Visualizing identity: linguistic landscapes and ethnolinguistic signage in indonesian multicultural neighborhoods

Authors

  • Heratul Aini Universitas PGRI Sumenep Author

Keywords:

critical discourse analysis, ethnolinguistic identity, linguistic landscape, semiotics, urban multiculturalism

Abstract

Background: Indonesia’s multicultural neighborhoods such as Glodok, Pecinan, Kampung Arab, and Kampung Bugis demonstrate how public signage embodies not only communication but also the negotiation of identity and power in urban spaces. Objective: The purpose of this research is to examine how ethnolinguistic visibility, cultural symbolism, and power relations are materialized in the linguistic landscapes of Indonesian cities. Method: The study employed a qualitative, multi-site design combining photographic documentation, semiotic interpretation, and critical discourse analysis across selected ethnic enclaves. Results: The findings reveal, first, that Indonesian dominates official signage while ethnic languages often remain hidden or minimized; second, that cultural symbolism—such as Chinese red-and-gold motifs or Arabic calligraphy—functions as a substitute for restricted linguistic expression; third, that bilingual or multilingual signage reflects regulated diversity where minority languages are acknowledged but subordinated under state-sanctioned hierarchies. Implication: These results imply that linguistic landscapes are powerful semiotic terrains that simultaneously reproduce and challenge dominant ideologies, providing insights for inclusive language policy, heritage preservation, and urban cultural planning. Novelty: This study shows how linguistic landscapes in multicultural urban enclaves materialize the tension between state-dominant language ideologies and the symbolic assertion of minority identities through regulated visibility and semiotic substitution.

References

[1] B. A. Sudarmanto et al., “Language Preservation through Public Signage: Analyzing the Linguistic Landscape of the Indonesia-Timor Leste Border,” Forum for Linguistic Studies, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 601–612, 2025, doi: 10.30564/fls.v7i4.9052.

[2] N. Napu, “Linguistic Landscapes in Multilingual Urban Settings: Insights from Translation Perspectives,” Studies in English Language and Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 530–548, 2024, doi: 10.24815/siele.v11i1.29559.

[3] T. Rosendal and J. De Dieu Amini Ngabonziza, “Amid signs of change: language policy, ideology and power in the linguistic landscape of urban Rwanda,” Language Policy, vol. 22, pp. 73–94, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10993-022-09624-5.

[4] N. Nazma, R. U. Khan, M. Sehr, and A. U. Khan, “The Linguistic Landscape of Peshawar City: A Study of Language Use in Shops Signs and Billboards,” Advance Social Science Archive Journal, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.55966/assaj.2025.3.2.034.

[5] S. Nambu and M. Ono, “Linguistic landscape of Shin-Ōkubo, Tokyo: a comparative study of Koreatown and Islamic Street,” International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 22, pp. 650–668, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1080/14790718.2024.2344181.

[6] Y. Wirza, W. Gunawan, R. Muniroh, B. Hermawan, and A. H. Galihkusumah, “Translanguaging Practices in the Rural Tourism Linguistic Landscape in Showcasing Cultural Identity: An Activity Theory Analysis,” Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, May 2025, doi: 10.21462/ijefl.v10i1.903.

[7] M. Y. Matatula, P. Tupalessy, and J. Patty, “A Semiotic Study of Angkot Signage in Ambon: Decoding Public Messaging on Wheels,” MATAI: International Journal of Language Education, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.30598/matail.v5i2.17630.

[8] G. Urbaite, “Linguistic Landscapes: How Urban Environments Shape Language Variation,” Porta Universorum, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.69760/portuni.010203.

[9] M. F. Qulub, S. R. Hamidi, and F. B. Tajalla, “Negotiating space through names: A linguistic landscape perspective on toponymic practices in Shah Alam, Selangor,” Al-Lisan, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.30603/al.v10i2.6527.

[10] H. W. Susianti, C. Purwanti, and M. Sutama, “Lanskap Linguistik di Kawasan Wisata Sanur: Kajian Kontestasi Bahasa,” Khatulistiwa: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora, May 2025, doi: 10.55606/khatulistiwa.v5i2.5954.

[11] A. P. Alhazmi, “Nilai Ruang Terkini Alun-Alun Utara Pada Kota Yogyakarta,” REKA RUANG, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 19–26, 2020.

[12] D. Sha, “Linguistic Landscape of Chiang Mai: Multilingualism and Cultural Communication in Tourism,” Critical Humanistic Social Theory, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.62177/chst.v2i1.148.

[13] G. Kimambo and P. Mdukula, “The linguistic landscape of tourism sites in Arusha, Kilimanjaro, and Manyara,” Cogent Arts & Humanities, vol. 11, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311983.2024.2370676.

[14] H. Kim, E. Seong, H. Lee, D.-K. Chae, and S. Lee, “Decoding multiculturalism through linguistic landscapes: a deep learning–based OCR analysis of street view images,” Urban Informatics, vol. 4, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44212-025-00071-1.

[15] E.-T. Meineke, “Text und Malerei bei Barthes,” in Barthes-Handbuch, A. Oster, Ed., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2025, pp. 273–281. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-70517-9_33.

[16] A. Fawaid and P. Handayani, “Visualizing inequality: uncovering gender bias in Islamic textbooks of Indonesia,” Cogent Education, vol. 12, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2593342.

[17] W. K. A. W. Mokhtar, S. K. Dewi, M. S. bin H. Masri, H. Baharun, and A. Fawaid, “Many Roads to Mecca: The Controversy of Safarwadi Cave Pilgrimage in the Local Muslims,” IAS Journal of Localities, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 109–124, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.62033/iasjol.v2i2.79.

[18] G. Kress and T. Van Leeuwen, “Modality and validity,” in Reading Images, 3rd ed., Third edition. | London; New York: Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2020, pp. 149–178. doi: 10.4324/9781003099857-6.

[19] N. Fairclough, Media discourse. Edward Arnold London, 1995. [Online]. Available: https://reviewbooku.com/review/norman-fairclough-media-discourse-4951969

[20] R. Wodak, The Discourse of Politics in Action. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2009. doi: 10.1057/9780230316539.

[21] T. A. Van Dijk, “Principles of critical discourse analysis,” Discourse & society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 249–283, 1993.

[22] D. Guarín and D. Arias-Cortés, “English as Symbolic Capital: Globalization and the Linguistic Landscape of Armenia, Quindío (Colombia),” Languages, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.3390/languages10030034.

[23] D. Zoumpalidis and H. B. Şimşek, “Multilingualism and language commodification in the public signage of Moscow,” Russian Journal of Linguistics, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.22363/2687-0088-43326.

[24] M. He and S. Chen, “Unveiling dynamics of language visibility and vitality in café menus near Labrang Monastery,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 15, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1423672.

[25] J. W. Creswell, Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methode Approach, (Research Design, Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Mixed, Edisi Ketiga) terj. Achmad Fawaid. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://digilib.ub.ac.id/opac/detail-opac?id=139455

[26] T. D. Jick, “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action,” Administrative science quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 602–611, 1979.

[27] Y. Wang and W. Hu, “Identity formation through cultural expression: Exploring Chinese spaces of ethnic consumption in Sydney, Australia,” Area, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1111/area.70043.

Downloads

Published

31-03-2026

How to Cite

Visualizing identity: linguistic landscapes and ethnolinguistic signage in indonesian multicultural neighborhoods. (2026). Indonesian Journal of Language, Space, and Visual Arts, 1(1), 51-60. https://ejournal.narasikhatulistiwa.org/index.php/ijls/article/view/517