35

研究論文

Linguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle
FU, Kenryo(Professional College of Arts and Tourism)

1. Introduction
As one of the earliest studies in this field, Landry and Bourhis (1997, p. 23) havedefined linguistic landscape (hereafter LL) as “visibility and salience of languages on
public and commercial signs in a given territory or region.” The study initiallyspotlighted the conflict between the languages on public and commercial signs inbilingual or multilingual environments (Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Cunningham & King,2021). Since then, the LL study has received a great deal of interdisciplinary attention
from scholars and researchers. Until now, relevant research has been conducted fromvarious perspectives, such as sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistic vitality, communicative
strategies, language education, etc. (Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Backhaus, 2006;
Lazdina & Marten, 2009; Amos, 2014; Cunningham & King, 2021; Chen, 2022).
The impacts of the English language use in LL vary significantly from
community to community. In non-English-speaking and local-language-dominatedcommunities or regions like Tokyo and Taiwan, the use of the English language in the
LL, i.e., the practice of bilingual or multilingual public or commercial signs, isfrequently associated with local policies of a call for globalization (Backhaus, 2006;
Chen, 2022). However, such is not the case with English-speaking communities, like
Seattle’s University District (hereafter U District), a case study of the research in thispaper. Despite the unique features of the LL in English-speaking communities, there
have been insufficient previous studies dealing with this aspect of the research.
This paper aims to expand the traditional LL studies, particularly to
English-speaking communities, and to propose another research approach via the LL
case study in the U District of Seattle. The paper starts with an Introduction in Part
One, which is succeeded by Part Two exploring the sociolinguistic background of the U
District, Seattle and the framework of the previous studies of LL. Part Two further
points out the need for research on the less observed aspect of the study. In Part Three,
an empirical research of the LL in the U District, Seattle was conducted, covering the
research method, data collection and management. Part Four carries out a discussionof the data from a pragmatic approach, specifically from an approach of positiveFU, Kenryo

36

politeness and negative politeness. Finally, Part Five concludes what has been
discussed and analyzed on the LL in the U District, Seattle.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The Sociolinguistic Backgrounds of Seattle and the University District
The Emerald City of Seattle, located in the state of Washington, is “a commercial
and advanced technology hub of the U.S. Pacific Northwest and a major port city fortrans-Pacific and European travel and trade” (Seattle, n.d.). As a port for tourism, thecity is geographically bounded by Lake Washington to the east and Puget Sound to thewest, which makes it an ideal location for water recreation and sightseeing cruises(Visit The USA, n.d.). The city thus attracts hundreds and thousands of tourists andvisitors from home and abroad. Commercially and technologically, Seattle is renowned
for being the headquarters of some global corporate giants, such as Starbucks, Amazon,
Microsoft, and Boeing (Quest & Buckley, 2023). This research is mainly focused on the
U District, a destination for culinary adventure and shopping (U District, n.d.), which
is located only one block away from the University of Washington’s (hereafter UW)
Seattle campus. The U District, whose boundaries are customarily informal, surrounds
45th Street, Brooklyn/Roosevelt, North Ave, Mid Ave and South Ave (U District, n.d.).
Demographically, Seattle also enjoys a reputation for being a multicultural andmultilingual community. A look at Fig.1 below reveals an impressive diversity of raceand ethnicity in Seattle and the U District. In Seattle, 65.7% of the population, an
absolute majority, are non-Hispanic Whites, and 14.1% of the citizens are Asians,
which further means residents with more different cultural backgrounds. Other racial

Fig. 1 Race and Ethnicity in Seattle and the University of District(Statistical Atlas, n.d.)Linguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle

37

and ethnic groups in Seattle include Hispanic, Black, Mixed, and so on. The racialand ethnic diversity in the U District is quite similar to that in Seattle, with
non-Hispanic whites at 52.7% and Asians at 31.3%. Though white-dominated in raceand ethnicity, Seattle and the U District have a much higher ratio of the minor ethnic
groups (34.3% and 47.3%, respectively) than Tokyo (2.8% registered foreign residents
according to Backhaus).
2.2 Official and Nonofficial Signs
The LL research subjects or public and commercial signs may range extensively
from “street names” and “advertising signs” to “security information” according to theprevious studies in the past decades. Landry and Bourhis’ mention of six types of signsin (1), Spolsky’s eight major types of signs in (2), and Lazdia and Marten’s 23
parameters in Table 1 are among the representative previous studies into the LL. The
great variety and discrepancy in the sign classification are observed in (1), (2) andTable 1. For the sake of brevity and a focused discussion on the issue, the paper further
introduces the literature on official and nonofficial signs (Calvet, 1990, 1994; Backhaus,2006).
(1) The language of public road 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. The linguistic landscape of a territory can serve two basic
functions: an informational function and a symbolic function.
(Landry & Bourhis, 1997, p. 25)(2) Eight major types of signs
Street signs
Advertising signs
Warning notices and prohibitions
Building names
Informative signs (direction, hours of opening)
Commemorative plaques
Objects (postbox, police call box)
Graffiti(Spolsky, 2009, p. 34)

FU, Kenryo

38

Table 1: The Parameter “Type of Sign”(Lazdia & Marten, 2009, p. 216)
Parameters

NumberName of establishment

1

Other sign of establishment

2

Sign at establishment not by the establishment

3

Product on display, e.g., in a shop window

4

Street sign

5

Personal name plate

6

Sticker

7

Advertising poster

8

Graffiti

9

Security information

10

Private information

11

Official information

12

Sign allowing/prohibiting something

13

Direction sign on private shop or similar

14

Credit card sign

15

Security sign

16

Timetable

20

Political information/slogan

21

Memorial sign

22

WiFi sign

23

Student card sign24

Sign at door (interphone, post box or similar)

25

Other

99

Backhaus (2006, p. 53), based on previous research on LL in Calvet (1990, 1994),
points out that an important variable is “the distinction between official andnonofficial signs.” The distinction, illustrated in (3), falls on the point that official andnonofficial signs are established by different language planners for different purposeswith different strategies. Official signs tend to reveal a monolingual image of a given
territory, while nonofficial signs often reveal a multilingual image of the territory. The
contradiction and interaction between these two types of signs are summarized byLandry and Bourhis in (4) below. The different strategies adopted in communication
between language planners and language receivers are further elaborated in Part Four
below.

Linguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle

39(3) Between what is written by the authority (the names of roads, for instance, ortraffic rule signs) and what is written by the citizens (the names of shops, graffiti,commercials, etc.). There are two different ways of marking the territory, two
inscriptions into the urban space.
(Calvet, 1990, p. 75; translation by Backhaus)(4) In some cases, the language profile of private signs and government signs may bequite similar and thus contribute to a consistent and coherent linguistic landscape.
There are instances, however, in which the language of private signs is quite
discordant with the language profile of government signs.
(Landry & Bourhis, 1997, p. 27)
2.3 Negative Face and Positive Face
Landry and Bourhis (1997) have stated that the LL of a given region can serve an
informational function and a symbolic function. The informational function involves
such participants as the addresser, i.e., the sender of the information, and theaddressee, i.e., the recipient of the information. In this paper, we claim that the former
function further involves communicative strategies that the addresser employs to
avoid or minimize any face-threatening acts (FTAs), which can be efficiently clarified
by Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness and negative politeness as defined in (5)and (6) below.
(5) Positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his
perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting fromthem) should be thought of as desirable.
(Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 101)
(6) Negative politeness is redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative
face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention
unimpeded.
(Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 129)
3. The Seattle Survey
3.1 About the Survey
The field survey of the LL in the U District of Seattle was conducted by theauthor between July 26th and August 8th, 2022. Photography was used as a primarymethod for recording the public and commercial signs as data for this research. During
the stay, the author randomly took photos of a great variety of signs in the U District,mainly the UW’s Seattle campus, University Village (hereafter U Village), and theneighboring regions. The photos were all taken through the eyes of a pedestrian. The

FU, Kenryo

40

photos also include some temporarily installed signs for the summer events in thecommunity, such as Fig. 2 and (7) below.
(7) EVENT TONIGHT! Please drive carefully!

U VILLAGE

Fig. 2 EVENT TONIGHT! Please drive carefully!
(Photo by the author, the same applies hereafter)

3.2 Methodology
This paper is a qualitative study aiming to analyze and clarify the features of thesigns in the U District, based on the photos taken during the author’s stay in Seattle.
The analysis is conducted from the perspectives of multilingualism and the politenesstheory. The former perspective concentrates on the language uses of monolingual andmultilingual signs, mostly nonofficial signs, and the languages’ respective roles in the
English-speaking community. On the other hand, in the latter perspectives of positive
politeness and negative politeness, the focus is placed on the official signs that are
related to warning and forbidding notices because these signs are of great authorityand power in hindering and impeding the addressee’s freedom and actions.
4. Data Analysis and Discussions
4.1 Multilingualism and Monolingualism in the Language Use of LL
In the U District, monolingual signs (English-only signs) display an absolutemajority of the photos taken for this research over multilingual signs. In themonolingual signs as Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the English language plays a dual role as the
local language and the EFL (English as a lingua franca), the latter being a global
means of intercommunity communication. Due to the great racial diversity in theaddressees of the LL in the U District, i.e., locals, international students, and foreignLinguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle

Fig. 3 University Village Entrance

41

Fig. 4 Road Work Ahead

tourists, the largest common denominator of the languages or potential languages is
the English language. Further, it is even more challenging to determine the second
widely used language in the community due to the great degree of diversity in race andethnicity, as discussed above. As a result, monolingual signs are extensively installedin this community, except for restaurants and shops of foreign origin.
Among an extremely limited number of bilingual and multilingual signs in the U
District, Fig. 5 and Fig 6 are two examples with the presence of Chinese and Japanesein addition to English. The multilingual information on these two signs is arranged indifferent manners. In Fig. 5, the Chinese and English languages partially constitutemutual translations of each other (fragmentary), while in Fig. 6 the Japanese andEnglish languages completely constitute mutual translations of each other(duplicating) (Reh, 2004). In Fig 5, the English translation, “PANDA Noodle Bar,”
which is not a word for word translation, along with five Chinese characters, i.e., xin

jin long mian ba (literally new golden dragon noodle bar), appeals to a broader reach of
potential customers. Fig. 6 exhibits Japanese Katakana (one of the two Japanesesyllabaries) and a word for word English translation in a duplicating way. This LL
strategy naturally creates an atmosphere of the respective restaurants that satisfies“the belongingness and love needs” particularly of the visitors bonded to or interested
in China (or Chinese) and Japan (or Japanese) (Maslow, 1954, pp. 80-92). The
customers’ sense of being welcomed and loved can be triggered by the LL of therestaurants.

FU, Kenryo

42

Fig. 5 PANDA Noodle Bar

Fig. 6 KATSU BURGER
The multilingual sign strategy can beobserved in another example of multilingual
signs, i.e., a temporary standing flaglike
signboard at the entrance of Suzzallo Libraryat the UW. The LL on the UW campus, ingeneral, is similar to that in the U District,with most of the signs being monolingual. Fig.
7 is one of the limited number of multilingual
signs on the campus, including five languages,i.e., Chinese, English, Japanese, Korean, andSpanish.

Suzzallo

Library,theinterior

decorating and atmosphere of which remind
visitors of some Harry Potter movie scenes,
has become a popular sightseeing site among
Fig. 7 Quiet Area

many international students in various
summer programs at the UW. For example,

STEP, one of the language and culture programs provided by the university, included
the library as a part of the campus tour for the participants on the orientation day. The
intended addressees become apparent in this context; therefore, the choice of thelanguages is easily conducted by the language planners of the LL on the campus tosatisfy the addressees.

Linguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle

43

4.2 Positive Politeness in LL
LL is a communicative medium that transmits on-the-spot information from theaddressers or sign installers to the addressees or the information recipient. This paper
hypothesizes that the medium includes not only the visible and salient language usewith designs (Landry & Bourhis, 1997) but also the communicative strategies adopted
by the addresser in order for successful communicative activities. To verify theaddresser’s strategies in the warning and forbidding signs in the U District, Seattle,
Brown and Levison’s negative politeness and positive politeness are suggested.
In Brown and Levison’s positive politeness (1978, p. 102), Strategy 15 of “giving
gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)” is applicable to nonofficial
signs like Fig. 8 and (8) below. The sign is a message for staff recruitment of a shop in
U Village. These “gifts” are further interpreted in this paper as a kind of compliment tothe addressees of the sign. After the main message of “We’re Hiring!” on the sign, theinstaller’s good mastery of words corresponds to a positive politeness strategy ofcomplimenting the intended addressees.

Reading the message on the sign, thepotential applicants may feel that they are needed, “liked, admired, cared about,understood” (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 129).

Fig. 8 We’re Hiring!
(8) We’re Hiring! We have everything we need to inspire our customers. Except you!

FU, Kenryo

44

4.3 Negative Politeness in LL
Negative politeness in the light of warning and forbidding signs is much more
complicated, necessitating a revised version of Brown and Levinson’s negative
politeness strategies. In Brown and Levison’s negative politeness, on the one hand,
there is a “want to BE DIRECT” or minimum imposition as in (9) below; on the other
hand, “negative politeness corresponds to Durkheim’s ‘negative rites,’ rituals of
avoidance” (1978, p. 129). When imposition (Be Direct) and avoidance (Do not coerce)
clash, conventional indirect strategies as in (10) are usually preferred. (11), an indirect
imposition, is one conventional example of compromise between imposition andavoidance. In Fig. 2 or (7) above, the sign calling for careful driving during the event
was temporarily set up on the event day of August 3, 2022. The reason, i.e., EVENTTONIGHT, is displayed saliently at the very beginning in bigger capital letters, inorder that the imposition of not being able to drive as usual is minimized by detailing
reasons. Fig. 4, or (12), is a similar example, which further shows dominant emphasison the reason since the purpose of setting up this sign, i.e., the potential activity ofcareful and slow driving, is not even explicitly verbalized. However, in the warning andforbidding signs from (13) to (22), the addressees approaching these official signs need
immediate and prompt action to stop or slow down. Otherwise, they will face the riskof life in a traffic accident due to violating the traffic laws. In the specific case of LL,
the clash between this urgent reminding and avoidance ends with not the above
indirect imposition but a newly suggested direct (but short) imposition, which isnamed “the plain language strategy” in this paper.
(9) Nevertheless, intuition tells us that there is an element in formal politeness thatsometimes directs one to minimize the imposition of prolixity and obscurity.
(Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 130)(10) In linguistic realizations --- conventional indirectness, hedges on illocutionary
force, polite pessimism (about the success of requests, etc.), the emphasis on H’s
relative power --- are very familiar and need no introduction.
(Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 130)(11) Can you please pass the salt?
(Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 133)
(12) ROAD WORK AHEAD(13) EXIT ONLY(14) ONLY BUS(15) SPEED LIMT 25(16) STOP(17) YIELDLinguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle

45(18) SLOW(19) NO PARKING(20) PED XING
(21) DO NOT ENTER(22) ONE WAY
4.4 The Plain Language Strategy in LL
The plain language strategy, as a newly suggested negative politeness strategy,
can efficiently ease the imposition on the readers of the official warning and forbidding
signs. This strategy is fulfilled due to the features of plain language in (23) and (24)that meet the addressees’ need to spend the least time (while driving) to understandand respond to the signs from (13) through (22). There appear some unique traits inthe expressions on the official warning and forbidding signs from (13) to (22). First, allof them are short, no more than three words. The shortest one has only one word, as in(16), (17) and (18). Second, straightforward and unambiguous words are used toincrease the readership as much as possible. Third, shortened versions of long words
are created. For instance, longer words or phrases like “pedestrian crossing” areavoided by creating shorter words like “PED XING” as in (20) above.
(23) Direct, accessible language is often called plain language. Plain language isdesigned to communicate information as clearly as possible so it can reach as
many people as possible.
(Kramer, 2023)(24) For example, signage at a train platform might include the sentence “Wait behindthe yellow line.” This plain sentence includes the line’s color so travelers know
where to stand and wait. The signage likely wouldn’t include a sentence with
unnecessary details like “Wait behind the yellow line until the train arrives andthen walk into the train in an orderly fashion to avoid injury.” Even though thesedetails are true, they don’t add any critical information to the sentence.
(Kramer, 2023)
5. Conclusions
We have so far explored the LL in English-speaking communities, focusing on thecase study of the LL in the University District of Seattle. The analysis of the official
and nonofficial signs the author collected on the field trip to Seattle was conductedfrom perspective of positive politeness and negative politeness in pragmatics. The
analysis has shown that the newly suggested strategy of “be direct” efficiently
analyzed the communication between the addresser and addressee of the warning andFU, Kenryo

46

forbidding signs in the LL. The plain language used in the official signs has also been
proven to supplement the negative politeness strategy in LL communication. Since theabove analyses were limited the case study of the U District, Seattle, a follow-up study
into the LL should be carried out for a further step of the study.

References
Amos, W. (2014) Global languages in local spaces: Rethinking multilingualism in the
linguistic landscape of Toulouse, Track Changes Special Issue: ShefLing PGCProceedings 5(1), 1-13.
Backhaus, P. (2006) Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape.

International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 52-66.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978) Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, S. C. (2022) Multilingual cityscape as symbolic construction of the public spacein Taiwan: A study of two urban settings, In S. H. Mirvahedi (Ed.), Linguistic
Landscapes in South-East Asia: The politics of language and public signage (pp.
30-51). London: Routledge.
Cunningham, U. & King, J. (2021) Information, education, and language policy in the
linguistic landscape of an international airport in New Zealand, In G. Niedt. & C.
A. Seals. (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Beyond the Language Classroom (pp.
97-115). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kramer, L. (2023). A guide to using plain language in writing. Retrieved April 2nd,
2023 from https://www.grammarly.com/blog/plain-language/
Landry, R. & Bourihis, R. Y. (1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality:
An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16 (1), 23-49.
Lazdia, S. & Marten, H. F. (2009) The “linguistic landscape” method as a tool in
research and education of multilingualism: Experiences from a project in theBaltic States. In A. Saxena & Å. Viberg. (Eds.) Multilingualism: Proceedings of the

23rd Scandinavian Conference. Uppsala: ACTA UNIVERSITATS UPSALIENSIS.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Quest, R. & J. Buckley (2023) Seattle: The US city that keeps changing the world.
Retrieved July 4, 2023, from https://seattlemedium.com/seattle-the-us-city-thatkeeps-changing-the-world/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.
Seattle (n.d.) Seattle newcomer's guide. Retrieved July 4, 2023, from https://www.

Linguistic Landscape in an English-Speaking Community:
A Case Study of the University District of Seattle

47

seattle.gov/customer-service-bureau/newcomers-guideSpolsky, B. (2009) Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
25-39). New York: Routledge.
Statistical Atlas (n.d.) Race and ethnicity in Seattle, Washington. Retrieved July 4,2023, from https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Washington/Seattle/Race-and-Ethnicity
U District (n.d.), retrieved July 9, 2023, from https://www.udistrictseattle.com/about
Visit The USA (n.d.), retrieved July 7, 2023, from https://www.visittheusa.com/
destination/seattle?no_geo_redirect=true