À PARIS, ON NE SORT JAMAIS SANS SON ACCESSOIRE TENDANCE: A Mixed-methods Linguistic Landscape Study of Signs Used in France, Italy, and the Netherlands during the COVID-19 Pandemic

(1)

À PARIS, ON NE SORT JAMAIS SANS SON ACCESSOIRE TENDANCE:

A Mixed-methods Linguistic Landscape Study of Signs Used in

France, Italy, and the Netherlands during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2019-2020

Minyan Zhao (Cheyann)

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of RESEARCH MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Marina Terkourafi Second reader: Dr. Dick Smakman Date of submission: December 18th_{, 2020} Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University

(2)

Abstract

The construction of signs in the linguistic landscape (henceforth LL) of a given territory is driven by different reasons, and it can reflect upon an area’s cultural, social, political, and economic circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic that influenced all countries in the year 2020 has kept a common and stable topic for many signs, which provides a unique opportunity to conduct a comparative LL study. The current study investigates COVID-19 related signs displayed on public transport, shop windows, city noticeboards, inside museums and churches in France, Italy, and the Netherlands. By conducting a mixed-method comparative study in three European countries that were (and still are) affected by the pandemic to different degrees, this study contributes to detecting how their multilingual status, identities, cultural values, and socio-political differences are constructed through a combination of linguistic and visual/multimodal representations, using LL signs as a relevant dataset. The data include 766 COVID-19 related signs collected from July to September 2020, in densely populated, urban areas of France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The quantitative and qualitative results show that monolingual ideologies prevail in France, in line with the country’s long-lasting “one nation, one language” policy known as “the Toubon Law”. The French signs heavily emphasized the importance of following the rules for the sake of safety and public health as well as illustrated the Parisian identity as a fashion hub. France also had the highest number of multimodal signs, showing a greater focus on visual representation to get important messages across during the pandemic. Italy featured a fair amount of English influence on LL signs, which may reflect the importance of tourism to economic recovery in the summer of 2020. A trademark of the Italian data were the many unique and humorous signs, which, alongside the low percentage of government-created signs used during COVID-19, reflect the cultural values of the country (use of humour in response to adverse conditions, preference for individual efforts, distrust of government). The Netherlands featured the highest proportion of English influence in LL signs, in line with the country’s high proficiency in English. Minority languages spoken by large immigrant communities were better represented in the Netherlands, showcasing its linguistic and ethnic diversity. Solidarity, collective action and cooperation were emphasized in many COVID-19 related signs, illustrating Dutch cultural values and the fact that people in the Netherlands may have more trust in their government compared with France and Italy.

(3)

Acknowledgements

My biggest thanks to my supervisor, Prof. dr. Marina Terkourafi, who has provided me with an incredible amount of guidance, feedback, and supports throughout this thesis in the past five, stressful months. I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Dick Smakman, who taught me the course Sociolinguistics that I thoroughly enjoyed. For this thesis, I want to thank all informants and friends who have given me valuable information based on their native speaker intuitions, Alberto, Audrey, Marie, Rebecca,

ضاير, Sophie, Theo, and Thom; especially Alberto, who accompanied me on my field trips to Italy and France, and Rebecca, who proofread the last chapter. Thanks also to Prof. Gijsbert Rutten for making the ResMA thesis seminar happen online during the pandemic, and all colleagues who participated in the thesis seminar for motivating and helping each other.

I am forever grateful for the following people, without whom I might not have survived this research master programme. Dr. Mily Crevels, you encouraged me big time when I first came to Leiden in February 2019. I had really tough times back then, so it meant a lot. All my friends in Leiden, especially Rebecca, Thom, and Lucy, for all the good times we had together and for keeping each other going. The parents, for always having faith in me and financing my masters. Grandma, hundreds of minutes of long-distance calling brought me the greatest joy. Alberto, the year 2020 wasn’t all that bad since I didn’t have to deal with it alone.

(4)

3.3 Summary ... 20 4 Method ... 21 4.1. Data Collection ... 21 4.2. Data Analysis ... 25 5 Results ... 34 5.1. Quantitative Results ... 34 5.2. Qualitative Results ... 51 5.3. Summary ... 76 6 Discussion ... 77 6.1 France ... 77 6.2 Italy ... 78 6.3 The Netherlands ... 80 6.4 Comparison ... 80 7 Conclusion ... 84

7.1 Summary of the Dissertation... 84

7.2 Contribution of the Dissertation ... 85

7.3 Addressing Issues ... 86

7.4 Future Research... 86

(5)

List of Figures

Figure 1 Bilingual Frisian-Dutch sign in Burgum, Friesland © Edelman, 2010: 98 ... 5

Figure 2 Sign with RIVM in The Hague, the Netherlands ... 18

Figure 3 Sign with DPCM in Varazze, Liguria, Italy ... 19

Figure 4 Sign with USPO in Paris, France... 20

Figure 5 Sign with CIC in Paris, France ... 20

Figure 6 Governmental floor print in The Hague, the Netherlands ... 22

Figure 7 Flag hanging outside a church in Monastero Bormida, Piedmont, Italy ... 24

Figure 8 Different signs on the same shop window in The Hague, the Netherlands ... 25

Figure 9 Combined sign from Swarovski in The Hague, The Netherlands ... 27

Figure 10 Combined sign on a shop window in Paris, France ... 27

Figure 11 Ambiguous sign in Paris, France ... 28

Figure 12 Image of a smiling mask without text in Paris, France ... 29

Figure 13 Floor sticker inside The Body Shop in Paris, France ... 30

Figure 14 Bilingual Dutch-English sign on a tram in Amsterdam, the Netherlands ... 33

Figure 15 Sign types in France, Italy, and the Netherlands: Number (Percentage) ... 35

Figure 16 Governmental sign issued by Ville-Palaiseau in Palaiseau, France ... 36

Figure 17 Private sign created by 2SPAM in Varazze, Liguria, Italy ... 37

Figure 18 Number of languages on signs: Number (Percentage) ... 38

Figure 19 Trilingual French-English-Chinese sign in CDG airport, Paris, France... 39

Figure 20 Pentalingual Dutch-English-German-French-Spanish sign in The Hague .. 40

Figure 21 Language frequency on the monolingual signs in France ... 41

Figure 22 Language frequency on the monolingual signs in Italy ... 42

Figure 23 Language frequency on the monolingual signs in the Netherlands ... 42

Figure 24 Monolingual English sign in Cinque Terre, Liguria, Italy ... 43

Figure 25 Monolingual Chinese sign in The Hague's Chinatown, the Netherlands .... 43

Figure 26 Bilingual English-Korean sign in The Hague, the Netherlands ... 45

Figure 27 Complementary sign on a shop window in Paris, France ... 46

Figure 28 Duplicating sign created by a bakery in Varazze, Liguria, Italy ... 46

Figure 29 Overlapping sign created by a Chinese restaurant in The Hague ... 47

Figure 30 Fragmentary sign in Amsterdam’s Red-light District, the Netherlands ... 48

Figure 31 Modality of signs: Number (Percentage)... 48

Figure 32 Pirate with a face mask at the entrance of a sweet store in Paris, France.... 49

Figure 33 Old sign from the first phase of COVID-19 in Varazze, Liguria, Italy ... 50

Figure 34 Solidarity themed, private sign in Leiden, the Netherlands ... 53

Figure 35 Solidarity themed, private sign in Amsterdam, the Netherlands ... 53

Figure 36 Solidarity themed, private sign in Paris, France ... 54

Figure 37 Solidarity themed, private sign in Rome, Italy ... 54

Figure 38 Safety themed, fragmentary, private sign in Paris, France ... 55

Figure 39 Safety themed sign in Amsterdam, the Netherlands... 55

Figure 40 Safety themed, complementary, private sign in Florence, Italy ... 55

Figure 41 Threat themed sign outside the Palaiseau train station, France ... 57

Figure 42 Threat themed, private sign in Varazze, Italy ... 57

Figure 43 Threat themed, private sign in Rotterdam, the Netherlands ... 57

Figure 44 Threat themed, governmental sign in Rome, Italy ... 57

Figure 45 Humour themed sign in Paris, France ... 58

Figure 46 Humour themed sign in Celle, Liguria, Italy ... 59

Figure 47 Humour themed seat sticker inside a church in Rome, Italy ... 60

(6)

Figure 49 Humour themed floor sticker in Leiden, the Netherlands ... 60

Figure 50 Humour themed sign in Leiden, the Netherlands ... 61

Figure 51 Humour themed sign in Leiden, the Netherlands ... 61

Figure 52 COVID-19 posters on a noticeboard in Rotterdam, the Netherlands ... 62

Figure 53 COVID-19 posters retrieved from © stay-sane-stay-safe ... 62

Figure 54 Motivation themed poster in Rotterdam, the Netherlands ... 63

Figure 55 Handwritten sign by an Italian restaurant in Paris, France ... 63

Figure 56 Motivation themed poster in The Hague’s Chinatown, the Netherlands .... 64

Figure 57 Ambiguous sign on several shop windows in Paris, France... 65

Figure 58 Protest sign (top left corner) stuck on XiaoMi’s sign in Paris, France ... 65

Figure 59 Protest themed graffiti in Pisa, Italy ... 67

Figure 60 Protest themed graffiti in Rome, Italy ... 68

Figure 61 Sign displayed on a LUSH store in Pisa, Italy ... 69

Figure 62 Sign displayed on a LUSH store in Amsterdam, the Netherlands... 69

Figure 63 Solidarity themed floor tape in Florence, Italy ... 71

Figure 64 Sign with checkmark ✘ and emoji in Rome, Italy ... 72

Figure 65 French sign with an English hashtag in Paris, France ... 72

Figure 66 Commercial sign in The Hague’s Chinatown, the Netherlands ... 73

Figure 67 Commercial sign in The Hague, the Netherlands ... 73

Figure 68 Private sign in Rotterdam, the Netherlands ... 74

Figure 69 Trilingual Dutch-French-English created by Bellerose in Paris, France ... 75

Figure 70 Bilingual Italian-Chinese sign on a bookstore window in Florence, Italy .. 75

Figure 71 Symbolic use of Arabic on a sign created by a mosque in The Hague ... 82

(7)

List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of Ben-Rafael’s (2009) principles in Edelman (2010: 16) ... 7

Table 2 Summary of Reh's (2004) framework of multilingual sign typology ... 9

Table 3 Review of a quantitative approach in LL in Blackwood (2015: 43-48) ... 12

Table 4 COVID-19 national measures in the Netherlands ... 17

Table 5 COVID-19 national measures in Italy ... 18

Table 6 COVID-19 national measures in France ... 19

Table 7 Overview of data collection ... 23

Table 8 Overview of sign types and their criteria ... 28

Table 9 Categories for the monolingual signs and their criteria ... 29

Table 10 Combinations of languages for the multilingual signs ... 30

Table 11 Types of modality and their criteria ... 31

Table 12 Common themes and how to identify them ... 32

Table 13 Language frequency in France, Italy, and the Netherlands (N=756) ... 40

Table 14 Combinations of languages on the multilingual signs ... 44

Table 15 Type of multilingualism based on Reh’s (2004) framework ... 45

Table 16 Solidarity themed contents in Dutch, taken from different signs ... 52

(8)

1. Introduction

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind. Do this. Don’t do that. Can’t you read the sign?

– Five Man Electrical Band, “Signs”, 1970

1.1 Motivation for the Dissertation

Despite being a relatively new branch in sociolinguistics, linguistic landscape (LL) analysis has a lot to offer. Studying signs can help us diagnose the language situation and multilingual status of a given territory, examine the social structure of a society by looking at how languages spoken by various ethnic communities are represented, understand the identity and cultural values of a community, and so on. Besides, the great joy of conducting such a LL study is that I am constantly surrounded by an incredible amount of data. They are visible signs everywhere with COVID-19 related content, which can be perfectly described by the song “signs” mentioned above, usually telling us to Do this. Don’t do that. Some of them display the following messages as a reminder of COVID-appropriate behaviours:

houd 1,5 meter afstand (Dutch, “keep 1.5m distance”) laissons ce siège libre (French, “let’s leave this seat free”) è obbligatorio indossare la mascherina (Italian, “wearing a mask is obligatory”)

The current study chose to collect LL data during the COVID-19 pandemic in multiple research areas for the reason that the pandemic is a common event that influenced all countries. It provides a point of departure for a comparative study of the language choice and language use on the LL in the chosen countries because the topic of all the signs is kept stable: COVID-19 related information or preventive measures. A few existing comparative LL studies mainly focused on comparing the LL of two or more places with different sociolinguistic contexts in the same country, for example, Edelman (2010) chose Amsterdam and Friesland (a Dutch province with its regional language Frisian) as her research areas to investigate the presence of minority languages in the LLs and compare their multilingual status. The current study endeavours to contribute to the comparative LL literature from a different perspective given that the pandemic has provided stable contents for many LL signs, such as those safety measures stuck on shop windows, public transport, and noticeboards. However, some signs that were traditionally included in most LL research, such as street names or shop names, are not part of my research interests because they tend not to display any COVID-19 related content and thus irrelevant to the data.

France, Italy, and the Netherlands were chosen as the research areas in the current study because they are adjacent to each other, yet they took different approaches to the pandemic, were differently affected by it, and also have different language policies regarding LL. In this way, a comparative study around a common theme – the COVID-19 pandemic – could be expected to reveal interesting points of convergence and divergence in LL practices in the three countries.

(9)

1.2 Research Question

The comparative LL study using the dataset of COVID-19 related signs collected in France, Italy, and the Netherlands during the summer of 2020 aims to investigate the following research question:

How do the signs used during the COVID-19 pandemic reflect and construct the multilingual status, identities, cultural values, and socio-political differences of France, Italy, and the Netherlands?

Given the explorative nature of the research question and that LL is a recently developed field in sociolinguistics, a mixed-methods approach was used to combine quantitative analysis based on a set of variables developed by previous research with a more in depth, descriptive qualitative analysis based on signs’ contents.

1.3 Outline of the Dissertation

This dissertation contains five parts: the theoretical framework, the background of the present study, the methodology, the quantitative and qualitative results, and the discussion and conclusion. A brief overview of each part is listed as follows.

Chapter 2 reviews the theoretical framework of the study of LL, discussing different definitions and recent developments, important features, and raising methodological issues in the field.

Chapter 3 presents the background of the current study, providing an overview of the sociolinguistic context and language policy of France, Italy, and the Netherlands, as well as the COVID-19 measures adopted in the three countries during the data collection period, and introducing popular COVID-19 related acronyms.

Chapter 4 describes how the data were collected and analysed in this study. For quantitative data analysis, each variable examined in this study is defined and established. For qualitative data analysis, how to analyse the content of COVID-19 related signs is also explained with defining criteria. In the last section of this chapter, an example of coding is provided.

Chapter 5 presents the quantitative results by variables for each country, followed by a summary of comparative results. This chapter then describes the qualitative results with examples collected in the three countries, followed by illustrating how different resources come together on signs.

Chapter 6 and 7 discuss the main findings and compare them with existing literature, provide possible answers to the research question, state the main contribution of this study, address the drawbacks, and make suggestions for future research.

(10)

2. Theoretical Framework and Prerequisites

2.1 Linguistic Landscape as a Dynamic Concept

Despite being a relatively new subject in the field of sociolinguistics, Linguistic Landscape (LL) studies have been consciously developed and broadened for the past 20 years. The classic concept of LL is provided by the pioneer work of Landry and Bourhis (1997) in Canada, where they defined LL as follows:

The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combine to form the LL of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration. (p. 25)

Not only did they provide a fundamental concept for LL, their research on the representation of languages in LL in a multilingual context and how it can have an impact on the language attitudes and identity construction of French Canadian minorities in Canada has also attracted many researchers around the world to investigate LL from the perspective of language and power, language policy, minority and immigrant communities, sociolinguistics and ethnolinguistics. In Landry and Bourhis’ empirical research, a more qualitative framework was adopted and a questionnaire was established to investigate French Canadians’ experiences and attitudes towards LL signs.

Another relatively straightforward conceptualization of LL provided by Gorter (2006) is the language around us in its textual form “displayed on shop windows, commercial signs, posters, official notices, traffic signs, etc.” (p. 1), which some people hardly ever notice. Followed by this concept, he reminds us of the importance of studying both the content of a sign and its language presence, as the studies inspired by Landry and Bourhis (1997) mentioned previously. Which languages are represented and how they are presented in the LL is particularly important to study because it is often associated with identity and culture especially in today’s globalised world (Gorter, 2006). Furthermore, Gorter also points out that the concept of LL can be used in different ways by different researchers, in either its general sense or loose sense. In its general sense, Sciriha and Vassallo (2001) used it to refer to a country’s (Malta) language situation; and Kreslins (2003) used it to describe the variety of languages in a geographically broader area (the Baltic area). In its loose sense, LL “can be synonymous with or at least related to concepts such as linguistic market, linguistic mosaic, ecology of languages, diversity of languages or the linguistic situation” (Gorter, 2006, p.1). In its early stage, LL research focused on the linguistic element or textual element on the signs. Public signs without any linguistic elements were not considered as part of the LL based on those previous narrow definitions. This has now been further developed and expanded over the years under the influence of theories of multimodality. Pütz and Mundt (2019) conclude that the conceptualisation of LL has evolved during the past 2 decades:

… from purely language-related matters to semiotic conceptions of communication (with a focus on visualisation) and finally to multimodality as an interdisciplinary and all-encompassing approach that understands

(11)

communication and representation to be more than one language or language variety. (p. 4)

Recent studies have thus defined LL in a broader sense. It nowadays includes not only written texts or linguistic components in public spaces, but also a variety of other non-textual components, such as images, drawings, objects, graffiti, and even tattoos, sounds, smells, clothes, food, history, and people (Shohamy, 2019). The notion of

semiotic landscape is thus established. Recently, researchers have taken care to analyse

LL from a more, if not purely, semiotic perspective. For example, Jaworski (2019) has analysed the art of displayed silence and non-verbal communication in commercial signs in Hong Kong and investigated how the use of silence is related to power and authority and its social and cultural meaning.

An important question concerns whether the representation of multiple languages in LL always represents the languages spoken and heard by people in that area. The question of whether languages represented in LL correspond to the actual language situation in a given territory is raised by several researchers (Shohamy, 2019). In order to further investigate it, a recent study by Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) has examined Hebrew, Arabic, and English signs in areas where Arabs and Jews live in Israel. One important finding that led to their definition of LL is that languages used in LL do not necessarily represent the actual languages used by people in that area, nor their proficiency in those languages. For example, shop owners sometimes use a non-local language to create a sign and put it up on their shop windows to attract customers without knowing one word in that language. These considerations have led to an even wider conceptualization of LL by Ben-Rafael et al. as follows:

LL represents the décor of public life and as such it carries emblematic significance. It is in this sense that LL’s composition - whatever its chaotic aspects - can be referred to as symbolic construction of the public space. (p. 10)

2.2 Sign Types, Functions, Multilingualism, Multimodality, Interdisciplinarity

2.2.1 Sign Types

Signs are usually distinguished into two categories based on who created them: public signs and private signs. The distinction has already been made in Landry and Bourhis (1997), which remains to be an important feature of LL research. Just as their names indicate, public signs are issued by public authorities, such as the government, municipalities, and public agencies like the national health department. Private signs, on the other hand, are created by individuals or non-governmental associations and organisations. Landry and Bourhis specifically draw our attention to private signs, stating that “sociolinguistically, language diversity in private signs may most realistically reflect the multilingual nature of a particular territory, region, or urban agglomeration” (p. 27). Other terms are also frequently used in LL research to refer to the same distinction: Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) use top-down and bottom-up signs, Coluzzi (2009) uses official and unofficial signs, while Edelman (2010) uses

(12)

Sign type, together with other characteristics, is often coded and quantified in LL research (Gorter, 2006). Many studies have investigated the differences in language use in signs based on sign type, the dimension of official versus nonofficial, or governmental versus individual. In most instances, the two sign types are adequate to code all the data. Nonetheless, they may not serve the purpose of coding certain signs given that sometimes whether a sign is created by a government or not can be difficult to tell. This issue will be further addressed with examples collected in this study in 4.2.1.1 in Chapter 4.

2.2.2 Functions of Linguistic Landscape Signs

The presence of language on a sign can be informational or symbolic, as shown in many studies (see Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Spolsky & Cooper,1991). A sign can simply give information about a certain street or shop, an advertised product, or specific rules of an area. For example, three signs with an informational function are as follows (see Edelman, 2010, p. 1):

Fietsen worden verwijderd (Dutch, “Bicycles will be removed”)

NEW collections (English)

HER PAZAR AÇIĞIZ … (Turkish, “We are open every Sunday”) On the other hand, languages on signs are very often used symbolically to communicate power, shape identities, or signal the status of a given language or community in a certain area. Gorter (2006) notes that language presence on signs is found to be heavily associated with identity and cultural globalisation, as seen in the growing number of signs in both English and minority languages. Edelman also points out, “linguistic landscapes do not occur in a social vacuum” (p. 11). This function can be illustrated by an example of a sign in both Frisian and Dutch shown in Edelman (p. 98) in Burgum, Friesland, the Netherlands. The sign looks like this:

Iepen fan ôf: Moandei 13:30 Tiisdei - Sneon 10:00 Geopend vanaf: Maandag 13:30 Dinsdag-Zaterdag 10:00

Figure 1 Bilingual Frisian-Dutch sign in Burgum, Friesland © Edelman, 2010: 98

The owner of this shop chose to put Frisian on top with a slightly bigger font and Dutch at the bottom, which symbolizes their identity and the fact that they value their language and culture. This is also mentioned by shop owners themselves during an interview, where they told the researcher that Frisian is “really important” to them and they “feel closely connected to the language” (as cited in Edelman, 2010, p. 97).

According to Landry and Bourhis (1997), the presence of a certain language on public signs signals the Ethnolinguistic Vitality (EV) of the community associated with that

(13)

language in a given territory. That is, once an in-group language is granted visibility on public signs, that symbolizes “the vitality of the ethnolinguistic group in other institutional support domains such as cultural production and commercial and religious activities” (p. 28). On the contrary, if an in-group language does not appear on public signs, that signals that that language is not valued as such in the society as a whole. That can lead members of that language community to devalue their own language and community, refuse to pass it to the next generation, and eventually result in a loss of EV. Even worse, any deliberate exclusion or even banning of a language’s appearance on public signs can lead to a group’s disenfranchisement and cause societal problems (see Spolsky & Cooper, 1991 for how political regimes can influence LL). Landry and Bourhis (1997) specifically mentioned that the absence of minority languages on public signs is a common issue in many multilingual areas, which directly triggered many graffiti campaigns in protest, asking for language inclusion in areas where minority language speakers reside. Typical areas experiencing this issue mentioned in their study include the Basque Country, Catalonia, Wales, and Québec (p. 28).

In order to explain the great diversity of LL signs and further explore their constructions and functions, a sociological framework based on sociological theories is proposed by Ben-Rafael (2009), including four principles that may drive LL construction. They are:

1. Presentation of self 2. Good reasons 3. Power relations 4. Collective identity

Based on his explanation, presentation of self and collective identity are both principles concerning matters of identity. The first one emphasizes uniqueness, indicating sign makers choose to express their own identities through the lens of their personal language choices; while the last one emphasizes likeness to a particular group of the general public, indicating sign makers choose to commit to this specific group only. This is also where the principle of collective identity is first mentioned in the literature on LL. Ben-Rafael also points out that a society that is highly tolerant of sociocultural differences can produce signs expressing collective identity in the LL. As an example of collective identity, Edelman (2010) notes the use of “halal” or “kosher” on signs created by food stores to attract their target groups of customers based on their special dietary needs. The second principle, good reasons, emphasizes how sign makers actively adapt their signs to publicly valued languages and to the values of potential audiences. This principle was first established by Boudon (1990), where he provided the hypothesis “one would be able to interpret LL’s structures and characteristics in terms of the interests of LL actors vis-à-vis the public” (cited in Ben-Rafael et al., 2006, p. 10). An example of this is the presence of English (and sometimes even Chinese) on signs at train stations or on (souvenir) shop windows and restaurant menus in iconic hotspots for international tourists in Italy, such as Cinque Terre. The third principle,

power relations, emphasizes the aspect of power, indicating that groups with more

power or dominant groups in the society can impose their languages on signs used in subordinate groups. The aspect of power in the LL is also discussed in Landry and Bourhis (1997):

Given that it is the dominant language group that can most effectively control the state apparatus regulating the language on public signs, one can consider the

(14)

relative position of competing languages in the linguistic landscape as a measure of how the dominant group treats the linguistic minorities inhabiting the given territory. (p. 29)

Each principle in Ben-Rafael’s (2009) sociological framework leads to a hypothesis concerning which kind of languages should be present in LL. They are explained in Edelman (2010, p. 16) in Table 1. These principles and their corresponding hypotheses will be used to discuss the results regarding language frequency in 6.4 in Chapter 6.

Table 1 Summary of Ben-Rafael’s (2009) principles in Edelman (2010: 16)

Ben-Rafael’s Principles Corresponding Hypotheses

1. Presentation of self Languages carrying prestige [emphasis added] in a particular setting are present in the LL

2. Good reasons Languages that in general are positively valued [emphasis added] by the public are present in the LL 3. Power relations The language of the dominant [emphasis added]

group is used more than the languages of subordinate groups

4. Collective identity The languages of minority [emphasis added] groups are present in the LL

2.2.3 Linguistic Landscape and Multilingualism

Multilingualism is defined by Franceschini (2009) as “the capacity of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage on a regular basis in space [emphasis added] and time with more than one language in everyday life” (p. 33). Therefore, a multitude of languages is reflected in multilingual and multicultural areas or societies not only in people’s code-switching or borrowing, but also in visually represented LL in the public sphere (Pütz & Mundt, 2019). As Shohamy et al. (2010) also point out, the linguistic variation found in LL can reflect upon a country or an area’s cultural, social, political and economic circumstances. This has been traditionally focused on in many LL studies, using a quantitative method and statistics to show the representation of multiple languages and drawing conclusions about language and power, language policy, ethnolinguistic validity, identity construction, and social justice towards minority or immigrant communities.

For example, Buchstaller and Alvanides (2019) have investigated language use in the LL of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, whose official languages are both English and its indigenous language, Marshallese. They point out that Marshallese as a symbol of local cultural heritage is in fact quite marginalized by the widespread use of English, and therefore the government has taken measures to protect Marshallese, including using bilingual signs as a language policy. Under the circumstances, Rubdy (2015) considers LL in the Marshall Islands as “not just indexical or symbolic but politically and ideologically motivated” (p. 7).

(15)

So how do people decide which languages to use for creating their signs? Spolsky and Cooper (1991) propose three possible reasons for language use in LL, which are called three conditions by them. They are explained as follows in Edelman (2010, p. 18):

1. Sign-writer’s skill condition: Write signs in a language you know

2. Presumed reader condition: Prefer to write signs in the language(s) that intended readers are assumed to read

3. Symbolic value condition: Prefer to write signs in your own language or in a language with which you wish to be identified

Among these three conditions, the second one emphasizes the communicative goal of public signs. It can be commonly adopted by tourist dense areas, or areas where a large minority community resides. For example, consider the use of Chinese in any Chinatown or any tourist hotspots in Europe. The third condition, on the other hand, typically applies to commercial signs, for example, the use of French for perfumes and Italian for food. It corresponds to the definition of LL of Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) as the

décor of public life (see section 2.1 above).

Scollon and Scollon (2003) provide two different categories, geopolitical indexing and

symbolization based on sociocultural associations, which roughly correspond to

Spolsky and Cooper’s (1991) second and third conditions. For instance, a sign with Chinese on it in an area where a large Chinese community is located, such as the city of Prato in Italy, is considered geopolitical indexing. While the use of Japanese on signs from a restaurant to indicate it is a Japanese restaurant with authentic Japanese cuisine is an example of symbolization based on sociocultural associations; in reality, it can be run by a Chinese owner or anyone else.

When a sign is multilingual, the proportion of each language shown in the sign does not necessarily have to be the same. Very often, the amount of text in each language is different, for which Cenoz and Gorter (2006) assigned a variable called ‘amount of information’. Edelman (2010) later referred to this variable as ‘amount of text’ in her study. However, she reminds us that sometimes it might not be fair to compare the amount of text, because not every language needs the same amount of text to convey the same information. Intrinsic linguistic factors and cultural factors together can lead to different styles of creating signs by different language groups. This is especially true for languages that are not closely related. For example, one can easily measure and compare the amount of text for conveying the same message between Dutch and English, but the same cannot be said between Dutch and Chinese. Finally, Spolsky (2009) points out that the order of languages on multilingual signs matters because it can show the sign designer’s symbolic value of different languages. The use of Frisian before Dutch on a sign in Friesland (Figure 1) is a good example of this.

To better analyse multilingual signs, Reh (2004) proposes a useful typology based on how information is arranged in a multilingual sign. There are four types of possible arrangements among different languages: duplicating, fragmentary, overlapping, and

(16)

Table 2 Summary of Reh's (2004) framework of multilingual sign typology

Category Criteria

Duplicating The same message is duplicated in all languages Fragmentary The full message is only given in one language, other

languages contain some selected (fragmented) information Overlapping Different information is given in each language, but all

languages contain a shared (overlapped) part of the information

Complementary Different information is given in different languages. They complement each other and form the whole message all together

Sebba (2007) simplifies Reh’s (2004) framework and distinguishes only between two types of multilingual signs: parallel and complementary. Parallel can be seen as a synonym of Reh’s duplicating, and complementary means the same in both studies. According to Sebba (2007), parallel multilingual signs are intended for monolingual audiences, while complementary ones are intended for multilingual audiences. For the purpose of this study, Reh’s (2004) typology of analysing multilingual signs proves to be more useful because it is more comprehensive when describing the multilingual data.

2.2.4 Linguistic Landscape and Multimodality

As mentioned previously in 2.1, recently the concept of LL has been broadened from purely linguistic matters to a multimodal way of communication, with the development of the notion of semiotic landscape. Multimodality most commonly refers to a relation between linguistic (or textual, writing) and non-linguistic (non-textual, visual) semiosis (see Jewitt, 2009). The book Expanding the Linguistic Landscape edited by Pütz and Mundt (2019) has a more in-depth overview of recent studies on multimodality and semiotic landscapes.

Some researchers, especially in the past, refused to include non-textual information in public spaces as part of the LL, while now more and more researchers openly embrace the broadened version of LL, and started experimenting with this new idea. For example, Pennycook and Otsuji (2015) have conducted a LL study on smells in a multicultural suburb in Sydney, where they explored the relations between what they called

linguascapes and smellscapes. They argue that smell, as a part of the semiotic landscape,

has long been overlooked in the field. To fully make sense of the landscape, one also needs to catch the scents together with other LL elements. An example of smellscapes mentioned in the study is the smell of mixed South Asian spices in a Bangladeshi store. In their words, “senses (including smell), objects (bags of rice, pots and pans) and language (newspapers, texts on the rice bags, conversations) are deeply intertwined” (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015, p. 192). In particular, they have mentioned signs such as

No durian and NO RAW/PRESERVED SEAFOOD found in Malaysia from an open

market to avoid unwanted odours that can rule over (and ruin) all other sweet smells. Pennycook and Otsuji adopted the olfactory ethnography approach to study suburb smellscapes, especially smells that called to them, including those from Chinese

(17)

medicine shops, Greek restaurants, Turkish cafés, etc., and interviewed people on how smells could attract certain groups of customers. They conclude that exploring smells opens a brand-new world to make sense of people and spaces, because “smells, food, artifacts, language, people, smiles, and rituals, that are part of the everyday practices and spatial organization” (p. 203) of a shop are all linked to each other and create the LL altogether.

This expansion of the field has led to a major debate asking: “where are the boundaries of LL?”. According to Shohamy (2019), although the boundaries or limits of LL have always been discussed at every conference, “the general feeling of the LL community is not to set boundaries as to the meanings and definitions of LL” (p. 29) at least for now, because it is still a new and growing field. She also reminds us to keep an open mind and encourage the innovations of studies that pushing LL research into new directions.

2.2.5 Interdisciplinarity

Since the early 2000s, LL has been expanding and emerging as an interdisciplinary research subject valued by a variety of disciplines. Shohamy (2019) gives an overview of the disciplines that LL was anchored in:

… politics, economics, semiotics, gender, sexuality, education, literature, law, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, language policy, language teaching and learning, art, tourism, ethnic studies, immigration and urbanism. (p. 26)

LL research has always been contextualized to be tailored to different needs of these disciplines, and therefore different methodologies and designs are also adopted for various purposes, including quantitative studies, qualitative studies, mixed-methods, critical discourse analysis, ethnography, historical approaches, and descriptive approaches (Shohamy, 2019).

2.3 Methodological Issues in the Study of LL

As the above review makes evident, the concept of LL has not remained static over time. Technological advancements have also played a role in these developments. In the decade that followed the publication of Landry and Bourhis (1997), the introduction and subsequent widespread use of smartphones with an integrated digital camera allowed researchers to focus on actual language use on signs by taking a large number of photographs or even videos and storing them digitally to be analysed. A more quantitative method is therefore adopted by many researchers in analysing the representation of languages on public signs by counting and coding them in terms of their function, frequency, and distribution (see Backhaus, 2007; Barni & Bagna, 2010). In Seals’ (2017) words,

Early studies of LL engaged with the LL itself as a static entity that [was] made up of written texts in the public sphere that could be documented once through photographs and then quantitatively analyzed in order to look into instances of language dominance and realizations of language policy. (p. 267)

(18)

Although the process of taking photos of signs itself is a rather easy task to accomplish, LL researchers often face the methodological problem of what signs to photograph, where, and how many are considered enough (Gorter, 2006).

For any quantitative study, it is very important to define how to count signs and what exactly constitutes a sign to start with. There are two major ways of counting signs in the study of LL adopted by different researchers. The first way considers each sign as one unit, as seen in Backhaus (2006):

A sign was considered to be any piece of written text within a spatially definable frame. The underlying definition is rather broad, including everything from handwritten stickers to huge commercial billboards. Also such items as ‘push’ and ‘pull’ stickers at entrance doors, lettered foot mats or botanic explanation plates on trees were considered to be signs. Each sign was counted as one item, irrespective of its size. (p. 55)

Backhaus also clarifies in the case of something without any frame, such as graffiti, it should also be viewed as one sign, which is very relevant for my dataset.

Another way of counting signs is that all the signs from the same shop are considered as one sign only, explained by Cenoz and Gorter (2006):

[I]n the case of shops and other businesses each establishment but not each sign was the unit of analysis, that is, it was considered ‘one single sign’ for the analysis. So, when a bank or shop had its name on the front but also a number of advertising posters on the windows it was considered one sign. (p. 71) Nowadays, LL research is providing more opportunities for integrating quantitative and qualitative methodologies, including discourse analysis, ethnography, sociolinguistic questionnaires, and interviews. Moreover, the methodology adopted in recent LL research is also getting more and more sophisticated and interdisciplinary, because the boundaries of LL are getting larger and recent studies are getting more innovative (see Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015; Jaworski, 2019). In summary, Blackwood (2015) explains the development of analysing LL data as follows:

The quantitative approach has come to be reduced in one particular narrative to the counting of signs, whilst qualitative research is portrayed as permitting analysis of a selection of signs from which wider conclusions can be drawn. (p. 38)

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches adopted in LL research are seen to have their benefits and challenges. Blackwood (2015) provides an overview of the methodological challenges and opportunities of using a quantitative approach, based on his LL research in overseas French territories and parts of European France with a focus on France’s regional languages, which can be summarized as follows (p. 43-48):

(19)

Table 3 Review of a quantitative approach in LL in Blackwood (2015: 43-48)

A quantitative approach

Benefits Comparability It allows cross-referencing among data

for comparative and contrastive purposes

The diachronic potential

LL can potentially provide indicators of language change

Challenges The paucity of signs in the Regional

Languages

It leads to results that are grounded in the selection of a definitive number of survey areas

Seeing both the benefits and the problems that a quantitative approach can bring to LL research, Blackwood proposed a symbiotic approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative aspects. A qualitative approach, in his opinion, cannot stand on its own due to the lack of abilities to provide comparative or diachronic data. As a result, a symbiotic

approach also referred to as a mixed-methods approach, allows a quantitative approach

to count and code the signs collected in definable research areas in order to provide contextualized results, which further enables close analysis and better understanding through the use of a qualitative approach (p. 49). By critically reviewing the existing methodologies of data analysis, the current study thus adopted a mixed-methods

approach, as Blackwood suggested, to suit the research goal.

2.4 Summary

To conclude, this chapter has addressed the concept of LL, and how LL has been defined by different researchers over the years. The functions of language presence on signs, which can be informational and/or symbolic, have been illustrated with examples. Several important notions such as ethnolinguistic vitality (Landry & Bourhis, 1997) and frameworks such as Ben-Rafael’s (2009) principles of LL construction (see Table 1) and Reh’s (2004) multilingual sign typology (see Table 2) were reviewed in detail for analysing and discussing the results of the current study. The most recent developments of LL under the influence of multimodality theories have also been mentioned with a review of several recent studies regarding semiotic landscape. Moreover, several important variables that are commonly discussed in the study of LL were introduced, including sign types, language representation, and modality. These variables serve as the base of quantitative analysis in this study.

In the last section, some methodological issues in the study of LL were raised. I also discussed how recent studies have been trying to solve them and critically reviewed different approaches. More specific methodological issues encountered in this study will be further addressed and solved in Chapter 4 with examples from the data.

(20)

3. The Present Study: Sociolinguistic Context, Language Policy, and

COVID-19 Related Measures in the Three Countries

As explained in the introduction, this thesis will investigate signs related to the COVID-19 pandemic in three European countries: France, Italy and the Netherlands. In this section, I briefly introduce the sociolinguistic profile of the three countries and summarize previous work on LL carried out in these countries. Additionally, I overview the relevant regulations related to COVID-19 in each country and introduce the public agents responsible for issuing these measures, as these relate to the analysis of signs that follows in the rest of this study.

3.1 Sociolinguistic Context and Language Policy

3.1.1 The Netherlands

Dutch is the official language of the Netherlands. However, that does not make it the only language that the Dutch speak, nor the only language present in the Dutch linguistic landscape. In the Netherlands, English is spoken by 90% to 93% of the population. To show how common and normal English is in the Netherlands, in her research on the functions of English in the Netherlands. Edwards (2016) used the quote

Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al Engels genoeg “Just act normally, that’s already

English enough” by slightly changing a common Dutch saying Doe maar gewoon, dan

doe je al gek genoeg “Just act normally, that’s already crazy enough” (p. 35).

Meanwhile, Thrift (1994) considers the Dutch economy to be one of the most highly globalised ones worldwide, tightly linking the country with the outside world. Globalisation together with the widespread use of English in the Netherlands inevitably influences the linguistic landscape in the Netherlands. Edelman (2010) also notes that Dutch people in general speak a fair amount of foreign languages, with English, German, and French being the most common ones besides Dutch. English plays an important role in teaching, from primary school until, and especially, in Higher Education. English is also an important language in the Dutch media: films, TV programmes, and advertisements in English are widely accessible and popular.

Besides foreign languages involved in the Dutch education system and the media, a significant amount of foreign languages has also arrived from abroad. Immigration since the 16th_{century from (now former) Dutch colonies, including Indonesia,} Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, followed by labour migration from Turkey and Morocco, up until now has contributed to the linguistic diversity of the Netherlands (Edelman, 2010). In summary, the Dutch population has relatively good contact with a variety of foreign languages as a result of globalization and immigration. When it comes to the country’s language policy for the linguistic landscape, unlike some countries such as Canada and Thailand that have an explicit policy for languages used on signs, the Netherlands has no official guidelines for the language used on private signs, nor strict policies for government signs. Edelman (2010) specifically mentions that in Chinatown in Amsterdam, where a huge Chinese immigrant community is settled, street names are written in both Dutch and Chinese were

(21)

introduced by the local authorities in 2005. The local authorities may have considered adding “some local colour for commercial reasons” (p. 38) considering many tourists do visit Amsterdam’s Chinatown.

3.1.2 Italy

In her investigation of immigrant languages in Italy, Barni (2008) provides a brief description of the sociolinguistic context in Italy:

Overall, our national linguistic identity is still marked by the coexistence of a vast range of idioms, varieties and registers. Nonetheless, the Italian-speaking camp is in constant and increasing expansion, and the trend towards linguistic unification seems ever clearer. (p. 219)

Barni notes that a shared spoken Italian used by the vast majority of Italians has been reinforced since the unification of the country in the 19th_{century. However, the strong} driving force to establish a homogenous version of Italian has inevitably damaged its traditional linguistic diversity.

According to statistics, the number of immigrants in Italy has been growing and accounted for 8.2% of the overall population in 2017. Since historically the Italian Colonial Empire (Impero Colonial Italiano) existed for a very short time with a limited number of colonies compared to France and the Netherlands, the immigration waves mainly happened after the enlargement of the European Union. In 2019, ethnic Romanians were the largest minority group living in Italy, followed by Albanians, Moroccans, and Chinese 1_{. After 2007 when Romania entered the EU, Romanians do} not count as non-EU immigrants anymore in Italy; so Albanians are the largest non-EU immigrant group nowadays in Italy. Immigration brings linguistic diversity to Italy, just as in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, Barni’s research has shown that only in large cities did these immigrant languages become largely visible, because large cities are usually where immigrants chose to settle and cluster.

According to Barni, looking at the territory where languages are represented can give us a lot of information. International languages such as English, French, Spanish, German can be seen around tourist-dense places or historical monuments, while other immigrant languages such as Chinese, “tend to cluster in specific areas, leaving no space for other languages” (p. 232), as in the area of Esquilino in Rome. On the other hand, in busy stations and airports in big cities like Rome, all the languages are present in the urban LL.

Several other LL studies have been carried out in different areas of Italy, including some who investigated urban settings. For example, Coluzzi (2009) investigated language use in public signs in Milan and Udine in Northern Italy. To take Milan as an example, his goal was to investigate language representation in LL with a focus on how much Milanese, a local language that has not been recognized as a language but rather as a dialect (a notorious issue in Italy, see De Mauro, 1994), is used in the LL. Among the 188 units of signs collected, 76% of them were only written in Italian; 21.8% were

(22)

multilingual (Italian plus at least another language), and 2.1% were in English only. Coluzzi (2009) notes that English appeared most frequently in multilingual signs (97.5%), followed by French (9.7%) and German (4.8%). Other than that, several language varieties made their appearance only once, including Milanese, Turkish, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, and Latin (p. 303). In Udine, the percentage of Italian monolingual signs was even higher, reaching 86%. In summary, his research showed that regional languages are almost invisible in the LL in Italy, and immigrant languages “share only a limited part of the linguistic landscape” (p. 310), while English is relatively visible, although maybe not as much as it is in other countries. Coluzzi reminds people of the drastic language shift happening nowadays in Italy, and the trend among minority and regional languages to disappear given they almost do not share the LL with the state language, Italian.

When it comes to Italy’s language policy on linguistic landscapes, an early purist language policy was announced in 1874, mentioned in Tosi (2001): commercial signs in a foreign language would be charged a higher tax. This purist policy was later abandoned; in Tosi’s words, Italy “has never invested much energy in language policy, with the exception of the nefarious Fascist attempts” (p. 20). Nowadays, there is no explicit policy for the language use of public signs. With the great influence of TV and media, commercials partially or fully in English are even considered as more powerful and influential for advertising purposes (p. 211).

3.1.3 France

As concerns the linguistic situation in France, as Caubet (2008) described, “the prestige of the French language is a well-known phenomenon and France has a strong tendency to see itself as monolingual” (p. 163). Linguist Pierre Encrevé even uses religion de la

langue to describe the unique status of French for the Republic. Caubet also points out

that France values the equality of all citizens and no one should be discriminated against because of origin, race, or religion. Therefore, “there are no official statistics in France relating to ethnicity, race or religion” (p. 163). However, one can find statistics on immigrants by INSEE (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques). According to these statistics, in 2019 immigrants among whom 46.5% were born in Africa, accounted for 9.9% of the whole population. The most frequent countries of birth of immigrants to France are Algeria, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia, and Italy 2_. Nowadays, the largest proportion of immigrants is located in the Parisian urban area 3_. The proportion of immigrants seems similar to Italy, but the situation is fundamentally different because immigration waves to Italy are more recent; while in France, many immigrants are from (former) French colonies, including Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Their descendants are therefore second-generation or third-generation immigrants, just as the situation in the Netherlands mentioned previously.

When discussing immigrant languages in France, Caubet notes that immigrant languages such as Arabic, despite its large speaker population in France, is not recognized as a regional or local language in France, but always a foreign language. In his words, the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs in France “refuse

2_{Retrieved October 8, 2020, on}_{https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3633212}

(23)

to recognise or pay tribute to the actual languages and cultural contributions of an increasingly large proportion of the population of France” (p. 188), by which he refers to the immigrants from Northern Africa and their descendants.

Regarding the language policy on LL in France, La Loi Toubon “the Toubon Law”4 (law 94-665 of 4 August 1994) is a strict language law defending the status of French, which states that it is mandatory to use French in all official/governmental publications, advertisements, workplaces, commercial contracts, and state-financed schools. Any information in a foreign language is required to be accompanied by a French translation. Otherwise, a fine of at least 750€ will ensue. Private signs or non-commercial communication are, however, not regulated by this law.

According to Takhtarova et al. (2015), the influence of English on the LL in Paris is remarkable. Their study points out how English borrowings and grammar have influenced the use of French on the LL. Meanwhile, they note that the French not only preserve their language by law, but also in practice: using French for popular newspapers, magazines, websites, and media in general. Other LL studies done in France include a case study of two Chinese Restaurants owned by Wenzhou-born Chinese immigrants in different Chinatowns in Paris, using ethnographic linguistic landscape analysis (ELLA) to investigate how they express their ethnic Wenzhou identity through the LL in their shop (see Lipovsky & Wang, 2019); and a comparative study of the language representation in the LL in Brittany and Corsica (see Blackwood, 2011).

3.1.4 Comparison of the LL profile of the three countries

In summary, the overview of the sociolinguistic context in the three countries indicates the existence of greater diversity in LL in the Netherlands compared with France and Italy, influenced by the minority languages spoken by the large immigrant communities in the country (Turks 2.37%, Moroccans 2.33%, Indos 2.08%, Surinamese 2.05%, etc. in 2019 5_{) and the unique status of English. The domination of French in France is} stronger than Italian in Italy and Dutch in the Netherlands, also because France is the only country with a strict language policy defending the status of their official language. In Italy, although such policy does not exist anymore, the state language Italian still overpowers other languages or dialects in the LL. However, English is of growing importance in both Italy and France.

3.2 COVID-19 Measures and Popular Acronyms

This section examines different COVID-19 measures adopted by the national government of The Netherlands, France, and Italy during the data collection period of the study: from July to September in the year 2020. It is important to give an overview

4_{Named after Jacques Toubon, who proposed the law to the National Assembly, for more details of}

this law, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law and https://www.alphabet-linguistics.com/loi-toubon-understanding-french-language-regulations/, accessed on October 8, 2020.

5_{Retrieved November 24, 2020 on}

(24)

of the different measures announced by the three countries in different periods, because the content of most COVID-19 related signs was directly decided by these measures. The acronyms for important actors who announce these measures will also be given and explained for each country, because some acronyms frequently appeared on the signs collected in this study.

3.2.1 The Netherlands

Table 4 COVID-19 national measures in the Netherlands

Month COVID-19 measures Source links (accessed

on October 9, 2020)

July From an intelligent lockdown to less restrictive rules. General rules apply:

• Stay 1.5 metres

• Wear a face mask on public transport • Wash your hands often

• Avoid busy places and travel off-peak hours if

possible

• Stay at home and get tested if you have symptoms. The situation will be re-assessed around 1 September. If the virus is still under control, nightclubs will be allowed to re-open https://www.governme nt.nl/documents/public ations/2020/06/24/pres s-conference-about- coronavirus-new-rules- from-1-july-explained-in-simple-language

August A tightening up of measures compared to July. New rules added to the general rules:

• Max. 6 guests at home

• Self-quarantine for 10 days if you have travelled to

a region with an orange travel advisory or been in contact with someone who has tested positive

https://www.governme nt.nl/latest/news/2020/ 08/18/let-s-keep-coronavirus-out

September No easing of measures at present to prevent a second wave of infections.

Nightclubs stay closed.

More new measures were announced on 28 September but irrelevant to the current study

https://www.governme nt.nl/latest/news/2020/ 09/01/government- takes-stock-of- measures-to-combat-spread-of-coronavirus

All the national measures against COVID-19 are announced during de persconferentie

van minister-president Rutte [the national press conference by the Dutch Prime

Minister Mark Rutte], where he makes statements on new national measures and directly talks to the people. New measures announced during the Dutch national press conference would usually be in force for the next 3 weeks if the situation were under control.

RIVM, which stands for Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, is the Dutch national institute for public health and the environment. It provides the latest information and government measures with regards to the new coronavirus. The acronym RIVM can be often spotted on the COVID-19 related signs found in the Netherlands (e.g. Figure 2).

(25)

Figure 2 Sign with RIVM in The Hague, the Netherlands

3.2.2 Italy

Table 5 COVID-19 national measures in Italy

Month COVID-19 measures Source documents and links

(accessed on October 9, 2020)

July It is obligatory to wear a face mask on public transport, in shops, restaurants, public offices, hospitals, workplaces, and places where it is not

possible to keep one metre distance.

Efforts to introduce greater flexibility regarding travel demonstrate initial steps toward a re-opening of Italy’s borders and boosting its economy in the near future.

DPCM 14 luglio 2020

https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/in sights/2020/07/flash-alert-2020-320.html

August The obligation to use masks in closed places open to the public is confirmed, as well as respecting the social distance of at least 1 meter between people and the recommendation of washing hands properly and frequently

DPCM 7 agosto 2020 http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/n uovocoronavirus/dettaglioNotizie NuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=en glish&menu=notizie&p=dalminist ero&id=5016

September Irrelevant to the current study

DPCM, which stands for decreto del presidente del consiglio dei ministri [decree of the president of the council of ministers], has suddenly become the most popular acronym during the pandemic in Italy. The unique Italian DPCM system functions as follows: in emergencies, the prime minister Giuseppe Conte, who is also the president of the council of ministers, can issue a decree without going through the parliament to act

(26)

directly on the situation. This allows measures to be taken more efficiently. Therefore, DPCM issues all the new national measures since the rapid spread of the virus in Italy in February 2020. Its acronym is also frequently shown on COVID-19 related signs in Italy (e.g. Figure 3).

Figure 3 Sign with DPCM in Varazze, Liguria, Italy

3.2.3 France

Table 6 COVID-19 national measures in France

Month COVID-19 measures Source links (accessed

on October 10, 2020)

July It is obligatory to wear a face mask in enclosed public spaces https://www.connexionfr ance.com/French- news/France-to- introduce-new-measures- at-airports-as-COVID-19-fears-grow August Irrelevant to the current study

September In Paris and some other French cities, wearing a face mask in public is now mandatory. This rule only applies to pedestrians, but not to cyclists or joggers.

An “enhanced alert” in Paris and other red zones in France, bars and restaurants are required to close at 10pm.

https://www.completefra nce.com/travel/coronavir us-2020-is-it-safe-to- travel-to-france-1-6555880

New national measures on COVID-19 in France are announced through the President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron’s public speech Adresse aux Français [Address to the French]. COVID-19 updates and measures can be found on the French government’s official webpage6_. _{The French Ministry of Solidarity and Health,}

Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (MASSDF) plays an important role in

dealing with public health issues. However, this acronym is not found on any

(27)

19 signs collected in the current study. Their website7_{about COVID-19 also directs you} to check the information on the French government webpage.

Acronyms of French associations, on the other hand, have been spotted on COVID-19 signs. For instance, USPO, standing for Union des Syndicats de Pharmaciens d’Officine [union of the dispensary pharmacists community], see Figure 4; and CIC, Crédit

Industriel et Commercial, a French financial services group, see Figure 5.

Figure 4 Sign with USPO in Paris, France Figure 5 Sign with CIC in Paris, France

3.3 Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the sociolinguistic contexts and language policies in the three countries as background for analysing the LL data in this study. Different national measures fighting against the pandemic announced during the research period have significantly influenced the content of the COVID-19 related signs, which will be taken into consideration when making a comparison. Given the particularity of the data, which are created under the global pandemic COVID-19, the established frameworks and frequently investigated variables in previous LL research, such as the governmental-private sign type distinction, may not be adequate to describe the current dataset. Therefore, a number of modifications made to the frequently adopted frameworks will be shown in Chapter 4 to address the problems that occurred in data analysis and contribute to a potentially new research direction in the field: LL under a global pandemic.

7_{Accessed on November 24, 2020. See} https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/soins-et-maladies/maladies/maladies-infectieuses/coronavirus/tout-savoir-sur-la-COVID-19/