Linguistic and cultural landscapes in interdisciplinary interaction: modern approaches to research

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of modern approaches to the study of linguistic and cultural landscapes in the context of interdisciplinary research. Linguistic landscape, as a scientific concept and approach, took shape in the 1990s. Initially focused on visible linguistic signs, it rapidly assimilates polymodal aspects of linguistic space. Such space expands from the physical to the social, symbolic and virtual. The study of the cultural landscape began with morphological and scientist branches. They developed over the course of a century, and by the end of the XXth century were enriched by the inclusion of spatial symbols, semantics, narratives and competing sociospatial discourses. The subject of the study is the analysis of interpretations of linguistic and cultural landscapes, approaches and methods formulated under the influence of worldview paradigms. The methodological basis is a comparative analysis of subject areas based on new cultural geography, sociology and linguistics. The novelty of the study lies in comparing key metaphors and trends in the theoretical evolution of the concepts of linguistic and cultural landscape, finding potential points of contact and mutual integration. The trajectories of theorizing linguistic and cultural landscapes reveal a substantive similarity with different rates of development of new research domains. As a result, the evolution of linguistic and cultural landscapes studies, the expansion of their subject area, the formation of fields of attraction and new opportunities in the study of personality, society and space were revealed. The potential for interdisciplinary interaction of the concepts of linguistic and cultural landscapes with related disciplines is considered: ethnogeography, cultural geography, philosophy and cultural studies. It is shown that the integration of linguolandscape and cultural-landscape approaches can help resolve methodological difficulties encountered in the study of local communities and thair ethnocultural landscapes.

References

  1. Landry R., Bourhis R. Y. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study // Journal of language and social psychology. 1997. Vol. 16. No. 1. Pp. 23–49.
  2. Подорога В. А. Метафизика ландшафта. Коммуникативные стратегии в философской культуре XIX–XX веков. М.: Канон+, 2013.
  3. Рагулина М. В. Культурный ландшафт: интегральный взгляд. Ульяновск: Зебра, 2015.
  4. Buttimer A. Grasping the dynamism of lifeworld // Annals of the association of American geographers. 1976. Vol. 66. No. 2. Pp. 277–292.
  5. Костинский Г.Д. Установка сознания и представление о различных традициях в географии // Изв. АН СССР. Сер. геогр. 1990. № 5. С. 123–128.
  6. Philo C. More words, more worlds: reflections on the ‘cultural turn’and human geography // Cultural turns/geographical turns. Routledge, 2018. Pp. 26–53.
  7. Mitchell D. New axioms for reading the landscape: Paying attention to political economy and social justice // Political economies of landscape change: Places of integrative power. Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 2008. Pp. 29–50.
  8. Czepczynski M. Cultural landscapes of post-socialist cities: representation of powers and needs. Routledge, 2016.
  9. Каганский В. Л. Ландшафт и культура // Общественные науки и современность. 1997. № 1. С. 134–145.
  10. Лавренова О. А. Пространства и смыслы: семантика культурного ландшафта. М.: Институт Наследия, 2010.
  11. Цыдыпова Л. С. Историко-географические особенности формирования этнокультурного ландшафта Баргузинского Прибайкалья. М.: «Научно-издательский центр ИНФРА-М», 2018.
  12. Калуцков В.Н. Ландшафт в культурной географии. М.: Новый хронограф, 2008.
  13. Соколова А.А. Ландшафт в системе традиционных пространственных представлений: географическая интерпретация диалектных образов. СПб.: ЛГУ им. А.С. Пушкина, 2007.
  14. Соколова А. А. Еще раз про ландшафт, культурную географию, этнокультурное и лингволандшафтоведение // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Науки о Земле. 2011. №. 1. С. 114–123.
  15. Соколова, А. А. Топонимический каркас культурного ландшафта // Современные направления развития физической географии: научные и образовательные аспекты в целях устойчивого развития: Материалы международной научно-практической конференции. Минск: Белорусский государственный университет, 2019. С. 594–597.
  16. Gorter D. Further Possibilities for Linguistic // Linguistic Landscape. 2006. P. 81.
  17. Scollon, R., Wong Scollon, S. // Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge, 2016.
  18. Abramova E. I. Linguistic Landscape as an object of sociolinguistics // Russian Linguistic Bulletin. 2016. No. 2 (6). Pp. 48–49.
  19. Fu W., Yang H. A Review of Research on the Relationship between Linguistic Landscape and Space // Вестник Пермского университета. Российская и зарубежная филология. 2023. Т. 15. №. 2. С. 17–23.
  20. Blackwood, R., & Amos, W. (2023). Linguistic landscapes. In The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 337–348). Routledge.
  21. Ismail N. M., Kurniadi S. Reconsidering linguistic landscape analysis: a review // Language Horizon. 2023. Vol. 11. No. 3. Pp. 18–23.
  22. Shohamy E. LL research as expanding language and language policy // Linguistic Landscape. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1–2. Pp. 152–171.
  23. Ben-Rafael E. et al. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel // International journal of multilingualism. 2006. Vol. 3. No. 1. Pp. 7–30.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).