Page 226
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
When Signs Speak: A Linguistic Landscape of Akademi Pengajian
Bahasa, UiTM Shah Alam
*1Aini Andria Shirin Anuarudin, 2Aini Akmar Mohd Kasim, 3Lee Geok Imm, 4Lazuar Azmi Zulferdi
*1&2Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
3Universiti Putra Malaysia,
4Universitas Ahmad Dahlan
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID0026
Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 29 October 2025
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the linguistic landscape (LL) of Akademi Pengajian Bahasa (APB), Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, focusing on how language use and text composition reflect
institutional priorities and inclusivity. APB is a key faculty offering courses in Bahasa Melayu (BM) or Malay
language, English, Arabic, and other languages, yet questions remain on whether its signage embodies the
faculty’s nature. Using a mixed-methods design, the study documented 174 signs in APB. Semi-structured
interviews conducted with students provided insights into readers’ perceptions of the faculty’s LL. Findings
revealed that APB’s LL is dominated by monolingual signs with 68%. Among bilingual and multilingual signs
text composition, partial translation, with BM and English, was the most prevalent. Other languages taught and
offered by the faculty were almost entirely absent, despite their curricular significance. The students, during
the interview, agreed that the signs do not really reflect the focus of the faculty and they believed that the
language courses offered should be reflected in the faculty’s LL. From the findings it could also be concluded
that LL of the faculty does not promote other languages besides BM and English. This could be due to the fact
that more than 95% of the students in the faculty comprise of local students whose native language is BM and
are able to understand English. However, given the fact that the faculty focuses on language courses, it should
realise the potential of promoting the use of the languages it offers in its linguistic landscape.
Keywords: educational space, linguistic landscape, multilingualism, text composition
INTRODUCTION
Linguistic landscape (LL) research has become an increasingly influential strand within sociolinguistics,
applied linguistics, and language policy studies. Since Landry and Bourhis (1997) first conceptualised LL as
the “… visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region,” the
concept has been applied in diverse contexts to explore the interplay between written language, identity, and
power. Over the past three decades, research has moved from describing language presence in city streets to
more nuanced analyses that consider LL as a symbolic, ideological, and pedagogical phenomenon (Shohamy
& Waksman, 2009; Blommaert, 2013). This includes the educational space, such as in schools and also higher
education institutions like universities.
In higher education, LL provides a valuable lens for analysing the extent to which universities embody their
stated commitments to multilingualism and internationalisation. Signage functions both as a practical tool for
navigation and as a symbolic representation of institutional identity. The language choices, text compositions,
and design strategies employed in signage communicate messages about inclusion, accessibility, and prestige
(Brown, 2012; Motschenbacher, 2023). Malaysia offers a particularly rich site for LL research. The nation is
constitutionally anchored in Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) as the national language, yet English holds
Page 227
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
strong functional value in education, commerce, law, and international communication. At the same time,
Malaysia is home to a diverse array of linguistic communities, including Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese,
Hokkien), Tamil and other Indian languages, indigenous languages of Sabah and Sarawak, and foreign
languages associated with Malaysia’s role in the global economy. In multilingual societies, such as Malaysia,
LL is especially revealing of the tensions between national identity, global positioning, and linguistic diversity.
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) occupies a unique position in this linguistic ecology. As Malaysia’s
largest public university system, UiTM has a dual mission: to empower the Bumiputera community and to
assert itself as an internationally recognised institution of higher learning. Within UiTM, the Akademi
Pengajian Bahasa (APB) serves as the hub for language education, offering programs and courses not only
Bahasa Melayu (BM) and English but also in Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, and European languages. It
could be said that APB therefore symbolises UiTM’s aspiration to balance national identity with global
integration. Yet, questions remain as to whether this multilingual curriculum is reflected in APB’s linguistic
landscape. Hence, this study aimed to address the following research questions:
What types of signs are found in APB’s LL?
How are languages composed within bilingual and multilingual signs?
What is the readers’ perception of the signs in the linguistic landscape of the faculty?
LITERATURE REVIEW
The study of linguistic landscapes originated in urban contexts, where researchers documented the distribution
of languages on shop signs, billboards, and public notices. Backhaus’s (2007) landmark study in Tokyo
revealed how Japanese, English, and minority languages coexisted in complex hierarchies, with English often
deployed for symbolic prestige rather than communicative function. Shohamy and Gorter (2009) expanded the
theoretical scope by positioning linguistic landscape (LL) as a space where explicit and implicit language
policies intersect. From this perspective, signage is not simply decorative but constitutes a form of de facto
language policy. In recent years interest towards investigating linguistic landscape in educational spaces has
emerged such as multilingualism in the LL of the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
(Siricharoen, 2016), linguistic signage in the LL of Western Mindanao State University (Clorion et al.,2024),
LL of International University Campus, Russia (Pavalko, et al., 2023), LL in Henan Institute of Technology,
China (Wang, 2023) and a study conducted by Motschenbacher (2023) in Western Norway University of
Applied Science looked into the relationship between the university’s language policy and the actual display of
signs in its LL.
In Malaysia, linguistic landscape studies have explored areas such as language policy (Manan & David, 2016;
Wang & Xu, 2018), multilingual billboards (Aini, Heng, & Abdullah, 2013), policy and practice perceptions
(Aini, 2017), signage in places of worship (Colluzi & Kitade, 2015), the linguistic environment of Kuala
Lumpur International Airport (Wai & Riget, 2022), commercial shop signs (Misyana, Kamisah, Mello, Nur, &
Aini, 2019) and the visibility of language in George Town, Malaysia (Jiao & Singh, 2024). However, studies
that observe the educational space in Malaysia’s higher education institutions are still scarce. One study found
was by Zhang (2024) who looked into the language ideology and phenomenon of multilingualism in the LL of
University of Malaya (UM). Therefore, to add more to the literature, this study aims to observe the LL on
campus of a university in Malaysia, specifically in Akademi Pengajian Bahasa (APB), Universiti Teknologi
MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam. This faculty is chosen as the research site since the faculty is the centre of
language studies at the university that offers language courses and programs. Thus, it would be interesting to
see how the languages are being used on its signage. Based on the definition of LL by Ben-Rafael et al.,
(2006), this study examined the signs inside and outside of the faculty’s LL by looking from two different
perspectives: the types of LL (for e.g. official and non-official signs, monolingual and multilingual signs, text
composition), and readers’ perceptions towards the LL in the faculty.
Page 228
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
METHODOLOGY
Adapting Aini’s (2017) methodological approach, this study employed a mixed-methods design, integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive account of APB’s linguistic landscape. A
mixed approach was considered appropriate because signage constitutes both a physical artefact that can be
systematically counted and coded, and a symbolic resource that is subject to diverse interpretations by its
audiences. By documenting the distribution and composition of signs while also investigating students’
perceptions, the study was able to triangulate between structure and experience.
Data Collection and Data analysis
Data collection was conducted during the academic semester to ensure coverage of both permanent and
temporary signage, as well as to get respondents for the semi-structured interview. In addressing the first and
second research questions (RQs), every sign within Akademi Pengajian Bahasa’s (APB) physical boundaries
were photographed and analysed quantitatively using frequency count and also qualitatively via content
analysis to look at the aspects and context of the language(s) displayed on the signs. A total of 174 signs were
documented, covering administrative offices, classrooms, noticeboards, corridors, lobbies, and open spaces in
the faculty. The data was then categorised in accordance to type of signs such as official and non-official signs,
monolingual, bilingual and multilingual signs. To attend to the second RQ, the bilingual and multilingual signs
were distinguished to observe the text composition of the signs using Aini’s (2017) Text Composition
framework.
In distinguishing between ‘official’ and ‘non-official’ signs, several scholars have used different terms in
discussing this variable. Ben-Rafael et al.’s (2004) study utilised the terms ‘top-down’ to signify signs by
government agencies, and ‘bottom-up’ to refer to private signs. Other scholars have also made their own
distinctions to signify these two signs’ types, such as Scollon and Scollon (2003) who distinguished
government and private signs by referring to the discourses as ‘municipal’ and ‘commercial’. Backhaus (2005)
has also used the expressions interchangeably with ‘official’ and ‘non-official’ signs when discussing this
variable in his study of signs in Tokyo’s public space. This study adopted Backhaus (2005) terminology where
‘official’ signs refer to signs that have gotten the approval from the relevant authority such as the faculty and
also display UiTM’s logo or the faculty’s stamp of approval. ‘Non-official’ signs, on the other hand, are signs
that are put up without UiTM’s logo or the faculty’s stamp of approval.
To gain a better insight of what is composed on bilingual and multilingual signs, as stated earlier, Text
Composition framework by Aini (2017), which is a combination of Reh (2004) typology of multilingual text
composition and Backhaus’s (2005) framework, was employed. This was to classify the signs that displayed:
i. mutual translation - consist of two or more languages with complete translations of each other;
partial translation - provide only some words or some parts of the text being translated to another language(s);
and
harmonised composition - does not consist of any form of translation, the phrasing in the text is
complementing one another
In answering the third RQ, semi-structured interviews with four (4) APB students were conducted. The semi-
structured interview involved three local undergraduate students and one international student. The interview
items contained five (5) main open-ended questions, and two (2) follow-up questions for each main question,
exploring perceptions of inclusivity, accessibility, and symbolic representation. Interviews were conducted in
English, lasting between 20 to 30 minutes each. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and anonymised with
pseudonyms as below:
LS 1: local student 1
LS 2: local student 2
Page 229
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
LS 3: local student 3
IS: international student
The data was then analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to thematic analysis -
familiarising yourself with the data, generating initial codes, generating initial themes, reviewing themes,
defining and naming the themes, and writing up.
Ethics
This study is part of a bigger study that looked into the LL of UiTM Shah Alam and UiTM Selangor and
ethical approval was obtained from UiTM Research Ethics Committee (REC) prior to data collection.
Limitations of Study
This study only provided comprehensive coverage of APB’s physical signage; hence, findings of the study
cannot be generalised to the LL of other faculties and the university as a whole. Limitations also include the
small sample of student interviews. This also limits generalisability, though the qualitative data provide
valuable insights into lived experiences.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
FINDINGS
The findings of this study are presented in relation to the study’s research questions to better visualise the
actual practice of Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, UiTM Shah Alam’s linguistic landscape.
RQ1: Types of signs found in APB’s linguistic landscape
The first research question (RQ1) identified the types of signs that could be found in linguistic landscape of
Akademi Pengajian Bahasa (APB) UiTM Shah Alam. This includes categorising the signs into official and
non-official as well as identifying the monolingual, bilingual and multilingual signs in the LL. Of the 174 signs
documented, 129 (74.1%) were official signs, and 45 (25.9%) were non-official signs. Hence, it could be said
that APB’s linguistic landscape, during the course of the study, was dominated by official signs. This situation
is also similar to a study by Zhang (2024) in University Malaya where it was found that 93% of the signs in the
LL of the university were top-down or official signs.
Table 1 Distribution of monolingual (mono), bilingual and multilingual (multi) signs (n=174)
Sign Official % Non-official % Total
Mono (BM only) 67 51.9 23 51.1 90
Mono (Eng only) 18 13.9 6 13.3 24
Mono (Others) 0 0 4 9 4
Bilingual (BM & Eng) 36 27.9 11 24.4 47
Bilingual (BM & others) 6 4.7 0 0 6
Bilingual (Eng & others) 0 0 1 2.2 1
Multi 2 1.6 0 0 2
Total 129 100 45 100 174
Page 230
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
The second categorization that was observed in this study is the type(s) of language(s) displayed in the LL of
the faculty. As can be seen in Table 1, 118/174 (68%) signs were monolingual, 54 (31%) were bilingual, and
only 2 (1%) were multilingual. Monolingual signs were almost exclusively in Bahasa Melayu (BM), while
majority of the bilingual signs displayed BM and English with 47 out of 54 signs. The two multilingual signs
were student-generated posters (non-official signs), though these were decorative rather than functional.
Figures 1, 2 and 3 are examples of the different types of signs found in APB.
Figure 1 Example of a monolingual official sign
Figure 2 Example of a bilingual official sign
Figure 3 Example of a multilingual non-official sign
It is also essential to note that there were 4 non-official monolingual signs which were not in either BM or
English. The signs were in Japanese (as in Figure 4), Mandarin, Korean and French.
Figure 4 Example of monolingual sign (non-official) in Japanese language
Page 231
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
These languages are part of the language courses offered to students as their third language course. Although
there are other language courses offered by APB other than BM and English, the visibility of these languages
in the faculty’s LL such as on posters, notices and announcements were very limited.
RQ2: Text composition of bilingual and multilingual signs
In addressing the second research questions, the signs were categorised based on Aini’s (2017) text
composition which was adapted from Backhaus (2005) & Reh (2004) frameworks. Aini (2017” text
composition lists three (3) types of text composition for bilingual and multilingual signs, which are mutual
translation, partial translation, and harmonised composition.
Table 2 Distribution of mutual, partial and harmonised text composition on signs (n=56)
Text comp /Signs Mutual Partial Harmonised
No % No % No %
Official 11 64.7 20 80 9 64.3
Non-official 6 35.3 5 20 5 35.7
Total 17 100 25 100 14 100
As could be seen in Table 2, in terms of text composition, partial translation was the most common strategy,
accounting for 68% of bilingual signs. For example, notices on one of the faculty’s doors (see Figure 5)
displayed an instruction in BM, ‘SILA TUTUP PINTU’, which means ‘please shut the door’ as can be seen
translated on the notice. However, for the English text, further explanation was provided with no translation in
BM. Mutual translation (21%), appeared mostly in official signs, such as in Figure 4. Harmonised
compositions (11%) as in Figure 6 were rare, often appearing in posters where BM and English text were
visually integrated. These findings could be seen to reflect limited efforts towards comprehensive multilingual
accessibility.
Figure 4 Example of a mutual translation sign
Figure 5 Example of a partial translation sign
Page 232
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Figure 6 Example of a harmonised sign
RQ3: Readers’ perception of the signs in the faculty’s linguistic landscape
To answer the third RQ, interview transcripts were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase
approach to thematic analysis. Initial coding was followed by the identification of themes that reflected
students’ perceptions of APB’s LL. Qualitative interviews revealed three major themes. First, students
observed a mismatch between APB’s multilingual curriculum and its signage. LS 1 noted: ‘the faculty offers
many languages, but the signs show only Malay and English. It feels like the other languages don’t count.’
Second, accessibility for international students was hindered by partial translation. IS (international student)
explained: ‘The heading is in English, but the details are in Malay. I often ask others to explain. It makes me
feel like I don’t fully belong.’ Third, the absence of other languages seen as symbolic erasure by the
respondents. LS 2 & 3 stated: ‘For example, APB offers a Bachelor Degree in Arabic, but here, you don’t see it
on signs. It feels like it is not valued.’ These findings align with previous studies conducted by Zhang (2024) at
UM, which reported similar BM-English dominance with little representation of other taught languages. The
findings also resonate with Wang (2023) in China and Mashiyi & Mkhize (2022) in South Africa, where
minority languages are sidelined in favour of national and global prestige languages.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study highlight the extent to which APB’s linguistic landscape (LL) reflects institutional
identity, reinforces linguistic hierarchies, and negotiates tensions between nationalism and globalisation. Based
on the findings, the discussion is organised around five key themes: LL as implicit policy, symbolic erasure,
text composition and accessibility, nationalism versus globalisation, and global parallels.
First, LL could function as implicit language policy. While UiTM does not explicitly dictate signage practices
in policy documents, the overwhelming dominance of BM-English signage in the faculty implicitly
communicates institutional values. Bahasa Melayu or Malay language functions as the national anchor as it is
the country’s national and official language, reinforcing UiTM’s Bumiputera mission, while English
symbolises international competitiveness. This echoes Shohamy’s (2006) argument that LL serves as a covert
policy instrument, shaping linguistic hierarchies without explicit regulation.
Second, the absence of other languages taught and offered by APB in the faculty’s linguistic landscape could
be seen as representing symbolic erasure. One example is Arabic language, one of the languages offered in the
degree program as well as one of the third languages course offered, is absent from APB signage despite being
a core subject. Similarly, other third languages offered such as Italian and Japanese were also ‘invisible’ in the
faculty’s LL. This situation could undermine APB’s identity as a language hub and suggests that certain
languages, despite curricular presence, are considered peripheral in institutional representation.
The findings were also parallel with other studies conducted in higher education institutions. For instance, in
China, Wang (2023) found minority languages were excluded in the LL in favour of English and Mandarin in
higher education institutions. In South Africa, Mashiyi and Mkhize (2022) reported marginalisation of
Page 233
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
indigenous languages and in the Gulf, Al Zidjaly (2019) noted Arabic overshadowed by English in higher
education signage. These parallels reveal structural dynamics where national and global prestige languages
dominate, while minority or curricular languages are symbolically erased.
Third, the text composition of the bilingual and multilingual signs displayed selective accessibility. While
English headings provide some recognition of international audiences, the failure to translate details, as in
partial translation text composition, leaves international students marginalised. This hierarchy of information
reflects what Piller (2016) describes as ‘linguistic gatekeeping,’ where access to certain knowledge depends on
the mastery of dominant languages. The fourth aspect that could be seen is APB’s LL embodies UiTM’s
broader tension between nationalism and globalisation. Malay language dominance underscores national
identity, while English signals global engagement. Yet the absence of other languages does bring an effect to
both inclusivity and internationalisation. Phillipson (2010) posited that this condition reflects the dual
pressures faced in postcolonial contexts, which is to safeguard national identity while striving for global
recognition. Taken together, these themes underscore the role of LL in constructing institutional identity,
shaping student experiences, and projecting values to external audiences.
Implications and Recommendations
The results of this study have significant implications for policy, pedagogy, and practice at UiTM and other
higher education institutions. First, from a policy perspective, APB should establish clear guidelines requiring
multilingual representation in signage. This could involve systematic inclusion of other languages alongside
BM and English, reflecting both curricular scope and student diversity. This issue was also highlighted by the
interview respondents where they were of the opinion that APB should look into what is displayed on the
notice boards and around the faculty in terms of the language choice and use. Hence, it is pertinent for the
faculty to also have a balance of the languages displayed in their LL to show inclusivity as well as to uphold
the faculty’s core ‘business’, i.e. language courses. Translation practices should also be visible and encouraged
as it could support local and international stake holders, ensuring equitable access to information, and also to
realise the university’s aspiration as an institution which is ‘globally renowned, locally rooted’. Institutional
identity would also bring benefits when LL visibly embodies multilingualism. The absence of other languages
undermines APB’s position as a centre of language studies as greater visibility would strengthen APB’s image
locally and internationally.
Second, pedagogical implications suggest that signage reform can be integrated into coursework. Language
students could participate in designing and producing multilingual signage as part of applied learning projects.
This would not only enrich the LL but also reinforce learning outcomes and foster student ownership of the
linguistic environment (Schvarcz & Warren, 2025). In relation to this, it is recommended for future research to
compare the faculty with other faculties in the university. This could provide a more in-depth insight of what is
being practiced throughout the university in terms of language(s) displayed in educational space. Another
recommendation that could be incorporated in future research is to adopt a multimodal approach to incorporate
semiotic elements such as symbols and logos as this study only focused on written language. Including the
semiotic features could expand the comprehension of signs in the educational space in terms of the meaning
behind the semiotic elements displayed. Finally, participatory governance is recommended. Students, faculty,
and administrators should collaborate on signage policy and practice.
CONCLUSION
This study examined the linguistic landscape of APB, UiTM Shah Alam, through documentation of 174 signs
and student interviews. Despite APB’s curricular emphasis on multiple languages, findings suggest that its
signage is largely limited to BM and English. This presents a striking mismatch between curricular diversity
and symbolic representation, warranting better language presentation in the faculty’s LL. Findings also
revealed on the dominance of BM-English bilingualism, the prevalence of partial translation, and the absence
of other taught languages. These patterns reflect institutional priorities that privilege Malay and English, while
symbolically erasing languages that are central to APB’s curricular. The discussion situates these findings
within global LL scholarship, highlighting common patterns of exclusion in higher education signage. At the
same time, it underscores the role of LL as de facto policy, shaping institutional identity and inclusivity. The
Page 234
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
implications for policy and pedagogy are clear: UiTM should expand visible multilingualism, standardise
translation practices, and involve students in signage reform. Such measures would align APB’s linguistic and
enhance accessibility for diverse students. Ultimately, the LL is more than a collection of signs. It is a symbolic
stage where competing values of nationalism, globalisation, and multilingual inclusivity are negotiated.
Reforming APB’s LL would embody its role as a centre of language studies as well as promoting d cultural
diversity within in the university.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is a part of a larger study titled “Reconnoitering linguistic landscape on campus: A case study of
UiTM Selangor”, and funded by Geran Inisiatif Akademi Pengajian Bahasa (GIA)
REFERENCES
1. Aini, A. A. S. (2017). Policy, practice and perceptions of linguistic landscape in the Klang Valley, Malaysia
(Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia).
2. Aini, A. A. S., Chan, S. H., & Abdullah, N. A. (2013). Exploring multilingual practices in billboard
advertisements in a linguistic landscape. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 21(2), 783–
796.
3. Backhaus, P. (2005). Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo: A linguistic landscape approach (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany).
4. Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
5. Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2004). Linguistic landscape and
multiculturalism: A Jewish-Arab comparative study. Tel Aviv: Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research.
6. Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic
construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668383
7. Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
9. Brown, K. D. (2012). The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: Language revitalization and schools in
southeastern Estonia. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the
linguistic landscape (pp. 281–298). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230360235_16
10. Clorion, F. D. D., Bulado, A. J., Encarnacion, B. A., Dumagay, A. H., Ellomer, G. A., Albani, S. E., Pil, A.
O., Devanadera, A. C., Rillo, R. M., Alrefaee, Y., & Alieto, E. O. (2024). Exploring linguistic signage in
higher education: An empirical study of a linguistically diverse context. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(1),
Article 2049. https://doi.org/10.59400/FLS.v6i1.2049
11. Coluzzi, P., & Kitade, R. (2015). The languages of places of worship in the Kuala Lumpur area: A study on
the “religious” linguistic landscape in Malaysia. Linguistic Landscape, 1(3), 243–267.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.1.3.02col
12. Husin, M., Ariffin, K., Mello, G., Omar, N., & Anuarudin, A. A. S. (2019). Mapping the linguistic landscape
of Kuala Lumpur. International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.24191/ijmal.v3i2.7362
13. Jiao, Y., & Singh, M. K. M. (2024). Linguistic landscape in George Town, Malaysia: Language visibility in
postcolonial context. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4814882
14. Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002
15. Manan, S. A., & David, M. K. (2016). Language ideology and the linguistic landscape. Linguistics and the
Human Sciences, 11(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v11i1.20228
16. Motschenbacher, H. (2023). Contrasting a university’s language policy with its linguistic landscape: A
Norwegian case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 25(3), 237–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2023.2283652
Page 235
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
17. Povalko, P., Smolii, E., & Kolysheva, O. (2023). Linguistic landscape of an international university campus:
Approaches, features, findings. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 14(4),
1321–1336. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-4-1321-1336
18. Reh, M. (2004). Multilingual writing: A reader-oriented typology—with examples from Lira Municipality
(Uganda). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170, 1–41.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2004.2004.170.1
19. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourse in place: Language in the material world. London:
Routledge.
20. Shohamy, E., & Waksman, S. (2009). Linguistic landscape as an ecological arena: Modalities, meanings,
negotiations, education. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery
(pp. 313–331). New York: Routledge.
21. Siricharoen, A. (2016). Multilingualism in the linguistic landscape of the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn
University, Thailand. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, 19(3), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-
01903002
22. Wang, X., & Xu, D. (2018). The mismatches between minority language practices and national language
policy in Malaysia: A linguistic landscape approach. Kajian Malaysia, 36(1), 105–125.
https://doi.org/10.21315/km2018.36.1.5
23. Wang, Y. (2017). Language policy in Chinese higher education: A focus on international students in China.
European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.4
24. Woo, W. S., & Riget, N. P. (2020). Linguistic landscape in Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(5), 404–423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1742724
25. Zhang, Z. (2024). Linguistic landscape at University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Language
Testing & Assessment, 7(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.23977/langta.2024.070104