岫岩满族自治县公共空间语言景观现状与规划
Current Status and Planning of Linguistic Landscape in Public Spaces of Xiuyan Manchu Autonomous County
摘要: 语言景观是公共空间语言实践的集合,也是反映区域语言政策、文化认同与权力关系的重要窗口。本研究以Scollon & Scollon的场所符号学为分析框架,以辽宁省岫岩满族自治县327个官方与私人语言景观样本为研究对象,从语码选择、语码取向、字刻特征、置放方式四个维度开展对比分析。研究发现:岫岩官方语言景观呈现出语码组合规范、汉语主导地位明确、字体材质统一、置放方式合规的特征;私人语言景观则更多受市场逻辑与商业需求驱动,语码选择灵活多样,视觉设计强调个性,满语与外语多作为文化符号而非交际工具使用。针对当前岫岩语言景观存在的满文使用不规范、符号化过度等问题,本研究提出完善规范引导、加强文化普及等优化建议,为民族自治县域的语言规划提供参考。
Abstract: Linguistic landscape, as the collection of linguistic practices in public spaces, is an important window that reflects regional language policies, cultural identity and power relations. Taking the geosemiotics theory proposed by Scollon & Scollon as the analytical framework, this research selects 327 official and private linguistic landscape samples from Xiuyan Manchu Autonomous County, Liaoning Province as research objects, and conducts a comparative analysis from four dimensions: code choice, code orientation, inscription features and placement mode. The study finds that the official linguistic landscapes in Xiuyan present characteristics of standardized code combination, clear dominant position of Chinese, unified font and material, and compliant placement. By contrast, private linguistic landscapes are more driven by market logic and commercial demands, with flexible and diverse code choices and highly personalized visual design; Manchu and foreign languages are mostly used as cultural symbols rather than communication tools in such landscapes. In response to existing problems of Xiuyan’s linguistic landscape, including non-standard use of Manchu script and excessive symbolization, this study puts forward optimization suggestions such as improving standard guidance and strengthening cultural popularization, so as to provide a reference for language planning in ethnic autonomous county-level regions.
文章引用:刘芮妍, 刘颖. 岫岩满族自治县公共空间语言景观现状与规划[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(10): 106-118. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.1410973

参考文献

[1] Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23-49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x970161002
[2] 巫喜丽, 战菊, 等. 语言景观研究的理论视角、问题取向及研究方法——国内语言景观研究十年综述[J]. 学术研究, 2017(7): 170-174.
[3] 尚国文, 赵守辉. 语言景观研究的视角、理论与方法[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2014, 46(2): 214-223+320.
[4] 徐茗. 北京市语言景观调查研究[M]. 上海: 上海三联书店, 2020.
[5] 赵学清, 刘洁琳. 澳门城市语言景观的多模态研究[J]. 陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022, 51(6): 123-136.
[6] Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003) Discourses in Place. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422724
[7] 姜力萌. 延边朝鲜族自治州城市语言景观调查研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 沈阳: 沈阳师范大学, 2023.
[8] Lai, M.L. (2013) The Linguistic Landscape of Hong Kong after the Change of Sovereignty. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10, 251-272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2012.708036
[9] 徐雪英, 赵柏锜. 民族自治区域的语言景观研究——以“延吉大学城”为例[J]. 延边大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 55(5): 54-62.
[10] 聂鹏, 木乃热哈. 西昌市彝文语言景观调查研究[J]. 语言文字应用, 2017(1): 45-52.
[11] 马翠菊. 民族地区城市语言景观研究——以甘南藏族自治州合作市为例[J]. 甘肃高师学报, 2023, 28(6): 48-52.
[12] Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge University Press.