| Abstract [eng] |
Theoretical literature suggests that one of the impacts of globalisation is multilingualism; thus various language clashes appear in public space. Another result of globalisation – increased usage of English language. According to these theoretical arguments, the problem is being raised whether or not these effects of globalisation can be traced in the linguistic landscape of Panevėžys. The prime aim of this work is to look into the diversity of signs and how they establish the cultural and linguistic diversity of the city by investigating language choice of the unofficial signs (graffitis, stickers and posters) in the linguistic landscape of Panevėžys. Moreover, to scrutinize whether there are language choice differences between the signs and the written textual messages in the Central and Park areas. The methods of diversity or heterogeneity sampling, descriptive statistics and critical linguistic landscape were used for this study. There were analysed in total 1532 unofficial signs (in 608 photographs) in two areas of Panevėžys: Central area (1099 signs in Laisvės square and Senvagė) and Park area (433 signs in Skaistakalnio and Kultūros ir poilsio parks). There are 16 Tables and 250 pictures presented in the empyrical analysis of this work. The Appendix with various abridgements, acronyms, jargonisms and loanwords is attached at the end of this work. Ultimately, it can be stated that the linguistic landscape of Panevėžys, which consists of sign types and language preferences, is rather diverse. The prevailing type of written signs in Panevėžys are graffitis; stickers and posters appear comparatively rarely. The three main language preferences in the LL of Panevėžys are Lithuanian, English and Lithuanian-English language mix. Lithuanian language is largely used in writing the texts of declaring, sexual and offensive nature. English language is predominantly used in tags and political signs. Various signs with obsenites are usually written in Lithuanian and English texts. As the author of this study conducted, all Lithuanian signs chiefly use numerous Russian and Lithuanian obscene words or phrases. Typically, Russian profane loanwords are orthographically adapted to their use in Lithuanian language. The author of this work assumes that the study could be advantageous for linguists who investigate linguistic landscapes of uninational and multinational cities and analyse the phenomenon of multilinguism. Moreover, this study might be applicable for graffiti or discourse analysts who look over the written texts found in the graffitis. |
