In the very ones I was to include in

In my quest around the Luxembourgish territory and
with what I already had in mind through the bibliography, I came to realize, on
a rather sensatory level, that the linguistic landscape of Luxembourg is at
least polymorphic, if not convoluted. For this reason, I have tried to locate different types of “bottom-up”
and “top-down”1,
“linguistic instances” in my effort to capture the hidden messages of what my
mobile lenses were trying to digitally decipher. Interestingly enough, after
gathering all the photos together, I was able to easily decide on the very ones
I was to include in my portfolio for very specific reasons.  The social hierarchy of languages and the defied
language policies, the language use and the lettering system would appoint on
the signs, posters and other public linguistic instances, were the first
boundaries stashing behind the semiotic borders, I had to negotiate on a personal
and perceptive level.  For instance, Picture
A symbolically operates on a level of a betoken language policy, that of
Luxembourgish becoming more officially represented. According to Shohamy
(2006), the Linguistic Landscape often stands as a mechanism for the creation
of de facto language policies in
order for the message of the centrality of a national language to be conveyed (Shohamy, 2006:110). On the one hand, such
practices of linguistic empowerment may indeed foster the public sense of
nationhood and national identity but they rather fall under the broader paradigms
of “One Nation, One Language”2.
In multilingual and multicultural settings, however, they may foster the
clustering and consequently the isolation of minority languages and their
communities from the public narrative as the latter may not have the means of
crossing such linguistic boundaries.

Contrariwise, in Picture B the exclusive use of
English can be explained in terms of functionality regarding an internationally
occupied public space, the airport. In this case, the legal restrictions on
smoking in public spaces have to be broadly communicated as any
misunderstanding risks regulatory penalizations, ergo, the use of the lingua franca as a bridging tactic. Here the linguistic borders are not
visible but they are rather insinuated, hence the “bridge”. Likewise, on a sociocultural
level, the designation of specific open smoking areas not only attests the
existence of two categories of people, smokers and non-smokers and their very
socio-defined borders but also raises questions about the fluidity and dynamics
of the open public spaces. Can a mere line really segment           something that is contiguous by definition?
These segmented and compartmentalized perceptions of spatial images are
reproduced in the modern urban paradigm and force positivist conceptions on the
socio-relational conceptions of space. (Tornaghi & Knierbein, 2015). 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

1 “bottom-up” language
displays: posted by private entities, “top-down” language displays: introduced by
governments and corporations (Shohamy & Gorter, Linguistic
Landscape: Expanding the Scenery, 2008)

2 The term is
borrowed by Paul Lang’s , (1995) .The
English Language Debate: One Nation, One Language? (Multicultural Issues)