Promoting Plurilingualism Through Linguistic Landscapes: A Multi-Method and Multisite Study in Germany and the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates how linguistic landscapes (LLs) can foster critical thinking about linguistic power relations and tensions in multilingual areas by acting as stimuli to reflect on the ethnolinguistic vitality of languages in a given region. We examine the pedagogical use of LLs as resources for the implementation of plurilingual pedagogies in mainstream secondary school classrooms in two distinct sites: Germany and the Netherlands. Data was collected through classroom observations, interviews with teachers, and students’ assignments and questionnaires. Analysis included an examination of how students validate their linguistic and semiotic practices and those of the Other through different approaches to LL in the classroom. Results show that in the Netherlands, students and teachers co-constructed the research on LL by critically reflecting on visibility issues in their LL research; in Germany, students and teachers engaged in collaborative sequences of meaning-making based on preselected examples of the LL of their surroundings. In both sites, teachers’ attitudes were central in fostering classroom interaction to enhance students’ reflexivity and criticality. This study is significant as it confirms the added value of using LLs as resources for developing critical language awareness through challenging “banal monolingualism” in highly linguistic diverse classrooms and as a path towards empowerment. Cet article examine la façon dont les paysages linguistiques peuvent favoriser la pensée critique quant aux relations de pouvoirs linguistiques et aux tensions dans les zones multilingues en servant de stimuli pour réfléchir à la vitalité ethnolinguistique des langues dans une région donnée. Nous examinons l’utilisation pédagogique des paysages linguistiques comme ressources pour la mise en place de pédagogies plurilingues dans les salles de classe traditionnelles de secondaire dans deux sites distincts : l’Allemagne et les Pays-Bas. Les données ont été recueillies par le biais d’observations en salle de classe, d’entrevues avec les enseignants et les tâches et des questionnaires remplis par des élèves. L’analyse incluait un examen de la façon dont les élèves valident leur pratique linguistique et sémiotique et celles de l’Autre par différentes approches du paysage linguistique dans la salle de classe. Les résultats ont montré qu’aux PaysBas, les élèves et les enseignants co-construisaient la recherche sur le paysage linguistique en réfléchissant aux problèmes de visibilité; en Allemagne, les élèves et les enseignants s’engageaient dans des séquences collaboratives de recherche de signification fondées sur les exemples présélectionnés du paysage linguistique de leur contexte. Dans les deux sites, l’attitude des enseignants était essentielle pour favoriser l’interaction en salle de classe afin de mettre en valeur l’esprit critique et de réflexion des élèves. Cette étude est significative puisqu’elle confirme la valeur ajoutée de l’utilisation des paysages linguistiques comme ressources pour développer la conscience linguistique critique par la remise en question du « monolinguisme banal » dans des salles de classe très diverses linguistiquement et comme chemin vers la valorisation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".