks  The Items  International Office  Facutly of Mathematics and Physics  Institute of German Philology  Hall of Residence  Conclusion Laura Zieseler, B.A. 2

3. From CASA* to andegrand The University of Szczecin  Szczecin: capital of the Polish region of West Pomerania, 400.000 inhabitants, basically monolingual  Uniwersytet Szczecinski:  founded in 1985,  9 faculties,  more than 33,000 students  joined the ERASMUS programme in 1998  mutual cooperation agreements with more than 70 European academies & scientific institutions, approx. 30 partner institutions world-wide Laura Zieseler, B.A. 3

4. From CASA* to andegrand The study  To what degree has the university’s commitment to internationalisation left visible traces in its linguistic landscape?  index of this internationalisation: the presence of English as a world language Laura Zieseler, B.A. 4

5. From CASA* to andegrand The Study: A multidimensional approach Laura Zieseler, B.A. 5 Location in situ Mapping scheme (Barni & Bagna 2009) location position domain context place 3 categories of emplacement (Scollon & Scollon): decontextualised transgressive situated Authorship Readership Top-down Bottom-up intended vs. unintended readership Codes involved monolingual covert multilingual (multiple monolingualism) dominant vs. relevant vs. accessory code bi- or multilingual (visible multilingualism): four types of multilingual writing (after Reh) duplicating multilingual writing fragmentary multilingualism overlapping multilingual writing complementary multilingual writing Semiotic aspects semiotic functions: phatic/ interactional informational vocative/ directive ludic/ poetic expressive accessory code: explanatory, grammatical, informative textual genre

6. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 6 The International Office

7. From CASA* to andegrand  unregulated “forest of signs” (Ben-Rafael 2009: 43)  high density of Anglophone items – mostly posters issued by non- Polish academic institutions  items issued by the staff of the international office: Polish only  intended readership: outgoing Polish-speaking exchange students of the University of Szczecin Laura Zieseler, B.A. 7 The International Office

8. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 8 The International Office contd.  interplay between situated emplacement (Scollon & Scollon 2003) and highly recognisable international key words  language barrier can be overcome

9. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 9  duplicating bilingual item  conveyed information is identical in both codes  preferred code: English  addresses incoming ERASMUS students as well  taped to the inside of the office door AND obsolete  discarded item  transgressive semiotics - a “sign that is in the ‘wrong’ place” (Scollon & Scollon) The International Office

10. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 10 The Faculty of Mathematics and Physics

11. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 11 The Faculty of Mathematics and Physics prestigious code indexing the ambition to perceived as a “global player” eyecatcher: apronym, Italian for „house“, allusion to NASA trilingual. function: largely poetic  top-down item, overlapping multilingual writing  apronym: “The word CASA* means “house” in Italian, and it is indeed the purpose of our centre to be a house to those who conduct exobiological research in Poland.” (Universitätsrevue 2005, my translation)

12. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 12 relevant code: at first glance semiotically most important, most visible dominant code: most fully encodes meaning The Faculty of Mathematics and Physics  bottom-up ad, private language school  English  symbolic function: connotes modernity and self-improvement; meta-linguistic”  Polish: “That means three months’ worth of English (lessons) for free!”  core message, accessory function  type of bilingual writing: complementary or overlapping multilingualism?  „ambiguous multilingualism” (Cenoz and Gorter 2006: 77)

13. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 13 The Institute of German Philology

14. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 14

15. From CASA* to andegrand  “no to sru“  phonetic pun based on interlingual homophony : colloquial Polish „no to sru“  „well then, down with it!“  The situation described in the advertisement is re- contextualised into an ironic comment on academic life  “new interdiscursivity”an ironic comment on academic life  variation on the global advertising catch-phrase: “smoking kills”  excellent example of Linguistic Landscapes as a space of global heteroglossia, i.e. of hybridised global intertexts (Duszak 2004: 118/119) Laura Zieseler, B.A. 15 The Institute of German Philology

16. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 16 Hall of Residence  apartment door  threshold between public and private space  English predominates  choice of language  signals membership of an internationally oriented sub- group – skateboard scene  function: purely symbolic  high degree of unconventional linguistic creativity  “incomprehensible hieroglyphic signatures” (Pennycook 2009: 308)  reminiscent of the art of graffiti

17. From CASA* to andegrand  indexes the homepage of a Polish supplier of skateboarding equipment  an idiosyncratic spelling of “underground“ alluding to phonetic interference between English and Polish  “English from below” – the creative and non-standard appropriation of English by subcultural groups vs. “proper” “English from above”, i.e. English as promoted by the hegemonic culture or “establishment” (Preisler 1999: 241/ 242) Laura Zieseler, B.A. 17 Hall of Residence

18. From CASA* to andegrand Conclusion  A multi-faceted picture:  different types of multilingual writing,  situated and transgressive emplacement,  interlingual hybridisation  quasi-graffiti  This indicates that the theoretical frameworks developed so far are very well suited for analysing indoor linguistic landscapes, at least in a qualitative manner.  the impact of internationalisation on the Linguistic Landscape  English: a prestigious harbinger of globalisation, predominantly used as a symbolic and decorative ingredient rather than as a genuine means of communicating information  the lingua franca of international student exchange,: mostly aimed at outgoing exchange students  the linguistic minority of incoming students on the whole lacked visual public representation.  the desired globalisation and internationalisation process is still in its initial stages  low number of incoming students  the Linguistic Landscape of the university appears to adequately reflect its actual sociolinguistic reality Laura Zieseler, B.A. 18

19. From CASA* to andegrand Bibliography  Barni, M. and Bagna, C. 2009. A Mapping Technique and the Linguistic Landscape. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 126 - 140.  Ben-Rafael, E. 2009. A Sociological Approach to the Study of Linguistic Landscapes. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 40-54.  Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H. and Trumper-Hecht, N. 2006. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. In: D. Gorter (ed.) Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 7–30.  Berns, M. 2009. English as a lingua franca and English in Europe, World Englishes 28(2): 192- 199.  Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. 2006. Linguistic landscape and minority languages. In: D. Gorter (ed.) Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 67–80.  ___________________. 2009. Language Economy and Linguistic Landscape. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 55-69. Laura Zieseler, B.A. 19

20. From CASA* to andegrand  Crystal, D. 2004. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2. ed., reprinted. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.  Curtin, M. 2009. Language on Display. Indexical Signs, Identities and the Linguistic Landscape. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 221-237.  Duszak, A. 2004. Globalisation as Interdiscursivity: On the Spread of Global Intertexts. In: Duszak, A. and Okulska, U., eds. Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, pp.117-132.  Fishman, J. 1992. Sociology of English as an Additional Language. In: B. Kachru (ed.) The other tongue : English across cultures,Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press, pp. 19–26.  Gorter, D., ed. 2006. Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.  Gorter, D. 2006. Introduction. In: Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1-6.  Hanauer, D. 2009. Science and the Linguistic Landscape. A Genre Analysis of Representational Wall Space in a Microbiology Laboratory. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 287-301.  Huebner, T. 2009. A Framework for the Linguistic Analysis of Linguistic Landscapes. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 70-88.  Kachru, B., ed. 1990 (1986). The Alchemy of English : The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-native Englishes, Editiom: Illini Books ed. Published: Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. Laura Zieseler, B.A. 20

21. From CASA* to andegrand  Kelly-Holmes, H. 2000. Bier, parfum, kaas: Language fetish in European advertising, European Journal of Cultural Studies 3(1): 67-82.  Landry, R. and Bourhis R. Y. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16(1): 23–49.  Pennycook, A. 2009. Linguistic Landscapes and the Transgressive Semiotics of Graffiti. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 302- 312.  Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.  ___________. 2001. English or ‘no’ to English in Scandinavia?, English Today 66: 22-28.  Preisler, B. 1999. Functions and Forms of English in a European EFL country. In: Bex, T. and Watts, R., eds. Standard English : The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 239-268.  Reh, M. 2004. Multilingual writing: a reader-oriented typology—with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda), International Journal of the Sociology of Language 170: 1–41.  Reichelt, M. 2005. English in Poland, World Englishes 24(2): 217-225.  Scollon, R. and Scollon S. W. 2003. Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World, London: Routledge.  Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. 2009. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge.  Spolsky, B. 2009. Prolegomena to a Sociolinguistic Theory of Public Signage. In: Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D., eds. Linguistic Landscape : Expanding the Scenery, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 25-39. Laura Zieseler, B.A. 21

22. From CASA* to andegrand Laura Zieseler, B.A. 22 “Examination periods kill, got it?” “paid advertisement”