Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Why diachronicity matters in the study of linguistic landscapes

Pavlenko, Aneta; Mullen, Alex


Aneta Pavlenko


It is commonly argued that the proliferation of urban writing known as linguistic landscapes represents “a thoroughly contemporary global trend” (Coupland, 2010: 78). The purpose of this paper is to show that linguistic landscapes are by no means modern phenomena and to draw on our shared interest in multilingual empires to highlight the importance of diachronic inquiry and productive dialog between sociolinguists of modern and ancient societies. We will argue that while signs do operate in aggregate, the common focus on all signs at a single point in time on one street is problematic because the interpretation of signs is diachronic in nature, intrinsically linked to the preceding signs in the same environment and to related signs elsewhere, and the process of reading “back from signs to practices to people” (Blommaert, 2013: 51) is not as unproblematic as it is sometimes made to look.


Pavlenko, A., & Mullen, A. (2015). Why diachronicity matters in the study of linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 1(1-2),

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Jan 15, 2015
Publication Date Jun 26, 2015
Deposit Date Aug 7, 2017
Journal Linguistic Landscape
Print ISSN 2214-9953
Electronic ISSN 2214-9961
Publisher John Benjamins Publishing
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 1
Issue 1-2
Keywords Greek; Latin; Multilingualism; Roman Empire; Russian; diachronicity; epigraphy; indexicality; linguistic landscapes
Public URL
Publisher URL
Related Public URLs
Copyright Statement Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address:
Additional Information Pavlenko, Aneta, Mullen, Alex: Why diachronicity matters in the study of linguistic landscapes, Linguistic Landscape: an international journal, v. 1, No. 1-2, 2015, pp. 114-132.