(This is Chapter 3 of my dissertation)

Ivković, D. (2012). Virtual linguistic landscape: A perspective on multilingualism in

cyberspace.

Chapter 3
Landscapes, linguascapes, and linguistic mediation in
cyberspace
 

At least to the more mobile and networked of us, place has become less about our origins
on some singular piece of blood soil, and more about forming connections with the many
sites of our lives.
Malcolm McCullough, Digital Ground, 2004, p. 172

This   chapter   turns   to   my   second   core   research   question:   What   are   the   unique  
properties  of  VLL  as  well  as  those  shared  with  other  semantic  and  communicative  
environments   both   in   physical   geography   and   in   traditional   media?   In   this   regard,  
the   goal   of   the   chapter   is   two-­‐fold:   first,   to   conceptualize   and   delineate   the   virtual  
linguistic  landscape  as  an  extension  of  the  linguistic  landscape,  but  with  a  distinctive  
character   and   a   unique   trajectory;   and,   second,   to   illustrate   the   possibilities   and  
constraints   that   cyberspace   presents   as   a   multilingual   LL.   Here,   language   in  
cyberspace   is   considered   in   relation   to   the   concept   landscape,   mediated   sensory  
experience,  and  perceptions  of  linguistic  artefacts  in  digital  space.      
  In   particular,   the   properties   of   the   linguistic   landscape   and   its   virtual  
counterpart  will  be  compared  and  contrasted.  The  notions  of  landscape,  space,  and  
place   will   be   discussed   in   relation   to   the   terms   linguistic   landscape,   linguistic  
mediascape,  linguistic  cyberscape  (Ivković,  2007),  and  the  suggested  umbrella  term  
linguascape.   Further,   the   interactional   and   experiential   features   of   language  
presence  in  virtual  space  relative  to  the  ones  of  LL  will  be  examined,  that  is,  the  role  
of   sensory   keys;   longevity   of   the   V/LL   (linguistic   and   virtual   linguistic   landscape)  
objects;   agent’s   involvement;   and   conceptual   and   metaphorical   groundedness   of  
VLL  in  LL.  The  chapter  will  conclude  with  a  discussion  of  the  eco-­‐linguistic  view  on  
multilingualism  in  cyberspace.  

3.1 Landscape
 
Landscape  has  all  the  features  of  language.  [...]  Like  the  meanings  of  words,  the  
meanings  of  landscape  elements  (water,  for  example)  are  only  potential  until  context  
shapes  them.  
 Ann Whiston Spirn, 1998, p. 125
 
We  tend  to  think  of  landscape  as  a  section  of  a  universe:  a  landscape  has  boundaries,  
and  therefore  it  can  be  more  or  less  truthfully  described  in  a  narrative,  replicated  in  
a  painting,  or  mirrored  in  a  photograph.  While  such  conceptualizations  may  hold  for  
natural   landscapes,   physical   boundaries   have   only   a   relative   value   in   defining  
cultural   landscapes,   replete   with   artefacts   and   generated   by   human   activity,  
including   linguistic   artefacts   and   mediated   linguistic   activity   (on   linguistic  
mediation  in  cultural  activity,  see  Thorne,  2003).  That  the  word/concept  landscape  
is  at  the  heart  of  the  term  virtual  linguistic  landscape  can  hardly  be  overstated:  We  
tend  to  intuit  digital  artefacts  and  relations  linguistically,  through  the  ways  we  make  
use   of   items   and   conceive   of   relations   in   the   world   of   tangible   materiality   (see   §  
3.2.5).   Whether   in   physical   or   virtual   space,   it   is   the   culture   and   homo  linguisticus  
that  ‘scape’  it.  

3.1.1 The concept and the word

 
In   modern   English,   the   term   landscape   is   polysemous,   denoting   terrain  
configuration,   with   the   vegetation   that   covers   the   territory;   an   aspect   or   part   of   a  
scenery   that   can   be   seen   in   a   single   view;   and   a   painting   depicting   such   a   view,  
suggesting  the  aesthetic  quality  (Jackson,  1984,  p.  3).  The  term  covers  both  natural  
formations—landforms   and   water   bodies—as   well   as   human-­‐made,   cultural  
artefacts,   that   is,   buildings,   bridges,   and   other   architectural   structures,   including  
their  artistic  representations.  Jackson  notes  that  the  word  ‘landscape’  is  increasingly  
being   used   in   multiple   contexts   and   in   numerous   lexical   compounds,   such   as  
roadscape,   townscape,   cityscape,   “as   if   the   syllable   ‘scape’   meant   a   space,   which   it  
does   not”   (p.   4).   In   Modern   English,   the   bound   morpheme   ‘-­‐scape’—one   which  
occurs   only   with   another   morpheme—is   also   found   in   neologisms   such   as  
soundscape,   “a   sound   or   a   combination   of   sounds   that   forms   or   arises   from   an  
immersive   environment”—as   described   in   English   Wikipedia—suggesting   a  
Gestaltian  and  contextually  embedded  composition  of  elements  of  a  kind  (on  Gestalt  
in  LL,  see  Ben-­‐Rafael,  2009,  p.  42).    
  Various   languages   highlight   one   or   the   other   aspect   of   landscape   in   the   word  
and  concept  formation.  For  example,  the  Chinese  compound  character  for  landscape  
景  (view,  scene)  and  观  (look,  observe)  and  the  Persian  equivalent    (outlook)  
and   (eye)   bring   to   attention   the   role   of   the   observer   in   relation   to   the   scene.   In  
West  and  South  Slavic  languages,  the  observed  scene  itself  is  underlined:  the  Czech  
word  krajina  (part  of  the  land,  land),  Polish  krajobraz  (picture  or  image  of  the  land),  
and   the   Serbian   and   Croatian   equivalents   крајолиk/krajolik   (face   or   image   of   the  
land)   and   преде(и)о/prede(i)o   have   the   word   kraj   (the   end,   part   of   the   land,  
borderland)   ‘de(и)o’   (part   of   the   land),   respectively,   in   the   term.   East   Slavic  
languages   (Russian,   Ukrainian,   Belarusian),   however,   use   the   German   word  
Landschaft,  or  ландшафт,  in  the  Cyrillic  alphabet.  
We   may   credit   primarily   the   Dutch   and   Flemish   masters   of   the   landscape  
painting   art   for   introducing   the   word   into   modern   English,   with   a   Dutch   cognate  
form  landshap.  It  is  believed  (Jackson,  1984)  that  the  word  was  introduced  into  Old  
English   as   early   as   the   fifth   century   through   other   Germanic-­‐speaking   groups.  
However,   it   is   the   Scandinavian   variations   of   the   word   (landskap   (Norwegian,  
Swedish),   landskab   (Danish),   that,   by   virtue   of   its   morphophonological   composition,  
most   authentically   mirror   the   Modern   English   form   and   usage.   In   Old   Norse   and  
Modern   Scandinavian,   the   morpheme—in   its   standard   variations   the   forms   skapa  
(Old   Norse,   Icelandic,   Swedish),   skape   (Norwegian),   skabe   (Danish)—is   a   verb,  
occurring  in  phrases  such  as  ‘å  skape  musikk”  (meaning,  to  make  or  create  music,  in  
Norwegian).   By   analogy   with   similar   Scandinavian   phrases,   the   etymology   of   its  
English   counterpart—including   its   cognates   in   other   Germanic   languages   (cf.  
German   schaffen)—may   be   drawn   from   the   meaning   ‘to   create,   make,   shape   the  
land,’  highlighting  the  role  of  the  human  agency  in  the  creation  of  the  human-­‐made  
and  human-­‐experienced  environments,  or  the  cultural  landscape.    
3.1.2   Cultural  landscapes  and  V/LL  

“Is there a cyber place? Somewhere that you can send all his emails to? So I never have
to see them again.”
Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City, 2008

 
The  relationship  between  the  physical  environment  and  human  agency/activity  was  
a   prominent   topic   among   the   early   20th   century   American   human   geographers.  
Semple   (1911),   for   example,   took   a   deterministic,   mostly   unidirectional,   stance,  
according  to  which  the  environment  assumes  the  primary  responsibility  for  shaping  
the   human   culture   and   historical   development,   which   “takes   place   on   the   earth  
surface,   and   therefore   is   more   or   less   molded   by   its   geographic   setting”   (p.   257).  
Named  “environmental  determinism”  (Mitchell,  2000,  p.  20),  the  view  marshals  the  
critical  influence  of  the  environment  on  culture,  arguing  that  the  features  of  human  
culture   are   largely   a   reaction   to   environmental   factors.   The   movement   was  
subsequently   critiqued   because   it   failed   to   account   for   cultural   differences,   a   task  
that   another   North   American   human   and   cultural   geographer,   Carl   Sauer,   will  
undertake.   Sauer   (1925)   took   a   critical   position   towards   the   deterministic   view,  
arguing   that   it   is   the   human   agency   that   modifies   the   earth’s   surface   and   that   the  
humankind   (“man”),   as   “the   latest   agent”   and   “an   agent   of   surficial   modification,”  
should  be  considered  a  geomorphological  agent  (p.  139).  With  regard  to  the  active  
role   of   the   society   in   shaping   its   environment,   for   example,   Колбовский  
(Kolbowsky)  (2003)  states:  
 
Культурный  ландшафт  (КЛ),  в  котором  мы  обитаем,  является  социально  
обозначенным   и   сконструированным,   посредством   занесения  
социальных   реальностей   в   физический   мир.   Таким   образом,   культурный  
ландшафт   -­‐   способ   присвоения,   социальной   организации   и  
структурирования  пространства  обитания.  В  этом  аспекте  КЛ  выступает  
как   социальное   пространство,   выражающее   формы   существования  
 различных   пространственно-­‐временных   отношений   -­‐   так   называемых  
"хронотопов."1    
 
Landscape   is   a   spatio-­‐temporal   ‘land-­‐shape’   or   chronotope,   a   product   of   both  
vertical  (historical)  and  horizontal  (spatial)  societal  activities  and  processes,  which  
are   by   no   means   exclusively   physical,   which,   according   to   Sauer   (1925),   may   be  
defined   “as   an   area   made   up   of   a   distinct   association   of   forms,   both   physical   and  
cultural”   (p.   300).   In   Corner’s   (1991)   view,   landscape   is   a   cultural   schemata   and  
itself   a   text   whose   hermeneutical   nature   invites   transformation   and   interpretation  
(p.  130).  To  advance  these  claims,  what  matters  is  not  only  the  material  substance  
but   more   so   the   associations   or   assemblage   of   these   forms—earthly   or   digital,  
linguistic   or   non-­‐linguistic,   man-­‐made   or   naturally   occurring—that   give   rise   to  
mental  spaces  created  in  and  by  the  mind.    
For   Creswell   (2004),   landscape   is   not   just   a   panoramic   view   of   a   chunk   of  
land   with   a   potential   observer   at   a   distance;   rather,   landscape   is   interrelated   with  
space  and  place  (p.  12),  place  being  “not  just  a  thing  in  the  world  but  a  way  of  seeing,  
knowing  and  understanding  the  world”  (p.  11),  and,  essentially,  an  instance  of  social  
space,   endowed   with   meaning   (p.   12).   According   to   Tuan   (1977),   space   and   place  
can  only  be  defined  relative  to  each  other  (p.  6).  While  place  is  more  concrete  and  
means  security,  space  is  more  abstract  and  means  freedom  (p.  3).  To  describe  this  
interrelation,   one   might   say   that   space   and   place   are   increasingly   being  
experientially  and  perceptually  spliced  together  in  today’s  both  directly  experienced  
and  mediated  world,  whereby  cyberspace  licences  the  mind,  if  not  the  body,  to  steer  
through  space  in  order  to  find  place.  Once  we  find  place,  we  are  attached  to  it,  but  
long  for  space  (Tuan,  1977,  p.  3).    
The   notion   of   ‘landscape’   in   its   social   variant   is   akin   to   the   notion   of   ‘social  
space,’  that  is,  the  kind  of  space  that  according  to  Lefebvre  (1991),  “subsumes  things  
produced,   and   encompasses   their   interrelationships   in   their   coexistence   and  
simultaneity—their   (relative)   order   and/or   (relative)   disorder”   (p.   73).   By   making  
space,  we  locate  self  (Thurlow  &  Jaworski,  2010b,  p.  6).  We  produce  (e.g.,  Lefebvre,  
1991),   construct   (e.g.,   Bourdieu,   1977),   shape   (e.g.,   Cosgrove,   1984)   and   scape  
spaces,  through  linguistic  and  other  semiotic  expressions  and  means,  by  generating  
and  regenerating  meanings  where  we  are  allowed,  where  we  can,  and  how  we  can.    
To treat the linguistic landscape as place and its virtual counterpart as space
would be simplistic, although it is no coincidence that word cyberspace is derived from
the notion of choice implicated in the word ‘space’—the relative freedom to be who we
want to be and where we want to be. The idea of physicality, on the other hand,
standardized in traditional geography, is anchored primarily in the concept of place, place
denoting and connoting the notion of “bounded settings in which social relations and
identity are constituted” (Duncan, 2000, p. 582) (see Figure 3.1), with boundaries that
provide the sense of security but nonetheless impose certain constraints, such as the
                                                                                                               
1
The cultural landscape (CL) we inhabit is socially marked and constructed through the influence of social
realities on the physical world. Accordingly, cultural landscape is a way of adopting the social organization
as well as a way of the structuration of the living space. In this connection, CL assumes the role of social
space, expressing the modalities of various spatial and temporal relationships, or chronotopes. [my
translation] Retrieved November 15, 2011 from http://kultland2003.narod.ru/1-2.html
constraints of representation (i.e., who we want to be), and movement/access (i.e., where
we want to be).
Graham (1998) argues that one should be cautious of the perils of adopting a
Euclidean notion of viewing space and place as Cartesian categories, “embedded within
some wider, objective framework of time-space” (p. 181). Instead, places need to be
defined in relational terms as well. As Massey (1994) also suggests, places need to be
defined,
As articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings, but
where a large proportion of these relations, experiences, and understandings are
on a far larger scale than what we happen to define for that moment as the place
itself. (p. 69)

According   to   McCullough   (2004),   in   the   age   of   mobility   and   social   networking,   we  

increasingly   belong   to   several   “socially   constructed   and   personally   perceived”   (p.  
171)   places   and   communities.   Strate   (1999)   relates   place   to   the   cultural   and  
rhetorical,   to   order   and   familiarity,   whereas   he   associates   space   with   “the   natural,  
the  chaotic,  the  unnamed,  and  the  untamed”  (p.  393).  He  goes  on  to  write:  
 
 The   term   cyberspace,   then,   carries   with   it   the   concept   of   freedom,   of   a  
frontier   to   explore,   and   its   popularity   may   be   related   to   the   novelty   and  
unfamiliarity   of   the   electronic   landscape.   In   contrast,   the   alternative   of  
cyberplace   better   represents   the   idea   of   the   virtual   community,   specifically  
computer   networks   and   nodes,   bulletin   boards,   web   pages,   MUDs,   chat  
rooms,  and  commercial  services,  virtual  environments,  etc.  
 
Landscapes,  in  the  argument  above,  are  equated  with  the  concept  of  space,  and  are  
therefore   (potential)   places   in   the   making.   A   human-­‐inhabited   landscape   is   what  
may   be   transformed   into   the   public   domain,   where   individual   and   private   meanings  
converge  and  in  so  doing  acquire  a  public  and  sharable  nature.  Similarly,  electronic  
landscapes   are   (potential)   cyberplaces  in  the  making:   The   latter   are   instantiated   in  
the   concepts   such   as   electronic   mailboxes,   online   discussion   boards,   websites,  
online   social   networks,   or   can   be   even   visually   transformed   acquiring   geometrical  
and  other  properties  of  physical  objects,  as  illustrated  in  the          representations  from  
Figures  3.1  and  3.2.    
 
Mapping  virtual  space  with  language  
Described   as   a   ‘toy’   on   its   website,   Worldle   is   actually   a   software   for   generating  
‘word  clouds’—cloud-­‐like  clusters  of  word  tags—from  the  text  provided  by  the  user,  
with  clouds  giving  “greater  prominence  to  words  that  appear  more  frequently  in  the  
source   text.” 2  Once   created   and   posted,   these   images/objects   become   a   public  
domain   or   the   public   sphere,   as   stipulated   by   Jonathan   Feinberg,   who   created  
Wordle,   and   may   be   copied   and   used   by   anyone   in   any   way   one   chooses,   even  
commercially.    
 
                                                                                                               
2
http://www.wordle.net/
  
Figure 3.1 The Cyrillic versus Latin alphabet in Serbia (a ‘word cloud’ depiction)3
 
Figure   3.1   is   generated   from   the   user   comments   posted   on   Blic   Online   (a   Serbian  
online   news   website),   discussing   the   status   of   the   Cyrillic   alphabet   and   the  
dominance   of   the   Latin   alphabet   in   Serbia(n).   The   input   text   is   created   from   the  
responses   to   an   article   entitled   “Ћирилица   i/ili   Latinica”   (Cyrillic   and/or   Latin  
Alphabet).4  The  first  part  of  the  code-­‐switched  title  means  ‘Cyrillic’  in  Serbian  and  is  
written   in   Cyrillic,   while   the   second   part—latinica—means   ‘the   Latin   alphabet.’   As  
illustrated   in   the   figure,   the   commentaries   are   visually   represented   with   words   in  
both   alphabets,   as   they   were   written.   The   lexical   items   denote   the   following  
dichotomies:   alphabet   choice   (Cyrillic   versus   Latin),   nationality   (Serbian   versus  
Croatian),  countries  (Serbia  versus  Croatia)  in  Serbian,  in  both  alphabets.  Together  
with   the   language-­‐related   items,   such   as   језик/jezik   (language),   писмо/pismo  
(writing   system),   слово/slovo   (letter/grapheme),   they   are   dominant   lexical   words  
and  are  depicted  with  larger  fonts  (on  the  pragmatics  and  ideology  of  script  choice  
in  Internet  Serbian,  see  Ivković,  in  press  a).    
  Similarly,   Figure   3.2   is   generated   from   the   comments   of   YouTube   users  
posted  on  Eurovision  Contest  YouTube  pages  discussing  the  English  language  song  
‘Divine’   representing   France   in   Belgrade   in   2008   (see   Ivković,   in   press   b).   While  
some   words   potentially   belong   to   the   lexicons   of   both   French   and   English—for  
example,  France,  video,  points—it  seems  that  content  words  in  English  prevail.  The  
English   word   song,   for   example,   is   prominently   larger   than   its   French   equivalent  
                                                                                                               
3
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/5131082/Cyrillic_andor_Latina_alphabet_in_Serbian
4
http://www.blic.rs/Komentar/Kultura/230091/Cirilica-iili-latinica Retrieved April 10, 2012
chanson.   In   addition,   the   principle   by   which   Wordle   operates   illustrates   the  
technological   bias,   which   favours   English   (the   language   of   the   source   code)   and  
other   weakly   or   non-­‐inflected   alphabetic   languages.   The   Serbian   word   for   ‘script’  
(pismo/писмо)   in   the   singular,   for   example,   has   eight   possible   forms,   four   in   each  
alphabet,   that   is,   pismо/писмо   (Nominative/Accusative),   pismа/писма   (Genitive),  
pismu/писму  (Dative/Locative),  pismom/писмом  (Instrumental).  This  means  that  in  
Wordle,  a  reference  to  script  in  English  may  be  eight  times  as  prominent  as  any  of  
the   lexical/orthographic   equivalents   in   Serbian,   if   raw,   unprocessed   data—
previously  ‘unstemmed’—are  used  as  input  text.    
 

 
Figure 3.2 La guerre des langues (War of languages): French versus English in
commentaries on Eurovision Song YouTube pages discussing the 2008 English language
song representing France (a ‘word cloud’ depiction)5
 
Both  Wordle  figures  possess  essential  elements  of  a  geographical  representation  as  
depicted  on  geopolitical  maps,  including  a  bidimensional  shape,  resembling  mostly  
natural   borders   in   the   majority   of   regions,   and   use   of   colours   to   mark   political  
borders.   Figure   3.1   accidentally   somewhat   reminds   of   Bulgaria,   and   Figure   3.2  
almost   looks   like   Austria   on   the   map   (at   least   to   me).   These   digital   forms   and  
shapes,  however,  are  not  entirely  arbitrary  as  they  are  internally  generated  by  the  
frequencies  of  the  lexical  items  from  the  input—the  source  text—and  externally  by  
the   programming   algorithm   of   varying   complexity,   including   parameters   that   the  
user  may  supply,  that  is,  font  type,  colour,  and  layout.    
 
Geography  of  human  activity  
Both   the   linguistic   and   virtual   linguistic   landscapes   are   instantiations   of   language  
use   and   linguistic   expression   constituting   the   geography   of   human   activity,   and  

                                                                                                               
5
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/5114716/Tellier%2C_France_2008
therefore   are   matters   of   human   and   cultural   geography   (e.g.,   Thurlow   &   Jaworski,  
2010b,  pp.  2–6).  The  linguistic  character  of  new  media—the  multiplicity,  hybridity  
and   indexicality   of   language   in   cyberspace—in   spite   of   the   seemingly   ‘placeless’  
character  of  cyberspace,  devoid  of  a  physical  territory,  is  here  considered  within  a  
more   comprehensive   scope   of   research   in   human   geography,   as   “the   discipline   of  
geography   concerned   with   the   spatial   differentiation   and   organization   of   human  
activity   and   its   interrelationships   with   the   physical   environment”   (Johnston   et   al.,  
2000,  p.  353).  Sherman  and  Craig  (2003)  illustrate  the  ‘place-­‐like’  treatment  of  what  
they   call   ‘new   space,’   referencing   the   modalities   of   the   usage   of   deictic   adverbs   here  
and   there  in   a   live   chat   forum,   as   in   the   question   “‘Is   Baker   here?’—here  being   the  
space  created  by  the  forum”  (p.  17).  Accordingly,  the  notion  of  physicality,  inherent  
in   the   term   ‘geography,’   extends   to   the   digital   environment   by   virtue   of   the  
engagement—human   activity   and   its   relationship   with   the   environment—that  
supersedes   the   disciplinary   bounds   of   traditional   geography,   the   former   being  
constrained   to   what   is   only   permeable   to   tactile/textural,   gustatory   and   olfactory  
sensory  response  (see  Figures  3.3a  &  3.3b).    
Figure   3.3   depicts   a   suggested   disciplinary   framework   of   human   geography  
centred   on   the   constructs   of   the   linguistic   and   virtual   linguistic   landscape.   In   this  
context,  the  field  of  inquiry  of  human  geography  is  further  subdivided  into  cultural  
and,   in   turn,   language   geography.   Language   is   regarded   as   a   cultural   artefact   that  
both  shapes  and  is  shaped  by  the  environment,  its  affordances  as  well  as  constraints  
(§3.3.2).  Withers  (2000)  defines  language  geography  as  “the  study  of  the  changing  
distribution   and   social   usage   of   language,   including   the   ways   in   which   language  
within   geography   is   now   and   has   in   the   past   been   used   to   establish   and   negotiate  
power  and  identity”  (p.  432).  
In   the   process   of   power   and   identity   negotiation,   language   usage,   including  
communication   in   individual   languages,   appropriates   space,   and   in   so   doing   also  
draws   borders   delineating   various   ethnolinguistic   communities,   interest   groups   as  
well   as   communities   of   practice   (Lave   &   Wenger,   1991.   Space   thus   becomes   place  
arising  from  social  interactions,  including  linguistic  activity:  Environment  becomes  
‘homeplace’   once   we   name   the   ‘objects   out   there’   and   convert   them   into   real  
presences  “by  casting  a  linguistic  net”  through  storytelling  and  naming  (Tuan,  1991,  
p.  686).    
Tuan   (1991)   argues   that   language   has   the   capability   to   make   places   and   to  
transform   the   environment   in   ways   other   than   materially   (pp.   684–687),   by   using  
the   power   of   words   to   bring   about   change.   He   goes   on   to   say   that,   “naming   is  
power—the   creative   power   to   call   something   into   being,   to   render   the   invisible  
visible,  to  impart  a  certain  character  to  things.”  (p.  688)  
  
Figure 3.3 V/LL and geography
 
The   linguistic   and   virtual   linguistic   landsacpes   are   here   regarded   as   domain-­‐   or  
media-­‐specific   instantiations   of   language   and   language   use   in   the   public   sphere.  
They   are   linguistically   and   semiotically   constructed   by   human   action   and   sign  
production  in  their  respective  socio-­‐cultural  spheres,  whether  they  be  urban  life  in  
public  venues  or  in  cyber  worlds,  in  physical  or  in  virtual  geographies  (Figure  3.3),  
the  latter  being  viewed  by  Papacharissi  (2009)  as  “founded  upon  a  fluid  premise  of  
evolving   connectivity"   (p.   215).   Papacharissi   goes   on   to   say   that   virtual   geographies  
are   situational   and   not   static,   with   a   flexible   architecture   of   online   social   systems  
permitting   “to   form   organically   and   not   as   colonies   of   their   offline   equivalents.”   The  
virtual  geographies  are  constituted  by  the  underlying  physicality  of  bits  and  bytes,  
cable   networks,   and   complex   computer   architectures   which   give   rise   to   virtual,  
digitized  geographies  of  cultures  and  languages,  ultimately  relying  “on  the  physics  of  
silicon”  (Cicognani,  1998,  p.  20).  
So  far  in  this  chapter,  I  have  argued  that  both  physical  and  virtual  landscapes  
are   concerned   with   the   role   language   plays   to   mediate   actualization   of   human  
agency  situated  here  and  now,  as  well  as  in  its  historical  Umwelt,  physical  or  digital.  
Emergent   in   linguistic   and   socio-­‐cultural   practices,   the   agency,   or   the   capacity   to  
exert   influence   and   effectuate   changes,   is—linguistically,   socially   and   culturally—
both   constrained   and   enabled   (Ahearn,   2001,   p.   8)   by   space/place   as   well   as   time  
and   heterogeneity   of   the   environment   it   inhabits.   In   the   next   section,   I   will   consider  
the   notion   of   VLL   as   constituting   the   ‘linguascape,’   or   language   presence   and  
linguistic  diversity  in  the  public  sphere.    
3.2 Linguascape: Language Presence and Linguistic Diversity in the
Public Sphere
 
Landscapes can be treated as texts with subtexts, the tangled meanings of which are
seldom clear.
Tuan, 1991, p. 685
 
For  Jackson  (1984),  a  landscape  is  more  of  a  synthetic  space,  “superimposed  on  the  
face   of   the   land”   than   it   is   just   a   natural   feature   (p.   8).   Recognizing   the   instrumental  
role  of  the  environment  in  “reorganizing  space  for  human  needs,”  Jackson  suggests  a  
new  definition  of  landscape  as  “a  composition  of  man-­‐made  or  man-­‐modified  spaces  
to   serve   as   infrastructure   or   background   for   our   collective   existence”   (p.   8).   If   we  
extend   the   notion   of   infrastructure  to   other   semantic   spaces   (Tække,   2002,   p.   26)  
and   non-­‐physical   domains,   including   online   social   networks   and   virtual   worlds,  
Jackson’s   definition   may   well   fit   definitions   of   other   ‘scapes,’   including   cyberscape  
(Figure   3.4),   to   describe   and   account   for   the   role   of   human   agency   in   configuring   its  
lived,  experiential  spaces,  and  spaces  of  activity,  for  which  the  term  linguascape  may  
be  used  as  a  common  denominator.  
Jaworski   et   al.   (2003)   describes   linguascaping   as   a   creative   force   and  
linguascape   as   a   product   of   languages,   domestic   and   host,   and   their   associated  
referents,   such   as   “the   shots   of   local   people   and   scenery,”   ethnic   music   and   even  
“sampling  and  descriptions  of  local  food  and  drinks”  (p.  19)  (on  linguascaping,  see  
also  Thurlow  &  Jaworski,  2010a).  Steyaert,  Ostendorp,  &  Gaibrois  (2011)  seek  to  re-­‐
conceptualize   the   term   linguascaping,   taking   on   the   neologism   as   a   discursive  
multilingual   practice   and   contextualizing   it   in   the   business   settings   of   two   Swiss  
companies.  Interestingly,  Steyaert  at  al.   mention  the  term  linguistic   landscape  as  an  
equivalent   name   to   linguascape,   however,   without   anchoring   these   remodelled  
concepts  within  the  existing  LL  literature  and  research,  at  the  same  time  restricting  
the  referential  value  and  scope  of  the  term  to  discursive  practices  to  describe  “how  
the   flow   of   languages   that   cross   a   specific   organization   space   [here   italicized   for  
emphasis]  is  discursively  mediated”  (p.  270).    
Similarly,   other   researchers   have   used   the   word   linguascape   in   various  
contexts,   mostly   in   a   non-­‐technical   sense,   as   expressive   and   descriptive   terms.  
Mufwene  (2008),  for  example,  attributes  changing  of  the  African  linguascape  to  the  
linguistic   colonialism   of   the   Western   European   nations   and   to   new   socioeconomic  
structuration,  “that  favoured  the  emergence  of  new  language  varieties”  (p.  258).        
In   a   more   technical   sense,   as   an   operational   term   within   the   modern  
sociolinguistic   inquiry   of   V/LL,   the   term   linguascape,   it   is   here   suggested,   may  
extend   to   other   places   and   spaces   of   public   interaction   (Figure   3.4)—top-­‐down  
intervention  and  bottom-­‐up  socialization  and  activism—mediated  through  linguistic  
and   other   semiotic   means,   that   is,   as   a  common  denominator  and  umbrella  concept  
for  all  the  instantiations  of  semantic  spaces  linguistically  and  semiotically  created  by  
human  agency  in  the  different  embodiments  of  primarily  public  spaces,  physical  or  
digital  (see  Figure  3.4).      
 
  
Figure 3.4 Linguascape: language in the public sphere
 
The   physical   world   (cityscapes,   streetscapes),   traditional   (TV,   film),   or   New   Media  
(networked   gaming,   Internet,   cyber   worlds)   are   all   potential   loci   of   language  
contact,  intercultural  encounter,  and  ethnolinguistic  contestation  where  current  and  
future   bottom-­‐up   and   top-­‐down   language   policies   and   practices   are   forged.   The  
arrows  (Figure  3.4)  represent  the  ‘cross-­‐overs’  and  interconnectedness  between  the  
traditional  and  new  media,  indicating  blending  of  communicative  spheres  or  ‘social  
spaces’  of  a  kind.  In  essence,  communication  is  not  restricted  to  a  single  social  space.  
According  to  Lefebvre  (1991),  social  spaces  in  isolation  are  abstractions,  actualized  
only   in   interrelationship   with   other   social   spaces   within   “an   unlimited   multiplicity  
or  unaccountable  set  of  social  spaces”  (p.  86)6.  
   Examples   of   these   mediated   linguistic   and   semiotic   item   flows   emerging  
from   ‘social   spaces’   are   a   photograph   of   a   multilingual   (or   monolingual)   street   plate  
shown  on  TV  or  displayed  on  a  web  page,  or  the  Eurovision  Song  Contest  as  part  of  
all   three   environments—landscape,   mediascape   and   cyberscape   (Chapter   5).   The  
linguo-­‐semiotic   flows—discursive   elements   and   processes   that   mediate   social  
interactions—cross-­‐reference   the   items   in   the   ontologies   of   both   traditional   and  
new   media.   These   trans-­‐media   flows   further   enhance   the   complexity   of   the  
linguistically   and   modally   heterogeneous   experience,   traversing   the   increasingly  
porous  media  boundaries  and  thus  involving  a  variety  of  senses  and  varied  extents  
of   their   use.   At   the   same   time,   they   emerge   from   parallel   social   spaces   that  
“interpenetrate   one   another   and/or   superimpose   themselves   upon   one   another”  
(Lefebvre,  1991,  p.  86).  

                                                                                                               
6
This is in contrast to Bourdieu and Thompson’s (1991) conceptualization of ‘social space’ as “a set of
distinct and coexisting positions [italicized for emphasis] which are exterior to one another and which are
defined in relation to one another through their mutual exteriority” (p.270)
3.3 Linguistic Mediation in Cyberspace

 
Physical   or   virtual,   linguascapes   are   parts   of   an   ontology   selected   by   an   agent—
observer,   spectator,   flâneur,   or   Internet   surfer—and   mediated   by   material   and  
symbolic  artefacts.  These  slices  of  a  universe  sui  generis  are  distinguishable  by  the  
types   and   configuration   of   linguistic   and   non-­‐linguistic   (including   multimodal)  
objects,   properties,   relations,   processes,   and   events,   whose   exhaustive   taxonomy  
constitutes   the   domain   of   V/LL.   Whether   a   digital   photograph,   a   screenshot,   a  
panoramic  video  recording,  or  a  3D  image,  these  digital  artefacts  (that  is,  material,  
digitally   generated   objects)   possess   properties   that   both   enable   and   constrain  
interaction,  while  at  the  same  time  co-­‐define  their  environment  with  an  agency  and  
mediate   our   involvement   in   and   with   the   world.   Our   virtual   experiences   are   still  
predominantly   bidimensional   and   ‘screen-­‐based,’   mediated   by   “a   rectangular  
surface   that   frames   a   virtual   world   and   that   exists   within   the   physical   world   of   a  
viewer”  (Manovich,  2001,  p.  16).    
  Mediation   is   one   of   the   central   themes   in   sociocultural   theory   (SCT).   The  
concept   rests  on   Vygotsky’s  claim  that  “higher  forms  of  human  mental  activity  are  
mediated   by   culturally   constructed   auxiliary   means,”   the   latter   arising   “as   a  
consequence   of   participation   in   cultural   activities”   (Lantolf   &   Thorne,   2006,   pp.   59).  
Lantolf  and  Thorne  distinguish  between  cultural  artefacts  (e.g.,  books,  paper,  clocks,  
technology,   toys,   eating   utensils),   cultural   concepts   (e.g.,   self,   person,   family,   time,  
literacy  law,  religion,  mind),  and  physical  tools  (e.g.,  hammers,  bulldozers,  shovels)  
that   are   inserted   between   our   activity   and   an   external   object   (pp.   59–60).   Our  
concern   is   the   relationship   between   language   as   a   symbolic   artefact,   in   its  
multiplicity  and  hybridity,  and  the  human  agency,  the  experiencer,  this  relationship  
being   mediated   through   digital   objects,   essentially   of   sensory,   and   therefore  
physical,  nature,  in  multilingual  and  multimodal  cyberspace.  
  We  experience  and  interact  with  the  environment  and  objects  by  selectively  
employing   our   sensory   motor   system   in   response   to   these   affordances   and  
constraints.   With   regard   to   V/LL,   the   following   properties   of   objects   and   their  
generative  and  interactional  capabilities  within  the  environment  will  be  examined:  
sensory   keys,   longevity   of   objects;   agent’s   involvement;   and   VLL   as   a   conceptual  
metaphor,  including  the  constraints  of  such  conceptualization  (Table  3.1).      

Table 3.1 Properties of linguistic objects in V/LL

Properties LL objects VLL objects
a. Sensory keys Full sensory involvement Limited sensory involvement
b. Longevity of objects Relatively stable and permanent Relatively unstable and transient
c. Conceptual metaphor Source domain Target domain
d. Agent’s involvement Often part of the same Mediated through a digitally
environment empowered object
 
3.3.1 Sensory keys
 
Linguistic   landscape   items   often   have   analogous   representations   in   the   digital  
realm,  the  digital  world  mostly  involving  auditory,  visual  and  to  some  extent  haptic  
senses.  Hearing  different  languages  or  ethnic  music  in  a  street  or  on  YouTube  (see  
Chapter  5)  and  spotting  a  message  in  a  particular  language  or  script  displayed  in  a  
mall   advert   or   in   online   commentaries   (see   postings   in   Cyrillic   and   Latinized  
Macedonian,  in  Figure  2.5)  are  noncontroversial  aspects  of  both  LL  and  VLL.  Unlike  
analogous  VLL  referents,  the  olfactory  and  gustatory  senses  may  have  a  function  in  
supporting  the  awareness  of  multilingualism  in  the  physical  world:  a  smell  or  taste  
of   a   food   associated   with   a   language   or   culture   (cf.   Jaworski   et   al.,  2003),   e.g.,   Indian  
curries,   Greek   gyros   and   souvlaki,   or   Hungarian   goulash;   the   visual   or   olfactory  
identification   of   fresh   produce   associated   with   a   particular   geography,  e.g.,   guava  in  
Mexico   and   Central   America;   or   the   scent   of   incense   associated   with   a   religious  
institution   or   ceremony   (e.g.,   Divali),   all   contribute   to   the   sensory   complexity   of   a  
linguistic   landscape   and   may   even   introduce   it   prior   to   visual   and/or   auditory  
experience.    
While   a   linguistic   landscape   can   be   viewed   on   a   photograph   or   from   a  
videotape   the   experience   ultimately   comes   from   the   physical,   tangible,   and   three-­‐
dimensional   world   (Table   3.1),   offering   a   possibility   to   employ   all   five   senses  
(Figure   3.5).   The   card   displaying   a   ‘thank   you’   note   in   seven   European   languages,  
including   Welsh   (‘diolch’)   and   Finnish   (‘kiitos),   can   be   easily   manipulated   so   that   all  
five   senses   are   involved   (some   cards   may   even   be   edible).   In   contrast,   its   digital  
counterpart—functioning   as   an   electronic   simulacrum   of   the   class   of   physical  
objects   conventionalized   as   ‘a   thank   you   card’   (Figure   3.5b)—may   only   be   viewed  
and,  if  so  enabled,  listened  to,  and  manipulated  on  a  touch  screen.  For  example,  the  
multilingual   e-­‐card   displays   a   ‘thank   you’   note   in   eight   languages,   including   Chinese  
(‘ 谢谢 ’)   and   Japanese   (‘ ありがとう ’).   Like   other   virtual   objects,   it   can   be   easily  
redesigned,   copied,   or   deleted,   but   not   smelled   or   tasted.   On   the   other   hand,  
languages  displayed  on  the  e-­‐note  may  be  replaced  and  messages  in  other  languages  
can  be  added.  Even  those  with  limited  and  no  knowledge  of  particular  languages  and  
scripts  (e.g.,  Chinese  and  Japanese  characters)  can  copy  and  paste  the  message  from  
the  Internet,  creating  an  exact,  and  easily  multipliable,  replica  of  the  text/object.  The  
multilingual   message   can   then   reach   multiple   recipients   in   a   second   or   two.   In  
contrast,  manually  copying  a  Chinese,  Arabic,  or  Armenian  characters  by  those  who  
are   not   familiar   with   these   wiring   systems   would   very   likely   result   in  
misrepresentations.    
 
                                

 
Figure 3.5a Multilingual ‘thank you’ card and Figure 3.5b Multilingual ‘thank you’ e-
card7

3.3.2 Longevity of objects

 
Comparing  the  material  and  interactional  qualities  of  the  linguistic  items  in  physical  
and  virtual  spaces,  Ivković  &  Lotherington  (2009)  note  the  following:  
 
Analogous   to   the   physical   LL,   VLL   delineates   the   linguistic   community   and  
marks   language   status   in   expressed   power   relations   among   the   coexisting  
linguistic  choices  in  the  cyberspace  community.  […]  As  such,  VLL  functions  as  
an  identity  marker,  providing  choice  in  textual  access  and  expression.  Typical  
markers   of   LL   in   cityscapes,   such   as   public   signs,   characterizing   such  
information  as  street  names,  parking  options,  and  public  transport  stops,  as  
well   as   commercial   signs   identifying   shops,   are   relatively   stable   over   time  
(here   see   Table   3.1).   Repairing   or   replacing   these   signs   involves   time,  
material   and   labour   costs.   However,   web   content   may   be   updated   as   often   as  

                                                                                                               
7  http://seiza.ro/ecards/show/id/1004  Retrieved  January  18,  2012  
 daily   or   even   more   often;   and   whether   a   routine   update   or   a   substantial  
reprogramming  of  a  web  page,  it  is  a  much  less  expensive  renovation.  (p.  19)  
 
  Consequently,  the  linguistic  content  indicating  ownership,  identity,  and  laws  
used   in   physical   landscape   signage   is,   by   nature,   more   fixed   and   stable   than   that  
available  to  VLL.  Thus,  signage  in  physical  space  explicitly  targets  a  local  population,  
which   the   Internet   cannot   do,   though   specific   online   communities   can   control   and  
restrict   membership,   allowing   some   focus.   Furthermore,   language   choices   implicitly  
typecast   an   audience.   Despite   the   fact   that   Internet   sites   are   more   linguistically  
dynamic  in  character  than  their  physical  counterparts,  individual  linguistic  choices  
in   VLL   are   still   shaped   by   the   environment,   though   translation   assistance   is   more  
easily   accessible,   if   not   always   accurate.   The   Internet   offers   more   democratic  
opportunities   in   authoring   and   authority;   e.g.,   sites   can   be   created   and   revised  
through  multilateral  editing  using  wiki  software,  e.g.,  Wikipedia,  or  a  content  sharing  
websites,   e.g.,   YouTube   or   Flickr.   Many   real   world   billboards   are   programmed  
screens,   changing   messages   at   timed   intervals,   or   displaying   up-­‐to-­‐the   minute  
advice   on   highway   driving   conditions.   So,   just   as   Web   2.0   advancements   towards  
real-­‐virtual   interactions   are   incrementally   converging   the   worlds   of   atoms   and  
those   of   bits,   so   is   physical   LL   absorbing   digital   signs.   Because   of   this   flexibility,  
virtual  content  can  more  dynamically  reflect  ‘real-­‐time’  socio-­‐political  relations.  
The  cityscape  does  include  signs  that  are  more  transitory  in  nature,  including  
revolving   commercial   materials,   such   as   billboards   for   goods   and   services   and  
entertainment   posters;   seasonal   public   notices,   such   as   building   permits   and  
roadworks   (Figure   3.6);   and   recyclable   materials,   such   as   political   and   business  
notices.  

 
 Figure 3.6 Multilingual digitized poster8
 
This   digitized   PDF   file   is   written   in   multiple   immigrant   languages   of   Australia,  
including   Amharic,   Bengali,   Khmer,   and   Turkish.   Some   of   the   major   international  
languages  are  missing:  notably,  French  and  German.  The  linguistic  choices  indicate  
that   the   area   is   predominantly   populated   by   the   first-­‐language   speakers   of  
languages   spoken   in   developing   and   former   socialist   nations,   including   Ethiopia,  
Iran,  India,  Somalia,  Vietnam,  as  well  as  former  USSR  and  Yugoslavia.  In  addition,  the  
multilingual   digitized   poster   targets   only   the   local   population,   facilitating   the   access  
through   the   Internet,   while   potentially   keeping   the   cost   of   printing   down   and  
preserving   the   natural   resources   via   paperless   information   distribution.   However,  
as  the  poster  is  obviously  displaced,  its  function  is  possibly  a  warning  for  those  who  
intend   to   take   the   road   for   travel   and/or   an   illustration   of   safety   measures   taken   by  
the  Australian  Department  of  Transport  and  its  agencies,  potentially  reaching  global  
readership.   In   any   event,   this   multimodal   artefact   delineates   the   territory/space  
both  in  LL  and  VLL.  
    The   artefact   from   Figure   3.4   represents   features   of   LL   that   have   a   limited  
residual  value  within  their  physical  milieu.  VLL,  however,  has  more  in  common  with  
the   rotating   content   on   physical   billboards   than   with   stationary   signs   because  
websites   are   cheaper   and   easier   to   maintain,   develop   and   expand.   Web   1.0  
manifestations  of  static  but  hypertext  linked  advertising—analogous  to  billboards—
provide  multiple  configurations  of  multilingualism.    
   

                                                                                                               
8  http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/uploaded_files/aeSafetySignsx5.pdf  Retrieved  January,  18  2012  
  
Figure 3.7 Complementary multilingualism: travel advertisement
 
Figure   3.7,   a   home   page   of   a   Spanish   airline,   illustrates   complementary  
multilingualism.   The   webpage   interface   offers   versions   in   ten   European   languages,  
including   four   official   languages   in   Spain,   either   at   the   national   level   (Spanish   or  
castiliano/español)   or   locally   (Basque/euskara;   Catalan/català;   and  
Galician/galego),   shown   in   a   drop-­‐down   dialogue   box.   The   web   page   is   a   complex  
multilingual   and   multimodal   semiograph—material   form   of   the   sign—displaying   a  
number   of   bilingual   clusters:   in   the   upper   left   corner   there   is   code-­‐switched,  
English-­‐Galician-­‐English   message   “flying   hoxe   (‘today’)   means   VUELING,”   and  
several  English  and  Spanish  clusters  on  otherwise  Galician  version:  ¡WOW!  Cuantas  
rutas   nuevas,”   “reserva   now,”   “tu   las   maletas   and   yo   los   vuelos”   [code-­‐switched  
segments  in  English  are  underlined].  The  English  word  ‘wow’  is  preceded  with  the  
inverted  exclamation  mark,  which  is  the  orthographic  convention  unique  to  Spanish.  
In  the  central  part  of  the  embedded  cluster,  the  contours  of  clouds  are  formed  in  the  
shape  of  the  English  word  ‘new,’  illustrating  the  ludic  function  of  metaphorical  code-­‐
switching  (for  example,  see  Crystal,  1998,  for  ludic  function  in  language).    
   It   is   also   important   to   note   that   the   examples   of   the   static   Web   in   the  
dissertation  are  necessarily  snapshots  of  digital  artefacts  (semiographs)  captured  at  
a  single  point  in  time  and  space/place.  The  display  of  the  semiographs,  however,  is  
also   impacted   by   the   type   of   browser   used   (e.g.,   Explorer,   Safari,   Firefox),   type   of  
device   (e.g.,   desktop,   hand-­‐held),   and   locale   (user   adaptation   based   on   the  
information  about  the  presumed  language  and  culture  of  the  user  collected  from  the  
IP   address,   included   in   the   HTTP   header).   Depending   on   the   browser,   device   type,  
and   locale,   the   Web   server   may   input   different   culture   and   language-­‐specific  
parameters,   which   could   result   in   different   variants   (instantiations)   of   the   digital  
semiograph  (see  Figures  2.2  &  2.3  displaying  two  language-­‐specific  versions  of  the  
website  of  the  Icelandic  Board  of  Tourism).9  
 

3.3.3 Conceptual metaphor

 
Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and
acting, language is an important source of evidence for what system is like.
Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p. 3
 
According   to   Lakoff   and   Johnson   (1980),   the   cross-­‐domain   correlations   from   our  
experience   and   persistent   use   of   a   particular   metaphor   may   create   perceived  
similarities.   This   assertion   is   easily   evidenced   through   the   use   of   metaphors  
associated   with   computer-­‐mediated   communication.   Virtual   space   is   a   computer-­‐
generated   and   mediated   environment,   in   many   ways   conceptually   grounded   in  
objects   and   relations   from   the   physical   world.   Metaphors   in   this   sense   are   not   mere  
tropes  and  poetic  ornaments;  rather,  they  are  conceptual  categories  whereby  more  
abstract   ideas   map   to   more   concrete   and   salient   concepts,   exemplified   in   the  
conceptual  metaphor  WEBSITES  ARE  NAVIGABLE  SPACES,  described  below:    
WEBSITES ARE NAVIGABLE SPACES

People navigate sites. They follow links from place to place. They wander around a site,
they get lost, they can't find a page or resource they know is there. Sites have designers
or architects and an organized structure. There are site maps and navigation guides.
Zack Tomaszewski,
200210
 
Items,   processes   and   events   from   virtual   space   are   often   coined   using   the   same  
vocabulary   representing   items   from   the   physical   world,   such   as   the   information  
highway,   chat   room,   discussion   forum,   virtual   tour,   website,   home   page,   mouse,   the  
Net,   computer  virus,   ebook,   and   even   a   virtual  forest   (Figure   3.6).  An   Internet   user  
might  surf  the  net,  lurk  in  a  chat  room,  shout  in  an  email,  visit  a  virtual  art  gallery,  
and  even  cruise   a  website,  though  none  of  these  physical  actions  is  possible.  Lakoff  
and   Johnson   give   examples   of   conceptual   metaphors   [capitalized   and   articles  
                                                                                                               
9
I am indebted to Melanie Baljko for this observation.
10
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~ztomasze/ling440/proposal.html
omitted  by  convention],  followed  by  their  use,  such  as:  IDEAS  ARE  PEOPLE,  as  in  ‘He  
breathed  new  life  into  the  idea’;  IDEAS  ARE  PLANTS,  as  in  ‘That’s  a  budding  theory’;  
IDEAS  ARE  PRODUCTS,  as  in  ‘We  generated  a  lot  of  new  ideas  this  week.’    
The  notion  of  earthly  space  is  also  at  the  core  of  the  term  VLL  as  almost  any  
idea   of   interaction   in   cyberspace   is   anchored   in   the   concepts   that   are   borrowed  
from  our  lived  experiences  in  bounded  physical  space,  land  (Figure  3.8).    

 
Figure 3.8 VLL as a ‘metaphorical space’: Virtual Forest11
 
Figure   3.8   presents   a   monolingual   educational   website   that   invites   the   viewer,   an  
elementary   school   biology   student,   who   is   positioned   both   as   a   detective   and  
scientist,  to  explore  a  virtual  world,  linguistically  (verbally)—Let’s  cruise!!!,  Sprawl,  
Timberrr!,   Tree   DETECTIVE—and   visually—owl,   racoon,   cat,   trees,   four-­‐leaf   ‘lucky’  
clover,   detective,   green   maple   leaf,   turtles,   birds,   green   background—landscaped   by  
the   metaphors.   Thanks   to   her   familiarity   with   the   concepts   and   relations   from   the  
tangible,  physical  world,  the  student  can  make  sense  of,  and  transfer  that  knowledge  
to,   the   phenomena   that   are   taking   place   in   distant   locales,   such   as   the   Amazonian  
rainforest.  On  the  basis  of  this  intertextual—verbal  and  visual—knowledge,  coupled  
with  the  student’s  “previous  experiences  of  the  objects  presented  and  the  relations  
among   them,”   she   is   “able   to   make   the   various   objects   and   locations   that   are  
presented  converge  into  a  coherent  visual  presentation  of  a  virtual  world”  (Baldry  &  
Thibault,   2006,   p.   120).   Once   the   student   makes   sense   of   the   virtual   objects   and  

                                                                                                               
11
http://www.ext.vt.edu/resources/4h/virtualforest/ Retrieved January 21, 2012
relations,   she   can   then   transfer   and   scaffold   the   newly   acquired   knowledge   back  
onto  the  phenomena  in  the  lived  world.  
  The   home   page   introduces   the   following   verbal   and   visual   ‘metaphorical  
clusters’  (for  cluster  analysis,  see  Baldry  and  Thibault,  2006,  pp.  120-­‐125):  
 
1.   STUDENT   IS   SAILOR,   as   in   agentive   ‘Let’s   cruise!!!’:   She   needs   to   know   how   to  
steer  and  navigate  the  Web  for  relevant  information.  
2.  FOREST/INTERNET  IS  SEA,  as  in  ambient  ‘Let’s  cruise!!!’:  The  Internet  is  a  forest,  
which  in  turn  is  a  sea,  a  vast  amount  of  information  at  one’s  disposal,  but  where  one  
can  be  lost  if  not  able  to  navigate.  
3.   STUDENT   IS   RACOON,   as   in   the   anthropomorphized   image   of   a   racoon   dressed   in  
a   detective   suit   and   holding   a   magnifying   glass   in   her   left   hand:   Student   is   an  
investigator   and   researcher,   whose   task   is   to   find   out   causes   and   come   up   with  
solutions.    
4.   PEOPLE   HURT   PLANET   EARTH,   as   in   ‘Sprawl’   (see   the   embedded   window   in  
Figure  3.8  displaying  the  message,  ‘Human  Impact  on  the  Forest  Ecosystem’).  People  
destroy   their   habitat.   The   students   should   be   aware   of   the   damaging   effect   of  
uncontrolled  sprawl  of  human  infrastructure  all  over  the  planet,  and  eventually  be  
active  in  protecting  our  common  environment.    
  Such  metaphors  indicate  that  we  transfer  lived  experiences  onto  the  virtual  
domain.  With  regard  to  human  perception  in  the  virtual  world,  Sherman  and  Craig  
(2003)   claim   that,   “the   transference   can   be   accelerated   if   a   direct   analogy   is   pointed  
out  between  the  concept  under  study  and  an  already  understood  concept.”  They  go  
on   to   write,   “As   patterns   of   analogous   relationships   become   apparent,   the   shared  
concepts   can   often   be   generalized   into   a   class   of   operations   (e.g.,   a   mathematical  
concept)”   (p.   212).   The   metaphors   from   the   source   domain   thus   enable   the   user,  
particularly  the  novice  (Maglio  &  Matlock,  1998),  to  interact  with  the  virtual  domain  
based   on   familiar   experiences   from   real   world   domains.   The   main   role   of   at   least  
novel  metaphors  is  to  enable  a  novice  (Dreyfus  &  Dreyfus,  1986;  Dreyfus,  2001  in  a  
target   domain,   such   as   the   Internet,   to   interact   with   the   target   domain   based   on  
previous   experiences   from   correlate   and   familiar   domains,   such   as   the   physical   or  
‘real’   world.   Through   the   metaphor   INTERNET   IS   WEB,   a   beginner   conceives   the  
Internet  as  a  system  of  intricate  threads,  more  so  than  an  experienced  user  does.  In  
a   study   that   examined   metaphorical   conception   of   the   WWW   among   novice   and  
experienced   users,   Maglio   and   Matlock   (1998)   found   that   inexperienced   users—
when   prompted   to   explain   their   experience   browsing   certain   websites—“more  
often  mixed  in  their  experiences  using  the  keyboard  mouse,  and  other  elements  of  
the   physical   (non-­‐web)   domain   (e.g.   ‘I   clicked   on...’   or   ‘I   typed   in…’),   whereas  
experienced   users   did   not.   In   addition,   beginners   were   more   likely   to   refer   to   the  
web  as  a  container  than  were  experienced  web  users.”  The  experienced  user,  on  the  
other  hand,  has  already  adopted  the  new  metaphor,  while  disregarding  some  of  its  
original   properties   and   associations.   For   example,   an   expert   Internet   user   regards  
‘web  spiders’  or  ‘crawlers’  distinctly   in   terms   of   their   technical   properties   and   roles  
within   a   given   context,   rather   than   associating   those   terms   with   the   insects   of   the  
same  name.  
   This   example   focuses   on   the   educational   aspect   of   a   VLL   in   the   context   of  
metaphorical   transference   of   intermedial   (physical   onto   virtual;   printed   text   or  
direct   experience   onto   screen)   experiences,   whereby   VLL   is   considered   primarily   in  
its   broader   sense,   as   language   presence   (and   absence)   and   linguistic   diversity   in  
cyberspace-­‐as-­‐the-­‐public-­‐sphere.   Nonetheless,   this   mini   case   study   also   illustrates  
the   more   specific   interpretation   of   VLL   as   visibility   and   salience   of   linguistic   items  
and   other   semiotic   markers   delinating   ethnolinguistic   presence   and   indexing   power  
relations  in  cyberspace,  here  defining  the  space  of  language  use  with  a  monolingual  
English   text,   and   thus   demarcating   the   context   to   the   primarily   North   American  
English-­‐speaking   student   audience.   This   is   also   coupled   with   the   non-­‐linguistic  
representations   featuring   North   American   flora   and   fauna   as   well   as   images   of  
exclusively   Caucasian-­‐looking   characters.   As   shown,   VLL   might   equally   be   painted  
by  the  absence  of  linguistic  and  non-­‐linguistic  elements.  

3.3.4 Agent´s involvement

 
While   visual   limitations,   such   as   a   bidimensional   perspective   and   the   lack   of  
perceptual   depth,   remain   features   of   virtual   landscapes,   technology   is   already  
making  strides  towards  3D  solutions  (e.g.,  movie  Avatar,  2009).  According  to  Hubert  
Dreyfus   (2001),   the   American   phenomenologist   and   philosopher   of   artificial  
intelligence,   mastery,   and   practical   wisdom,   as   the   most   advanced   forms   of   learning  
by   means   of   distance   learning,   would   be   possible   only   through   a   form   of  
telepresence  that  mimics  the  learner’s  interaction  in  the  real  world  (p.  49).    
In   2012,   we   can   say   that   we   are   one   step   closer   to   the   goal.   The   surfer   is  
increasingly   becoming   immersed   in   the   environment   with   advances   towards  
interactive,   real-­‐time   and   context-­‐embedded   systems.   For   example,   the   recent  
evolution   of   gaming   consoles,   such   as   Playstation   4,   X-­‐Box   720,   and   Nintendo’s  
console   Wii,   which   requires   physical   mimicry   to   activate   screen   movement,  
continue   to   narrow   the   gap   between   the   digital   and   the   real.   According   to  
McCullough   (2004),   the   paradigm   shift   from   building   parallel   virtual   worlds   to  
embedded,   ambient,   environmental,   pervasive,   ubiquitous,   and   above   all,   human-­‐
centred,  computing  is  already  happening.  
Bits   are   the   atoms   of   electronic   spaces.   The   underpinning   corporeality   of  
physical  landscapes  is  of  a  tangible  and  earthly  quality,  while  the  corporeal  nature  
behind   electronic   landscapes   comprises   invisible   streams   of   clustered   bits.   A  
contraction   of   the   words   binary   digits,   bits   are   1s   (higher   voltage)   and   0s   (lower  
voltage),   whose   combinations,   called   binary  codes,   are   used   to   represent   numbers,  
letters,   pixels,   and   more   complex   units   of   data,   such   as   instructions,   segments   of  
text,  or  images.    
Access   to   VLL   is   always   mediated.   No   one   inhabits   the   digital   dimension,  
though   those   who   regularly   engage   in   digital   communication   belong   to   specific  
communities   of   practice   (Lave   &   Wenger,   1991;   Wenger,   1998).   The   virtual  
linguistic   landscape   is   experienced   through   a   digitally   empowered   physical   object,  
e.g.,  a  computer  screen  or  a  smart-­‐phone  interface  of  hand-­‐held  devices  such  as  the  
constantly  evolving  versions  of  iPhone  and  iPad.  A  computer  monitor,  in  and  of  itself  
physical,   is   a   portal   whose   external   physical   properties,   such   as   shape   and   colour   of  
the   monitor   enclosure,   do   not   materially   impact   the   virtual   objects   displayed   on   the  
screen.   Some   of   the   features   of   Web   1.0   interaction   are   spatially   multilayered  
display   of   text,   which   enables   the   reader/perceiver   to   remain   static   while   the  
perspective   shift   on   the   computer   screen   is   triggered   by   the   events   of   clicking   or  
scrolling;   predefined   linking   of   information   sections   based   on   web   screens   (cross-­‐
linking,   hyper-­‐linking   and   embedding   of   web   pages),   though   limiting   the   range   of  
interaction  to  a  set  of  pre-­‐programmed  links.    
A   significant   difference   between   the   virtual   and   physical   landscape   with  
respect   to   fixedness   and   transience,   however,   is   that   the   linguistic   landscape   is  
immersive:   the   individual   enters   and   exits,   functions,   and   resides   within   the  
physical   territory,   interacting   linguistically   within   demarcated   spatial   earthly  
boundaries,  whereas  virtual  space  is  delocalized:  anyone  can  find  and  engage  within  
the  virtual  space  from  anywhere  as,  for  instance,  in  Second  Life  (SL),  a  cyber-­‐world  
modelled  on  the  physical  world.    

3.4 Virtual Linguistic Landscape in Evolving Cyber-World

 
The  vision  that  I  have  for  the  Web  is  about  anything  being  potentially  connected  with  
anything.  Berners-­‐Lee  and  Fischetti,  2000,  p.  1  
 

3.4.1 Web 1.0

 
Since   Tim   Berners-­‐Lee,   a   British   researcher   at   CERN   (the   research   centre   for  
particle   physics)   near   Geneva,   introduced   the   World   Wide   Web   in   1991,   human  
communication   has   undergone   a   seismic   shift.   The   way   people   do   business   and  
research,   exchange   information,   advertise,   and   entertain   themselves   has   changed  
irreversibly.   Berners-­‐Lee   started   with   a   vision   of   the   Web   that   “would   not   be   an  
isolated  tool  used  by  people  in  their  lives,  or  even  a  mirror  of  real  life;  [but]  part  of  
the  very  fabric  of  the  web  of  life  we  all  help  weave”  (Berners-­‐Lee  &  Fischetti,  2000,  
p.   91).   He   synthesized   several   revolutionary   concepts   radically   altering   the   way  
humans   manipulate   and   disseminate   information:   the   Hypertext   Transfer   Protocol  
(HTTP),  a  communications  protocol  which  facilitates  data  transfer  on  the  Web;  the  
Hypertext  Markup  Language  (HTML),  tag-­‐based  language  used  to  create  Web  pages;  
and   uniform   resource   locator   (URL),   a   virtual   address   in   the   form   of   a   compact  
character   string   that   points   to   the   physical   address   of   a   digital   document.  
Standardization12  of   each   of   these   specifications   central   to   the   Web   increased   its  
interactivity,   portability,   interoperability,   and   overall   usability.   Computers   in   this  
inceptional  stage  of  networking  could  talk  directly  to  one  another;  and  with  a  point  

                                                                                                               
12
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Laboratory for Computer Science in 1994, continues to develop Web standards carrying out a mission “to
interact with text and images from an ever-growing pool of information ‘to ensure long-term growth of the
Web’”; URL: http://www.w3org/Consortium
and   click,   instantaneously   access   an   enormous   amount   of   information.   However,  
existing   technology   and   the   Web   browsers   were   not   yet   able   to   offer   the   more  
collaborative  approach  visualized  by  Berners-­‐Lee,  which,  he  noted,  “required  much  
more   of   a   social   change   in   how   people   worked”   (Berners-­‐Lee   &   Fischetti   2000,   p.  
57).    

3.4.2 Web 2.0 and social computing

 
That   change   indeed   happened   with   the   almost   parallel   developments   of   the  
Semantic   Web   (Berners-­‐Lee   &   Fischetti,   2000)   and   Web   2.0   (O’Reilly,   2005).   The  
fundamental   idea   behind   the   Semantic   Web   is   to   supply   data   with   descriptors   or  
tags,   and   in   turn   define   relations   with   other   data   through   conceptual   linking   of   tags.  
On   the   existing   hypertext   layer,   the   Semantic   Web   technology   adds   a   layer   that  
consists   of   metadata   and   automated,   context-­‐driven   data   manipulation   to   connect  
data  from  different  linguistic  and  cultural  domains.  Coupled  with  the  introduction  of  
Web   browsers,   which   enable   users   to   interact   with   text   and   images   from   an   ever-­‐
growing   pool   of   information,   the   Web   soon   became   the   premium   medium   of   finding  
and  sharing  information  in  different  languages.  The  Semantic  Web,  integrated  with  
the   emerging   online   social-­‐networking   systems,   termed   Web   2.0,   such   as   blogs,  
MySpace,  Youtube,  Flickr  and  Wikipedia,  is  ideally  posed  to  promote  multilingualism.    
  File   sharing   and   collaborative   content   authoring   are   arguably   the   most  
significant  features  of  the  Web  2.0.  Compared  to  the  first  stage,  retroactively  called  
Web  1.0,  speakers  of  different  languages  have  more  opportunities  to  communicate  
with  one  another,  being  situated  within  a  single  communicative  discourse,  that  is  a  
‘social  space’  (see,  for  example,  YouTube  multilingual  discussion  fora  in  Chapters  4  
and  5).    

3.4.3 Immersive computing and virtual ontologies

 
Second   Life,   a   virtual   ontology,   aspires   to   mimic   the   immersive   experience   of  
involvement   in   earthly   space,   perhaps   pointing   at   a   future   direction   of   ambient  
immersion,   much   alike   the   one   in   the   real   world.   SL   has   its   own   currency,   linden  
dollar   (L$),  which  can  be  traded  for  US  dollars  in  an  increasing  number  of  business  
transactions,  from  virtual  language  classrooms  to  shopping  malls  to  land  purchasing  
to   gambling.   Members   are   represented   by   avatars,   their   virtual   incarnations  
which/who 13  socialize,   play   and   conduct   business   in   SL.   Avatars,   graphical  
representations  of  Internet  users,  called  ‘residents,’  become  increasingly  embodied  
in  the  environment;  virtual  extensions  of  the  SL  players,  they  move  and  talk  within  a  
defined   domain.   They   have   a   right   of   entry   to   public   spaces   and   limited   access   to  
private  areas,  similar  to  physical  spaces  or  landscapes.    
Although   English   is   the   main   language   in   SL,   communication   in   other  
languages   is   increasing.   Modes   of   communication   in   SL   include   writing/typing,  
voice-­‐enabled   messaging   and   gesturing,   similar   to   communication   in   the   physical  
                                                                                                               
13
Which or who? The literature is mixed on whether ‘avatar’ takes an animate or inanimate relative
pronoun (Ivković & Lotherington, 2009, p. 34).
landscape.   The   Residents   inhabit   islands,   which   in   the   physical   world   are   often   a  
metaphor   for   isolation   and   non-­‐interaction,   but   in   SL   represent   specialized  
communities   of   practice,   who   communicate   through   teleporting,   guided   by  
information  postings  and  context-­‐driven  messages  in  respective  languages.  After  the  
initial   hype,   although   still   running,   SL   has   lost   some   of   the   impetus.   However,   SL,   or  
a   similar   ‘alternate   reality   world’   (e.g.,   see   Naper,   2011),   metaphorically  
conceptualized   on   the   idea   of   the   physical   environment,   may   well   be   representative  
of   interaction,   including   communication   in   a   variety   of   modes   and   languages,   in   a  
not  so  distant  future,  evolving  from  static  to  interactional  to  immersive  interaction,  
radically  changing  the  existing  linguistic  (cyber)ecology.    

3.4.4 Linguistic cyberecology

 
While,   as   a   rule,   the   top-­‐down   item   flow   is   an   instrument   of   conscious   language  
policy,   confirming   the   present   linguistic   ecology   or   striving   to   alter   it   by  
manipulating   language   choices   and   modalities   of   multilingual   discourses,   the  
bottom-­‐up  item  flow  represents  de  facto  language  practices  and  initiatives   created  
in   public   spaces,   whereby   “the   public   space,   whether   through   signs,   forms,  
instructions   or   cyberspace,   is   a   very   important   arena   where   language   battles   are  
negotiated   and   crafted”   (Shohamy,   2006,   p.   129).   Either   guided   by   pragmatic  
reasons   in   order   to   deliver   information   or,   symbolic,   to   instil   or   change   opinions,  
beliefs,   and   perceptions   about   the   linguistic   vitality   and   status   of   a   particular  
language,   individuals,   as   autonomous   actors,   alter   linguistic   cyberecology,   by  
favouring   and   propagating   certain   linguistic   choices,   thus   influencing   language  
attitudes,  opinions  and  beliefs  about  the  status  of  individual  languages  or  language  
groups.    
  Multilingual   choices   and   referents   from   both   physical   and   virtual   linguistic  
landscapes   influence   our   social   perceptions   and   indicate   the   role   and   nature   of  
power   relations   as   linguistically   and   semiotically   represented   by   cultures.   The  
choice,   prominence,   and   use   of   languages   in   cyberspace   create   an   important  
dimension,  partaking  in  the  complexity  of  linguistic  cyberecology.  Due  to  the  scope  
of  the  access  that  a  message  has  in  cyberspace,  the  potential  impact  of  these  clues  by  
far   exceeds   the   influence   of   a   graffiti,   message   board,   physical   poster   or  
advertisement.   A   multilingual   discourse,   a   YouTube   discussion   forum   in   multiple  
languages,  for  instance,  is  not  only  reflective  of  current  linguistic  practices,  linguistic  
vitality,   and   language   attitudes,   but   may   also   be   instrumental   in   influencing  
perceptions   by   disseminating   both   explicit   and   implicit   messages   associated   with  
linguistic   potential   through   the   power   of   numerous   individual   actors,   those   who  
write  and  those  who  read  those  messages,  therefore  impacting  the  global  linguistic  
ecology.    
  According   to   the   eco-­‐linguistic   paradigm,   individual   languages   are   seen   as  
inseparable   from   their   immediate   sociolinguistic   environment,   in   a   similar   way   as  
living  organisms  are  dependent  of  their  habitat.  On  this  view  (e.g.,  Nettle  &  Romaine,  
2000;   Mühlhäusler,   1995),     languages   are   conceptualized   similarly   to   biological  
species:    endangered  languages  need  to  be  protected  from  extinction;  diversity  and  
healthy   linguistic   equilibrium   need   to   be   preserved   (e.g.,   Dalby,   2002).  
Consequently,   no   language   can   be   viewed   independently   of   its   environment,  
biological   or   digital,   local   or   global,   micro-­‐   or   macro-­‐linguistic.   Languages   adapt,  
change,   prevail   or   decline,   overpower   or   surrender.   They   undergo   changes   by  
natural   means,   such   as   linguistic   evolution,   or   by   force,   such   as   linguistic  
colonization,  covert  discriminatory  linguistic  practices,  or  even  genocide.    
The  sheer  volume  of  online  communication  makes  the  Internet  a  significant  
factor   in   maintaining   the   delicate   balance   of   global   language   ecology.   On   a   global  
scale,   technology   presents   not   only   unique   opportunities,   but   also   new   challenges  
for   multilingualism.   As   they   evolve,   technological   environments   influence   content  
presentation   and   the   way   message   is   delivered.   Some   technological   solutions   are  
hidden  from  the  participants  in  the  virtual  discourse;  nevertheless,  these  solutions  
influence   the   linguistic   balance   driven   by   intensified   language   contact.   One   of   the  
main   consequences   of   language   contact   in   virtual   space   is   technology-­‐induced  
linguistic  bias,  favouring  the  Latin  alphabet  and  English.    
  Continuous  use  of  the  Latin  alphabet  and  non-­‐standard  orthographic  variants  
by   a   sufficiently   large   number   of   Internet   users   has   already   produced   unofficial  
‘Internet’  standards,  or  an  anti-­‐standard  from  below  (Ivković,  in  press  a).  Although  
unlikely   to   be   institutionally   confirmed   as   official,   these   practices   are   nonetheless  
becoming   accepted   as   de   facto   and   unmarked   conventions   in   computer-­‐mediated  
interaction.   The   alphabetic   and   variant   choices,   however,   do   not   exist   in   a   socio-­‐
political   vacuum   and   are   not   limited   to   the   political   or   geographical   borders.   The  
orthographic   solutions   are   also   directly   impacted   by   the   technological   options  
available   abroad,   as   well   as   the   Diaspora   writers’   attitudes   towards   language   and  
scripts.   Communication   in   cyberspace   is   thus   deterritorialized   and   anyone   with  
adequate   technology   and   linguistic   knowledge   can   take   part   in   by   and   large  
linguistically  uncensored  discussions.  

3.5 Summary
 
The   virtual   linguistic   landscape   is   both   a   metaphor   and   a   phenomenon   in   its   own  
right.  In  this  chapter,  it  has  been  argued  that  linguistic  communication  in  cyberspace  
not  only  inherits  a  number  of  salient  features  from  the  way  we  communicate  in  the  
physical   world,   but   our   interaction   in   digital   spaces   also   emulates   qualities  
afforded/constrained   by   the   world   of   the   intangible   materiality   of   bits,   thus  
outlining   unique   linguistic   cyberecology.   The   next   chapter   turns   to   the   core   case  
study,  exemplifying  VLL  from  below.