By Venla Hakola, Anni Räsänen and Elena Vanrell
Introduction
For this project, we investigated the linguistic landscape of Kortepohja student village in the city of Jyväskylä, a university town of over 140 000 inhabitants in central Finland. Landry and Bourhis (1997:25) define linguistic landscape as “the visibility of languages in public and commercial signs in a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration” and they elaborate on this definition by saying that the linguistic material is “visible in public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place-names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings”. As such, our goal was to examine how these different linguistic materials form the linguistic landscape of the student village and to specify the contexts and cultural backgrounds behind it.
Kortepohja student village is the student apartment block of University of Jyväskylä and owned by the university’s Student Union. Currently, it houses around 2000 of the university’s students, both Finnish and exchange students alike. It is famous as one of Jyväskylä’s forefronts for performing university culture; its many intercultural events, gatherings, parties and other collective amusements are a daily occurrence. We thought this site would be particularly interesting for linguistic landscape analysis, since it is known as a multilingual and multicultural area with many exchange students, immigrant families, as well as other multicultural and multilingual contexts for language, such as schools and kindergartens. As a residential area it is a lively and busy neighbourhood that offers varying services and utilities to its residents, such as a grocery store, a library, a restaurant and study places to name a few.
In addition, two people from our three-member group live in Kortepohja, which not only facilitated our fieldwork, but also potentially gave us an insider’s perspective: we were familiar with the area and have lived there browsing the very same linguistic materials that are in focus in our project. During our fieldwork, we also noticed a change in something that hadn’t been there before; an example of this is the recycling signage in the site – this will be elaborated on later in the section in question. All in all, Kortepohja was an intriguing target for exploration in analysis – we ended up with multiple examples portraying its linguistic nature which we will examine more in-depth throughout this blog entry.
The research process
Our main objective was to examine which parts of the linguistic landscape are monolingual, and which ones are bi- or multilingual. In addition, we wanted to understand why the specific materials in question were as they are, in other words, why some materials are merely monolingual, and others are translated into other languages. Cenoz and Gorter (2008:268) point out that the representation of languages is of particular importance since it relates to both the relative power and the status of different languages in a specific sociolinguistic context. We were also interested in exploring whether multiculturality brings about bi- or multilingual linguistic material, since diversity of languages is often the result of the influx of migrants from all over the world (Cenoz and Gorter, 2008:270).
We collected our observations from various locations in the student village in order to get a varied and comprehensive picture of its linguistic landscape. We visited both older and newer buildings in order to see whether there were differences between the linguistic material in them. In addition, we visited Rentukka, which is a multi-purpose space for tenants of Kortepohja, and explored the surroundings of buildings and signage exterior to buildings. All in all, we took around 75 pictures of different types of signs, advertisements and other linguistic material around the student village in February 2020. In the next section, we will discuss and provide a more detailed description of the most representative and relevant examples. These include both bilingual and monolingual signage.
Findings
Overall, the linguistic landscape of Kortepohja student village is characterized by bilingualism. Most of the linguistic material that we discovered was written in both Finnish and English. Other languages were not present in the signage, advertisements and linguistic material which we found. Since the majority of the material distributed in the student village is in English and in Finnish, we concluded that there must be some kind of consensus about its local language policy. This conclusion was also supported by the fact that the student village’s surroundings also have some monolingual material, such as information about a construction site as well as some advertisements which were distributed by an external organization.
Recycling signs
One fascinating finding in our study was how language was used to advise the inhabitants about recycling in the area on the recycling bins and the notice boards in their vicinity. We noticed that some of the information plates on recycling bins looked very new and had text both in Finnish and English, whereas others looked old and had signs in Finnish only. This suggests that for some reason, some of the signs on the bins had been replaced by newer ones with added English translations. In image 1, the marks from the old sign are actually visible in the wood on the bin. At the same time, new symbols depicting the waste belonging to the bins had also been added. Since these signs inform the residents of the correct way to recycle their waste, we conclude that some possible reasons for these shifts are that
- The residents have asked for information also in English
2. A language policy demanded an update
3. The need arose from continuous incorrect recycling.
Image 1
Image 2
As a more subjective view on this matter, one of our group members could remember that to their recollection, the recycling bins had still had old signs the previous year when they had lived in the area. Therefore, this practice of changing the signs to add English text might be relatively recent or even work in process – as you can see from image 2, not all of the recycling bins have these newer signs.
The old-looking notice board behind the bins (image 3) had plenty of information about recycling both in Finnish and English. Still, it is most likely made ineffective by its really small text and the fact that it’s location and visuals aren’t salient enough to catch people’s attention nor interest. After all, it’s been suggested in research that the most effective way to get a message across using prompts, such as recycling signs, is to put them directly over or on the wanted target of action, so that it’s as salient as possible (White & Habib 2018, 23).
Image 3
One reason for the need to clarify the rules for recycling for non-Finnish speakers may lie in the cultural contexts of recycling habits and norms. The recycling policies in different countries can be vastly divergent, and people are often accustomed to the ones they have learnt when growing up. Therefore, even though Finns know the recycling system in Finland by heart, it might not be that self-evident to foreigners. Moreover, even within Finland there are differences in what is recycled, along with indifference towards recycling. For these reasons, it is always good to make sure nothing is left uncertain as far as informative signs are concerned. The additional visual symbol also strengthens the importance of the verbal message, as well and supports the aim of the text in case the message would not get across otherwise.
Another reason for this kind of explicitness may be the general language policy of, for instance, the Student Union of the University of Jyväskylä, who owns the majority of the apartments. These policies work to guarantee equal services to all students, including exchange students, by ensuring the availability of services and the necessities of living in a lingua franca; in this case English. Recycling is one example of these services provided to students. More general policies of the city of Jyväskylä could also be a factor in the variety in linguistic materials, since many non-Finnish speakers and Finnish language learners use the educational services in the area.
Rentukka – restaurant and multi-purpose space for students
Rentukka has a large number of signs related to the many services it offers. Some examples of these services are a restaurant, a gym and a study space. A recurrent feature of the signs in Rentukka was bilingualism: all of the signage was written in Finnish and in English. Even universally known words, like WC, are translated into English as ‘toilets’ (image 4). The signage in Rentukka supports the argument of some scholars that English could be called a “non-foreign language” because of its extensive presence in our surroundings (Cenoz and Gorter, 2008:269).
Image 4
An intriguing aspect in the signage of Rentukka is the placement, size and font of the bilingual material. Finnish text comes first in every sign, it is written with capital letters and it is in bold, whereas the English translation is always written with lowercase without bolding (images 4 and 5). In some signs the English translation is so small that one can hardly see it. In image 5, the English translation is so small that one could question the fact why it even exists in the sign. Thus, we can conclude that the Finnish text is the salient factor in each sign. The dominant language of a country is likely to be used more often, for example in place names and commercial signs, while other languages are not as common (Cenoz and Gorter, 2008:268). In the case of Rentukka’s signs, this is remarkably visible. Finnish and English co-exist but are somewhat unequal.
Image 5
Since Rentukka is mostly visited by university students whose knowledge of English is very good, the linguistic material could as well be merely in English. However, the presence or absence of languages always sends direct or indirect messages about the status of languages in a society (Cenoz and Gorter, 2008:268). If the material was merely in English, it could signal that Finnish speakers are not present at all in the Student Village although they actually constitute the majority of the tenants there. Consequently, the presence of several languages in a linguistic landscape does not merely serve an informational purpose, but it also describes the different language groups of a certain area.
In addition, the bilingualism of the signage in Rentukka enables exchange students to learn Finnish during their everyday routines. A bilingual linguistic landscape works in this case as an additional source of input for Finnish language learners.
Tenant’s information
Moreover, while searching for signs with an English translation, we noticed that at least in the older buildings of Kortepohja, the information for tenants at the entrance of the flats were only given in English. This information states how much cutlery and plates etc. the students are supposed to have when moving into the flat. We found that intriguing, as there was only English information available for this purpose. Yet, two of us who live in Kortepohja discovered that in one of their flats, the information was written only in English, while in the other flat it was given in both Finnish and in English. We wondered if this was the case only in the older buildings of the village, but as we asked about this from other students (mostly Erasmus exchange students) living in the more modern buildings, we were told that the information in their flat was only given in English. We found that fascinating as there aren’t just foreign students living in Kortepohja.
The reason for this variation might be that some flats are destined for exchange students, and thus the tenant information is written in English as Finnish would be useless. Indeed, as we can see in image 6, the text says “Exchange students have it cozy in Kortepohja”, thus only referring to exchange students, and not to Finnish students. Moreover, as we asked at the information desk of Kortepohja for more specific information, the clerk there told us that there were certain flats destined only for exchange students, so this confirmed our suppositions. There isn’t anything else particularly striking about this information sheet, except that it is only in English in some apartments.
Image 6
Signs only in Finnish
When analysing the use of the English language in the student village, we also noticed that, despite the fact that most of the signs are in English or at least translated into English, some of them are only written in Finnish. The examples we discovered were mostly signs near the construction site that are at the entrance of the student village. Indeed, some buildings in Kortepohja are currently being renovated, and some of the signs placed around them are only given in Finnish, as the one in image 7. We found these signs quite intriguing as most of the other signs we spotted were also translated in English, so we wondered why in this particular case, the translation in English was omitted.
Our initial impression was that these signs were not particularly aimed at students. Kortepohja hosts a lot of foreign students, so most of the “important” signs (such as the ones for the cafeteria opening hours, or for the information desk) are translated into English, which seems quite fair. Yet, the signs near the construction site are not particularly aimed at students. They include more general information such as the opening dates of the new buildings, thus maybe it does not require any translation for exchange students.
Nonetheless, the translation of “Ravintola Kuntosali Harraste – ja Opiskelutilat” (‘restaurant, gym, hobby and study area’) on the banner depicted in image 7, which is clearly directed to students is not translated into English. This is intriguing that information like this is not translated into English. That said, this banner is placed near a construction site allocated for new buildings that will be constructed in the future. The explanation of this may be that the most important information about the restaurant, the gym or the study area are already given in English inside Rentukka, the main building, so maybe it was not necessary to translate this banner into English. This is the only conclusion we could come up with.
Image 7
Conclusion
As our examples in the analysis suggest, English is used extensively in signs and other linguistic material in Kortepohja student village. In our analysis, we were able to recognize similar themes as Gorter (2013) does in his chapter about linguistic landscapes. One of these themes was language policy. Perhaps the extensive use of English in signs is due to the official language policies by the Student Union of the University of Jyväskylä and the city of Jyväskylä. Another theme was multimodality: we analysed linguistic elements in the signs with regard to their salience and placement, which Gorter (2013:3) also highlights in his chapter. We also discussed the absence of English translations in some signs, which shows a lack of a local or even a national language policy in relation to offering translations in English. From this point of view, English could be seen as “a minority language”.
In conclusion, the aim of the usage of English language in the linguistic material in the Kortepohja student village is probably to convey that the services and information are available not only for Finnish speakers, but also for English speakers. Additionally, another aim of its bilingualism is to orient to different language groups (almost) in an equal way. Multiculturalism brings bilingualism to the student village and it enables the representatives of different language groups to live there: for them, English functions as a vehicle language and lingua franca.
Bibliography
Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2008). Linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 257–76.
Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscape. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Blackwell.
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.
White, K. and Habib, R. (2018). SHIFT – A review and framework for encouraging environmentally sustainable consumer behaviour. Sitra Studies 132, 23.
English in Finland 