Semiotic Landscape Gentrification

• In Event: Gentrification 3.0 in Dual Language Bilingual Education: A Districtwide Analysis of Equity for Emergent Bilinguals

Abstract

Purpose and Background
DLBE programs are important sites of affirming multiple languages and identities as expressed and represented in the physical environments of spaces such as walls and signs. A school’s semiotic landscape of posters, artwork, multimedia and multimodal items created by students, families or staff or commercially acquired are figurative testimony of a school’s priorities and politics (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2020). Yet landscapes may differ across and within schools, tendering different positionings of its students, families and staff, specifically racially and linguistically minoritized students. The purpose of this study is to examine the semiotic landscapes of Castleville and Suncrest to identify any patterns of what we term semiotic landscape gentrification in DLBE. We ask: What items are represented in the physical environments of DLBE schools? How do items reflect the identities of the school community?

Theoretical Framework
In this paper, we theorize through a linguistic/semiotic landscape framework to understand how semiotic messaging (both linguistic and non-linguistic) index or communicate ideologies or narratives about language(s), schools, and group identities (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010; Landry & Bourhis, 1997). Texts, images, and videos can include patterns that elevate certain discourses over others that rationalize or normalize certain social relations (Fairclough, 2001; Machin & Mayr, 2012).

Methods
We conducted a multimodal discourse analysis (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006; Machin, 2013; Machin & Mayr, 2012) drawing from text, pictures, artwork and multimedia displayed in the most public areas of a schoolwide-magnet Spanish-English DLBE program (Castleville) and a second neighborhood school (Suncrest). We specifically focused on items in interior spaces such as hallways, foyers, and the main office to capture the forward-facing images to all school-members and visitors.

We photographed and catalogued items and categorized them by artifact type. Descriptions accompanied each item and were vetted across researchers for consistency. In our first stage of analysis we identified if items represented messaging for all students and coded with a yes/no binary. We then categorized the messaging purpose of a) invitation; b) celebration/status; c) exclusivity/selection; d) judgement; and/or e) directive.

Results
Artifacts differed with Castleville having high representation in invitation, celebration and selection. Castleville’s front foyer, office and hallways displayed teacher- and student-created items that were colorful and representative of the cultural artifacts of the Latinx diaspora including a large offrenda. In the office, a Spanish Ministry of Education certificate demonstrated selection/exclusivity. Castleville’s items procured an audience for students, families, and staff. In contrast, Suncrest artifacts centered on judgement and directives and most artifacts were educator-created. The science of reading’s rope was displayed demonstrating instructional priorities (directives) targeting its teachers. Behavioral procedures for the hallway stated, “hands to yourself” demonstrating both directive and judgement discourse intended for students. The ecology of Castleville imbued an audience for all constituents; whereas Suncrest focused on teachers’ mediation of student behavior.

Scholarly Significance
This study complements the growing body on DLBE gentrification research and responds to a need for research on school environments with artifacts that can gentrify minoritized students and families.

Authors

• Garrett Delavan, University of New Mexico

• Trish Morita-Mullaney, Purdue University

• Juan A. Freire, Brigham Young University