View/Open - IUP DSpace Home - Indiana University of Pennsylvania

LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE OF ―LITTLE RUSSIA BY THE SEA,‖
A MULTILINGUAL COMMUNITY
IN A BROOKLYN AREA OF NEW YORK CITY
A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
Alena A. Litvinskaya
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
August 2010
© 2010 by Alena A. Litvinskaya
All Rights Reserved
ii
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
The School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of English
We hereby approve the thesis of
Alena A. Litvinskaya
Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts
_June 30, 2010___________
___Signature on File________________________
David I. Hanauer, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Advisor
_June 30, 2010___________
___Signature on File________________________
Sharon K. Deckert, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
_July 3, 2010____________
___Signature on File________________________
Aneta Pavlenko, Ph.D.
Professor of TESOL
ACCEPTED
___Signature on File___________________
Timothy P. Mack, Ph.D.
Dean
The School of Graduate Studies and Research
iii
____________________________
Title: Linguistic Landscape of ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖ a Multilingual Community in a
Brooklyn Area of New York City
Author: Alena A. Litvinskaya
Thesis Chair: Dr. David I. Hanauer
Thesis Committee Members: Dr. Sharon K. Deckert
Dr. Aneta Pavlenko
The immigrants to the United States from the countries, former republics of the
Soviet Union, represent a unique amalgam of ethnicities, religions, cultures, and
languages. However, despite their differences, often amplified by the stereotypes brought
along from the (former) Soviet Union and political tensions between the existing nationstates, they form communities on the basis of common language (Russian) and common
past (Soviet). Unfortunately, the phenomenon has been under-researched, with only a
handful of studies of Russian-speaking immigrant neighborhoods.
This study characterizes the so called ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖ a small
multiethnic and multilingual neighborhood in the Brooklyn borough of New York. I
conducted a linguistic landscape study of the area by analyzing the language usage in the
public space, which has proven to be an effective approach to studying multilingual
communities. In particular, I combined a quantitative analysis of the languages displayed
on the business fronts in ―Little Russia,‖ according to their business types and the types
of signs they have, with the detailed qualitative analysis of five representative EnglishRussian business fronts. I focused on the role of the Russian language in the community
and its status based on its representations in the linguistic landscape of ―Little Russia.‖
iv
The study showed the dominance of English as the language of power and wider
communication and the presence of the Russian language on more than half of the
business fronts. Other languages spoken by the immigrants from the former Soviet Union
were present on only one or two business fronts. The Russian language was used for three
major purposes: servicing (offering products and services to Russian-speaking
population), material (goods made in Russia), and sentimental (appealing to collective
identity and evoking memories from the Soviet culture). The text on business fronts also
revealed various combinations of code-switching and transliterations of Russian and
English.
Further research is needed to study émigré Russian displayed in the public space
in ―Little Russia‖ as well as linguistic landscape studies of other Russian-speaking
neighborhoods to see how they negotiate languages, cultures, and past and present.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
One of the things I learned during my Master‘s program is that writing is a
process. From my experience, I can say that writing thesis is a very long process, which
sometimes can make you feel lonely. That is why, I am grateful to God for keeping me
company when I was alone with my data, books, and my laptop and for sending
wonderful people my way to help me at all stages of my thesis.
I am thankful to my advisor, Dr. David I. Hanauer, without whom I would not
have had courage to start this process. You helped me find topics I was really interested
in. Your valuable guidance, positive feedback, constant encouragement, and most of all
your exceptional patience gave me confidence that I would actually finish my thesis.
Thank you for letting me tutor in your ENGL 101s. These undergraduate courses
definitely facilitated my writing process. I was not only a tutor but also a student learning
with my tutees how to map arguments and write literature reviews. It was such a valuable
experience.
I especially thank my committee members, Dr. Aneta Pavlenko and Dr. Sharon
Deckert, who were interested in my research and showed much understanding and
support through e-mails and face-to-face communication. Dr. Lisya Seloni, thank you for
your help as well. I wish you could have stayed on the committee.
I am indebted so much to Dan and Sherry Hydens, for letting me be part of their
family during my stay in New York and for assisting in my research. Christopher,
Symphony, Lacey, Shastya, and Gabriel, thanks for making me feel at home and for
making collecting data fun! I am also thankful to Marina from Bethel Church, Brooklyn,
for her always cheerful and optimistic e-mails from Brighton Beach.
vi
To my family in Russia, Ukraine, and China, for their moral support through
phone calls and e-mails, I am grateful. Mom, thanks for reminding me that I am missed
and needed home! Tanya, this time you won – you finished your thesis before I did mine.
Lilya and Alyosha, thank you for my nephew‘s pictures; I am so anxious to finally meet
little Sashka.
To Calvary Baptist Church in Clymer, for their incessant prayer support and
encouragement, I am thankful. Karen Rhoades, your inexhaustible optimism and
cheerfulness helped me complain less. I will always treasure our friendship. Cynthia
Nelson (Cindy), Hannah West, Janet Jeffers (Jan), Helga Moslak, and Sue Fry, you were
always available when I needed you. Howard and Virginia Hutton, thank you for your
hospitality. Your place has always been like a sanctuary to me, whereto I could escape
from being a student. Howard, your jokes and peppermint kept my spirit up, thank you.
To Paul and Linda Murphy, for checking on me regularly to make sure I am alive
and writing, I am grateful. Your prayers and your visit from Illinois meant a lot to me.
I thank all my fellow graduate students from IUP Composition & TESOL
Program and the members of RSR & PJN Club. I am especially grateful to my former
roommate Pei-hsun Emma Liu, for sharing with me her helpful feedback and her dinners
and her carrel… I would not have made it without you. I also appreciate Hayat
Messekher, for her willingness to hear about my thesis again and again and for her help
during the last, most painful, stage of my thesis writing. To Natalie Yegenian, for bearing
with me and taking care of me, thank you.
To my MA TESOL cohort who encouraged me all the way and some of whom
joined me on this hard journey, I am thankful. Théophile Muhayimana, I appreciate your
vii
trusting my expertise in linguistic landscape studies when I doubted it. Moagisi Edwin
Seleka, you have been a patient neighbor; I enjoyed our discussions about what we
learned in the program.
Finally, I am grateful to the Fulbright Program, for providing me with the
opportunity to earn my Master‘s degree in TESOL at Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
and to the faculty of the Department of International Relations (the Chair of Foreign
Languages-2, in particular) at the Amur State University, for encouraging my
professional development.
This thesis is for you, Dad.
Я знаю, ты бы мной гордился.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... xii
1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
Russian-Speaking Immigration in the USA, New York, and ―Little Russia‖ ........ 1
Significance of the Study and its Brief Description................................................ 7
2
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 10
Research on Linguistic Landscape........................................................................ 10
The Notion of Linguistic Landscape......................................................... 10
Geography of Linguistic Landscape Studies ............................................ 12
Functions of Linguistic Landscape ........................................................... 13
Applications of Linguistic Landscape Studies .......................................... 14
Theoretical Frameworks of LL Studies .................................................... 18
Methodology ............................................................................................. 21
Research on Russian-Speaking Immigration to the USA ..................................... 30
Russian-Speaking Jews and Immigration Waves ..................................... 30
Russian-Speaking Immigration in Sociolinguistics .................................. 32
Studies of Russian-Speaking Immigrant Communities ............................ 35
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 37
ix
3
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 38
Quantitative Study ................................................................................................ 38
Site of Data Collection .............................................................................. 38
Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................ 39
Specific Decisions ..................................................................................... 40
Data Collection ......................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 44
Qualitative Study .................................................................................................. 48
Experiencing ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ ............................................................... 49
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 58
4
FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 59
Quantitative Study ................................................................................................ 59
Languages in Business Fronts – Global Picture ....................................... 59
Languages by Business Type .................................................................... 61
Languages by Sign Type ........................................................................... 74
Qualitative Study .................................................................................................. 91
Restaurant ................................................................................................. 91
Pharmacy................................................................................................. 104
Shoe Store ............................................................................................... 108
Legal Services ......................................................................................... 111
Immigration Services .............................................................................. 117
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 122
x
5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................... 124
Languages in ―Little Russia‖ .............................................................................. 124
Use of Russian in ―Little Russia‖ ....................................................................... 129
Other Features of ―Little Russia‖ ........................................................................ 132
Value of Written Text ............................................................................. 132
Immigrant Language ............................................................................... 134
Summary ............................................................................................................. 135
Potential Meanings of ―Little Russia‖ ................................................................ 136
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................... 142
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 145
APPENDIX A Map of ―Little Russia‖ .......................................................................... 158
APPENDIX B M&I International Food (249 Brighton Beach Ave) ............................. 159
APPENDIX C Type of Business by Language.............................................................. 161
APPENDIX D Definitions of the Categories According to the Type of Business ........ 164
Appendix E Type of Sign by Language ......................................................................... 168
APPENDIX F Primorski Restaurant.............................................................................. 170
APPENDIX G Oceania Pharmacy ................................................................................. 171
APPENDIX H Shoe House............................................................................................ 172
APPENDIX I Law Office .............................................................................................. 173
APPENDIX J Service Center......................................................................................... 174
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Page
Total Languages Ratio ............................................................................................. 60
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The thesis describes a Russian-speaking multilingual, multiethnic, and
multicultural community in a Brooklyn area in New York, NY, using quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the public signage in ―Little Russia by the Sea.‖ First, I provide
historical context of the Russian-speaking immigration in New York City up to the
present-day situation and explain the development of the Brighton Beach area in the
Brooklyn borough of New York known as ―Little Russia.‖ This context helps see the
rationale and the purpose for the conducting of this study, which are described afterwards
along with the choice of methodology. Following this, I highlight the main conclusions of
the study and the organization of the manuscript.
Russian-Speaking Immigration
in the USA, New York, and “Little Russia”
The number of USA residents who claim Russian or Soviet ancestry is estimated
at 4-5 million (for different numbers, see "American Association for Russian Language,
Culture and Education," 2005; The Newest New Yorkers 2000, 2004; U.S. Census 2000,
2003). Many of them arrived during the Soviet times.
Russian-speaking immigration to the US during Soviet and post-Soviet times had
significant impact on the formation of ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ in Brighton Beach area,
Brooklyn, NY. It was closely connected to the US immigration policies, to the political
and economic changes in Russia and in the world. The categories of immigrants included
Jews and different religious sects, people persecuted for political reasons or seeking
better living, economic, and working conditions or trying to reunite with their families.
1
The flow of immigrants was never homogenous, though émigrés from Russia and
Ukraine constituted a majority (Neimer, 2003). Recently, immigrants from other Eastern
European and Central Asian states have been contributing to the diversity (Foner, 2001,
2002).
Immigration from the 1970s onward would be of particular interest to this work,
since those immigrants basically formed the present population of the Brooklyn Brighton
Beach neighborhood, the site of the study. A large emigration wave from the Soviet
Union took place in the 1970s after the USSR granted Soviet Jews permission to resettle
in Israel. From the mid-70s, however, Jewish immigrants, especially from Russian and
Ukrainian large cities, tended to use this opportunity to leave the USSR, with its
communist regime and persecution, and seek refuge in the USA, a democracy with
economic opportunities and freedoms.
In the second half of the 1970s, about 110,000 Soviet Jews came to the USA
(Orleck, 1999, p. 58). The United States accepted them as refugees. They were met in
New York by representatives from Jewish organizations and resettlement agencies, like
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and New York Association for New Americans
(NYANA), who handed them a welcoming informational package and helped the new
immigrants settle, primarily in New York City. Since the immigrants‘ finances were very
limited, they chose inexpensive neighborhoods, trying to find places within established
Jewish communities. This wave was also characteristic of three-generation families
moving and settling together, with the older generation often responsible for rearing their
grandchildren, while the parents were working. The major problems that the new
immigrants encountered were loss of professional and social status after moving into the
2
US and tensions with the American Jewish community (Gold, 1997; Orleck, 1999;
Ritterband, 1997; Simon, 1997).
The Brighton Beach area became a popular place for immigrants from the USSR.
The main reasons were the following: The area was in close proximity to the airport. It
was not as religious as other Jewish neighborhoods in New York, and its residents were
East European Jews who could communicate in Yiddish with the elderly immigrants
from the Soviet Union (Orleck, 1999). By 1980, the number of Soviet Jews in the
Brighton Beach area was over 30,000 (Orleck, 1999, p. 92).
The overall situation–concentration in certain areas, confrontations with
American Jews, difficulties in finding good jobs, and influx of people speaking Russian–
served as a good foundation for starting up businesses catering to the new population.
The same areas provided both labor force and customers sharing the same language. This
is how ―Little Odessa‖ in Brighton came to existence. It received its name after a
Ukrainian city on the Black Sea, where many Soviet Jews came from to the USA. Thus,
the area was emotionally, culturally, and commercially attractive for Soviet Jewish
refugees.
The next influx of immigration (1987–1991) preceded the collapse of the Soviet
Union and was followed by the wave of immigrants after the dissolution of the USSR. It
should be pointed out that those immigrants were different from the previous waves.
Soviet Jews immigrated mostly with the purpose of family reunification, which is still
used as the main basis for immigration. That was primarily due to the fact that the US
government stopped providing visas to Soviet Jews on the refugee basis. The (post)Soviet
Jews coming in the 1990s were mainly Bukharian Jews, emigrating from Central Asia,
3
countries like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Georgia. Their culture differed from that of
immigrants who had arrived earlier from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, but many of them
also settled in the Brooklyn borough of New York.
Besides the continuing, but slowing, flow of post-Soviet Jews joining their
families in the US, there are many non-Jews, whose numbers are growing. In the Soviet
times, there were small (compared to Jewish immigration in the US) numbers of refugees
from Russian Orthodox and Protestant sects escaping religious persecution, but they
usually settled in already established religious and ethnic communities in California and
Oregon (Uthmann, 2005). Still, in 1990, in New York, NY, over 80% of refugees were
from the USSR (The Newest New Yorkers 2000, 2004). After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, religious refugees kept coming.
Another group of immigrants is non-Jewish young families seeking better
economic conditions and careers, which were hard to have in the politically, socially, and
economically unstable former Soviet republics experimenting with democracy (Uthmann,
2005). However, they do not bring their parents or grandparents right away, and unlike
third-wave immigrants they do not have overwhelming support of local population and
government. In the recent decade, the process of immigration to the United States has
become more complicated. Academics and scientists have better chances of getting
immigrant visas. Many others arrive with non-immigrant visas as workers, students,
tourists, or guests, with the intention to change their visa status to immigrant ones while
in the United States.
Finally, there is a group of illegal immigrants–those who came with nonimmigrant visas, were unable to change their visa status, but decided to stay anyway.
4
Some of those undocumented are students and scholars visiting the USA with educational
and cultural exchange programs (like Fulbright, MUSKIE, and Work & Travel) and not
always willing to go back to their home countries. It has partially to do with the US
toughening immigration policy and high level of economic and political uncertainty in
former Soviet republics.
The difficulties post-Soviet immigrants experience are similar to those of the
previous wave. New Russian-speaking immigrant Jews still celebrate bar/bat-mitzvahs in
restaurants, with traditions American Jews find shocking (Orleck, 1999, pp. 110-114).
Young families or independent young people still have to start their life in the US with a
lower social status and low-paid jobs, even though they come with university degrees.
They have to survive on their own, but being better equipped with English they seem to
be more prepared to compete in free labor market.
The incoming Russian-speaking immigrants settle all over the country, but mostly
in the areas where the Russian-speaking communities had already been formed. In New
York, there are all of the mentioned categories of immigrants. According to the US
Census, over 80,000 immigrants from the Soviet Union lived in New York in 1990,
putting the country in the fifth position (The Newest New Yorkers 2000, 2004). In 2000,
the summative figure went up to approximately 164,000 residents, which would have
made the former Soviet republics together rank fourth (The Newest New Yorkers 2000,
2004).
The newcomers prefer affordable places in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island
neighborhoods. Almost two thirds of the 81,400 Russian-born residents lived in Brooklyn
which had the second largest concentration of Russian émigrés, in Sheepshead Bay5
Brighton Beach neighborhood, with 9,300 residents in 2000 (The Newest New Yorkers
2000, 2004). However, less and less immigrants settle in the Brighton Beach area, as it
has been overcrowded. Moreover, it still bears a stigma of a high-crime rate place (Foner,
2001; Orleck, 1999). The latter has to do with the notoriously famous Odessa mob that
was formed of both Jewish and non-Jewish Soviet immigrants in the 1970s when it was
engaged in extortion, drug sales, gasoline frauds, and prostitution. To date, the crime-rate
is much lower than in the 1980s and 1990s (CompStat, Report on Crime Rate, 60th
Precinct, 2010) and the relations between the New York Police Department and the
Brighton Beach population have improved significantly. Still, the perception of Brighton
Beach area by Russians themselves differs from nostalgia to disapproval and rejection
(Diehl, 2000; Tavernise, 2003).
Despite the stigma attached to the Brighton Beach area, Brighton has remained
―Little Russia,‖ with its busy avenue, elderly people, and Russian-speaking population,
not necessarily living there, but visiting the area either to work or use its services or visit
relatives from the previous generations of immigrants. In Brighton, people can buy local
newspapers published in New York in Russian, receive local Russian radio program
broadcasts, and get assistance from local and national associations and organizations
catering to the needs of the Russian-speaking population, e.g. Brighton Neighborhood
Association.
All of the above is the evidence that this Russian-speaking neighborhood holds a
rather complicated, and even controversial, multilingual and multicultural immigrant
community with multiple identities. ―Little Russia‖ is still one of the largest and most
advertized Russian-speaking communities. It is referred to in tour guides, on websites, in
6
movies and in books. Americans who do not speak Russian and tourists from all over the
world come to Brighton in order to experience authentic Russian culture.
Significance of the Study and its Brief Description
Neighborhoods, like ―Little Russia,‖ are peculiar entities. Even though nowadays
Russia makes up a much smaller territory and many immigrants do not refer to
themselves as Russians, the Russian language is indisputably a shared language due to
the Soviet past. Conversely, the usage of Russian in the post-Soviet territories has been
rather controversial (Pavlenko, 2008b, 2008c, 2009), which has to do with the rise of
nationalist movements and language policies disfavoring Russian language in some states,
disapproval or approval of some decisions in Russian home and international politics, and
immense baggage of the common Soviet heritage (bonds and family ties, on the one hand,
and conflicts, on the other). The phenomenon is that in spite of political, cultural,
religious, ethnic, and language differences, the immigrants in the USA have formed a
community united by the Russian language and common past.
Unfortunately, there has been insufficient research on the Russian-speaking
diaspora in the United States. The most studied category would be the Soviet Jews who
immigrated in the USA in the 1980s–1990s. The research has been in terms of
immigration waves in general (Ben-Rafael, Lyubansky, et al., 2006; Lewin-Epstein, Ro'i,
& Ritterband, 1997; Orleck, 1999; Simon, 1997) as well as identity and assimilation
issues (e.g., Gold, 1997; Ritterband, 1997). There have also been a few studies of
(post)Soviet Jewish immigrants in cities, like New York (Foner, 2001) and Philadelphia
(Morawska, 2004). Other categories of immigrants by and large have been neglected,
with the exception of a Russian-speaking community in Portland, OR, (Uthmann, 2005)
7
and a religious congregation in a Midwestern city (Peterson, 2009). In particular, there is
a lack of ethnographic studies of the Russian-speaking immigrants in the United States.
This study seeks to contribute to the existing knowledge about the Russianspeaking immigrants in the USA by characterizing the linguistic landscape (LL) of ―Little
Russia by the Sea,‖ a Russian-speaking neighborhood in Brooklyn‘s Brighton Beach area
of New York.
According to Huebner (2009), LL allows to document ―visual record of identities,
values, and relationships within a given territory‖ (p.70). Therefore, the study of the
public signage of ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ is an appropriate way of characterizing the
Russian-speaking immigrant community in that area. As an important advantage of an LL
study, Spolsky and Cooper (1991) stated that it tends to be more objective and accurate
than surveys and interviews, when it comes to depicting language(s) usage in a certain
area, because there is more value in observing actual practices of using (written) language
in public compared to analyzing what languages inhabitants know or claim to speak. In
the case of the latter, in addition to getting biased responses, there is always a possibility
of misinterpreting the questions (by participants) or answers (by researchers).
In order to characterize the Russian-speaking area, I conducted a comprehensive
analysis of the language(s) displayed on the business fronts in ―Little Russia.‖ I
particularly focused on the role of the Russian language in the community and its status
based on its representations in the LL of ―Little Russia.‖
The research questions addressed are the following:
1. Which languages are displayed in the public space of ―Little Russia‖? What is
the rank of Russian among other languages used?
8
2. What are the purposes / functions of the Russian language and how does it
characterize the Russian-speaking neighborhood?
The rest of the thesis is organized as follows: In Chapter 2, I give an overview of
the existing scope of research on LL and Russian-speaking immigration to the USA.
Chapter 3 has the detailed description of quantitative and qualitative methods used in the
study supplemented with a narrative of my personal experience of the area under study as
an influential part of data analysis and interpretation. Chapter 4 presents the findings of
the quantitative study which are categorized according to the language use on the
business fronts and the types of business and types of signs. It also contains the
qualitative analysis of several representative business fronts. Finally, Chapter 5 provides
the main explanations of the findings and conclusions of the study
Since this is the first LL study of a Russian-speaking immigrant neighborhood,
this work extends the research not only in Russian-speaking US immigration, but also in
LL studies.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 provides analysis of the available research related to linguistic
landscape and studies of Russian-speaking immigrant population in the United States.
The former is fairly new and the latter is under-researched. In the section on linguistic
landscape research, I start with the definition of linguistic landscape, its functions, uses
and purposes of LL studies, and then discuss theoretical frameworks used for analyzing
LL and methodology, with especial focus on methodological issues. I continue with the
section on Russian-speaking immigration to the USA, which I divide into Jewish
immigration studies, sociolinguistics studies, and immigrant community studies.
Research on Linguistic Landscape
The studies of linguistic landscape (LL) are relatively new and have become
especially popular among researchers only in the last few years. However, scholarly
interest in public signage as a source of information and data has existed prior to that time.
Spolsky (2009) and Backhaus (2007) have referred to studies conducted in the late
1960s–early 1990s, which started laying theoretical and methodological foundation for
LL as a field or sub-field of sociolinguistics.
The Notion of Linguistic Landscape
Classic definition of linguistic landscape and what it studies was suggested by
Landry and Bourhis (1997):
The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place
names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings
10
combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban
agglomeration. (p.25)
Basically, LL includes texts displayed in public space. Many studies were based on that
notion of LL (Backhaus, 2009; Gorter, 2006c). Some focused on a particular type of
signs only: billboards (e.g., Tulp, 1978, cited in Backhaus, 2007), shop signs and names
(Dimova, 2007; MacGregor, 2003; Sadikhova & Marjan, 2000; Schlick, 2002, 2003),
road signs (Puzey, 2007), or proper and brand names (Edelman, 2009; Tufi & Blackwood,
2010). Other researchers included all visible or displayed texts (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006;
Dagenais, Moore, Sabatier, Lamarre, & Armand, 2009; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991).
At the same time, there were researchers who went beyond that definition and
counted as part of LL signs on non-static objects, like transport and clothes (Curtin, 2009);
transgressive art–graffiti (Hanauer, 2004, 2009; Pennycook, 2009); and images and notes
in a microbiology lab (Hanauer, 2009, 2010). In their collection of articles on linguistic
landscaping in India, Itagi and Singh (2002) also included newspapers and periodicals as
items for analysis.
Shohamy and Waksman (2009) took a step further and proposed an all-inclusive
definition of LL, embracing all types of text, be it language or image, written or spoken,
sounds or video; displayed (in certain time and space) inside buildings or outside, in the
street or in the Internet. Since LL research studies language in context, people are also
part of linguistic landscape, whether they are designing a sign for their business, walking
past a shop window, standing in the street and talking, passing by a billboard on a train,
or watching videos on YouTube and commenting on pictures on Flickr (Shohamy &
Gorter, 2009; Shohamy & Waksman, 2009).
11
Backhaus (2006) argued that such expansion threatens to make LL intangible and
too broad to study. However, with the Internet, digital technologies, software advances
and reality shows becoming indispensible parts of our lives, it cannot be denied that the
language in public space it taking various new forms, the notion of public versus private
is constantly changing, and the audiences interacting with and influenced by language in
public sphere are multiplying (Shohamy & Waksman, 2009). Therefore, redefining LL
seems inevitable.
Another extension, in a slightly different manner, was offered by Gorter (2006a),
who suggested the term cityscape instead of linguistic landscape, since it would be more
accurate in reflecting the nature of the studies. His argument was that due to urbanization
and globalization, most of LL studies are conducted in the cities, where meant to be read
signs are concentrated, along with multilingual population, language contacts, and
language conflicts (Gorter, 2006a). Still, there were a few LL studies conducted in rural
areas or inside buildings (e.g., a laboratory) that would not fit Gorter‘s (2006a) new term.
In any case, researchers did not seem to take up this innovation in the studies following
his publication and preferred to use the terms linguistic landscape or linguistic
landscaping.
Geography of Linguistic Landscape Studies
Geographically, the studies of LL cover a rather diverse area: cities in African,
Asian, European, South- and Latin-American, and North-American countries. Some
studies focused on one specific area, for example, Quito, Ecuador in Alm (2003); Baku,
Azerbaijan in Sadikhova and Marjan (2000); or the ‗Golden Triangle‘ in Algarve,
Portugal in Torkington (2008). Interestingly, only a few studies were conducted in
12
ethnolinguistic neighborhoods in the United States – Hispanic (Yanguas, 2009) and
Chinese (Lou, 2007) neighborhoods in Washington, DC, and a Korean neighborhood in
Oakland, CA (Malinowski, 2009).
Others engaged in comparative analyses of several areas. They could be located
within one country: Brown (2007) studied official public signage in Minsk, Vitebsk, and
Grodno in Belarus; Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Amara, and Trumper-Hecht (2006) covered
West and East Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, Nazareth and several towns within the study of the
LL of Israel; and Huebner (2006) analyzed 15 neighborhoods in Bangkok area, Thailand.
There were also many comparative studies of areas in different countries–Friesland in the
Netherlands and the Basque country in Spain (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006); Belarus, Czech
Republic and Slovakia (Sloboda, 2009); Klagenfurt in Austria, Udine in Italy and
Ljubljana in Slovenia (Schlick, 2002); eight cities in four European countries (Schlick,
2003); Quebec in Canada and Tokyo in Japan (Backhaus, 2009), etc.
Functions of Linguistic Landscape
LL is said to perform several functions: informational, symbolic, mythological,
and commercial. Landry and Bourhis (1997) highlighted the first two as basic functions
of LL. Informational function has two aspects: First, LL ―inform[s] in-group and outgroup members of the linguistic characteristics, territorial limits, and language boundaries
or the region they have entered‖ (p. 25). In other words, LL marks the territory of a
certain people using certain language(s). Second, the dominance of one language on the
public signs in an area can be an indicator of availability of services in that language (p.
25).
13
Symbolic function, on the other hand, is connected to identity of language users
and inhabitants of a specific area. LL can ―symbolize the strength or weakness of
competing ethnolinguistic groups in the intergroup setting‖ (Landry & Bourhis, 1997, p.
28). Developing the symbolic function of LL, Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, et al. (2006) built
their sociological framework of symbolic construction of public space while analyzing
public signage in several cities and areas in Israel.
Mythological, or folkloric function of LL was added by Hicks (2002). Analyzing
the ways of Gaelic revitalization in Scotland, Hicks claimed that the naming of places can
reflect the traditional culture of an ethnolinguistic group via their associations with myths,
stories and folklore. In this way, signage serves as connection to the past and transmitter
of ancient culture. Interestingly enough, in somewhat similar situation–attempts to revive
Breton language–Hornsby (2008) came up with a different view of LL, i.e. commercial
function. He defined it with regard to commodification of language, as the language
usage (Breton) exclusively for product and place promotion for tourists.
Applications of Linguistic Landscape Studies
Based on the functions of LL, there are various domains where LL studies can be
helpful: multilingualism, language attitudes, education, literacies, language policy,
language planning, psychology, studies of social (collective) identities, etc.
With the globalization and the spread of English all over the world, it is not
surprising that there are many LL studies gauging the use of English in different places,
including the contexts where English is neither an official nor a minority language.
English language has been found ―infiltrating‖ countries, like Bulgaria (Griffin, 2001),
and having noticeable presence in Tokyo, Japan (Backhaus, 2007; Hyde, 2002;
14
MacGregor, 2003), Finland (Taavitsainen & Pahta, 2008), Macedonia (Dimova, 2007),
Bangkok, Thailand (Huebner, 2006), and Rome, Italy (Griffin, 2004). According to these
studies, English seems to play a cosmopolitan role indexing international status of the
place and its modernity. This is especially true in post-Soviet countries, like Azerbaijan
(Sadikhova & Marjan, 2000). The shop signs in English are interpreted as indicating
better quality and higher status of businesses, and thus are seldom seen on stores, like
bakeries and grocery stores, which provide for customers‘ everyday needs (Dimova, 2007;
Schlick, 2002, 2003). In addition, studies conducted in tourist areas (country capitals and
historical or resort areas) explain the use of English as serving informational function–as
lingua franca or international language or the language of the target audience, along with
symbolical one–communicating the images of fashion and prestige (Griffin, 2004;
Kallen, 2009).
From an educational perspective, LL studies incorporated in teaching elementary
school children in Canada helped raise their awareness of how multilingual their
neighborhoods were (Dagenais, et al., 2009). Hanauer (2009) showed how wall space in a
microbiology laboratory in the Bacteriophage Institute of Pittsburgh served literacy
purposes for creating knowledge. Cenoz and Gorter (2008) looked at LL as a language
learning context and explored the possibilities of using LL as input for second language
acquisition to increase pragmatic competence.
Another study that explicitly addressed the issues of literacy in public signage was
by Malinowski (2009) who looked at the authorship of business signs in Korean
neighborhood in San-Francisco. He found that the owners‘ freedom in creating signs was
limited and their intentions did not always match the reactions and interpretations of sign
15
readers. Backhaus (2005, 2007) studied diachronic changes in the use of English in
official signs in Tokyo and how the form of messages tended to become more standard,
comfortable, and correct for native speakers of English. Literacy through sign-reading
and interpretation was the focus of Collins and Slembrouck‘s (2004) study of shop
window signs in Ghent, Belgium. They explained different interpretations of the same
signs as dependent on geographic, historic and social relationships, assumptions about the
immigrant neighborhoods, and schooling. Spolsky (2009) argued that one of the three
rules of the LL is that the sign-writers need to know the language in which they want to
have a sign. However, from the first two examples, it seems evident that the knowledge
of language can be a continuum rather than a definite binary category.
LL studies also focused on identity issues. Language choice displayed in LL
reveals identity markers of sign-owners and sign-writers. Curtin (2009) analyzed
collective national identities of Chinese-ness and Taiwanese-ness indexed through
various orthographic usages of the languages in public space in a globalized context of
Taipei, Taiwan. Spolsky limits language choice to the language a sign-owner identifies
with (Spolsky, 2009; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991). An example would be the use of local
languages in tourist areas as evidence of national identity which is translated for tourists
into authenticity and exoticism of the place (Kallen, 2009). Ben-Rafael (2009) narrows it
to the collective-identity principle, according to which languages used on public signs
reflect sign-owners‘ ―a priori commitment to a given group within a general public‖ (p.
46). The issues of national identity can sometimes cause language battles, when signowners attempt to accommodate conflicting groups within a society, as was the case with
16
a used-to-be bilingual mall on the border of Nazareth and Upper Nazareth, which is now
Hebrew-only (Trumper-Hecht, 2009).
LL is also viewed as a ―language policy mechanism‖ (Shohamy, 2006, p. 123),
manipulating the visibility and positioning of languages, the content and form of
messages in public space to make it clear which language is important and has power and
prestige, and which language is insignificant, irrelevant and marginalized (Shohamy,
2006). By comparing the regulations on language policy with official signs and private
signs, scholars study how real-life language situation corresponds with official policy,
and what status and roles different languages have in the area. Some research has been
done in multilingual areas where a language status was contested or ethnolinguistic
conflicts were the case. Israel (Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, et al., 2006; Spolsky & Cooper,
1991) and Canadian Quebec (Landry & Bourhis, 1997) would be the two salient places
with competing Arabic and Hebrew and English and French, respectively. Related to this,
research has been done on LL as territorial solutions to minority language issues: Hicks
(2002) looked at it as a possibility in Scotland and Landry and Bourhis (1997) as a reality
in Quebec.
LL is also often used as a component of larger-scale studies on public discourse.
There are some in advertizing, product and shop naming (Alm, 2003; Angermeyer, 2005;
Baumgardner, 2006; Taavitsainen & Pahta, 2008).With so many areas of application of
LL research, it is not surprising that many LL studies are interdisciplinary, connecting
linguistics, semiotics, art, psychology, sociology, education, business, economics,
statistics, geography, and politics.
17
Theoretical Frameworks of LL Studies
Due to the interdisciplinary nature of LL studies and the still developing stage of
LL as a sub-field of sociolinguistics, different scholars applied different theoretical
frameworks to their studies: from historical to sociological, economic, ecological, geosemiotic, and sociolinguistic approaches. Most of the frameworks are not limited to
linguistic analysis only, but use multiple modalities characteristic of LL and consistent
with a more inclusive definition thereof.
A historical approach to studying LL was employed by Coulmas (2009) in
analyzing ancient writings on landmarks, like the Rosetta Stone and the Taj-Mahal. The
frame of analysis revolved around three aspects: the producer of the writing, the place
where it was displayed, and the functions it served. However, the depth of historical
analyses is always dependent on the available information.
Sociological theories were used in the study by Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, et al. (2006)
in Israeli cities and the framework was expanded in Ben-Rafael (2009). It includes
several principles of LL‘s structuration: The two key ones are Goffman‘s presentation of
self meant to set a business apart from others in competition for attention (pp. 44-45) and
Boudon‘s good-reasons principle implying similarity in how LL sign-owners address the
same audience accommodating to their values and tastes (pp. 45-46). There are also two
additional ones: collective-identity and power-relations. The former refers to identity
markers that stress the sign-owner‘s belonging to a group, like using the colors of Korean
flag on a store sign (Malinowski, 2009). The latter is based on Bourdieu‘s and Lefebre‘s
theories and emphasizes the social or political regulations that allow imposing certain
linguistic behaviors on a weaker group (Ben-Rafael, 2009, p. 47). These principles are
18
helpful in analyzing diverse LLs of democratic societies, but the first two principles
would not be quite applicable in, for example, a setting similar to that of pre-perestroika
Soviet Russia, where all stores were owned by the government and the idea of
commercial competition was obsolete.
Geosemiotics is another framework used in analyzing signs in public space. It was
introduced by R. Scollon and S.W. Scollon (2003) and focuses on languages and signs
interpretation with regard to physical and social contexts in which they exist.
Geosemiotics is presented as the study of Goffman‘s interaction order, Kress and van
Leeuwen‘s visual semiotics and place semiotics ―working together in the production of
human action‖ (p. 19). R. Scollon and S.W. Scollon also identify three main principles of
geosemiotics: indexicality (i.e., the meaning of semiotic signs depends on their physical
placement), dialogicality (a sign cannot be treated as isolated from its environment and
other signs), and selection (people select which signs and meanings are salient and which
are peripheral). Parts of this framework were used in LL studies (e.g., Lou, 2007),
especially with regard to place and visual semiotics.
Language economy framework was suggested by Cenoz and Gorter (2009), who
applied the Contingent Valuation Method (non-market value) used for economic study of
biodiversity to the study of linguistic diversity within the LL. They focused on defining
the non-market values of LL and suggested further expansion of LL research in this area.
Hult (2009) put LL research within the language ecology framework, which has
―a holistic orientation to critical thinking about multilingualism‖ including
―sociolinguistic, political, and historical forces at work‖ (p. 89). In practice, that meant
combination of LL analysis and the Scollons‘ nexus analysis, which Hult (2009) applied
19
to the study of multilingualism in Malmö, Sweden, extending his previous analysis of
that area (Hult, 2003). Unfortunately, unlike other scholars (e.g., Pavlenko, 2009;
Shohamy & Gorter, 2009; Shohamy & Waksman, 2009; Spolsky, 2009), Hult (2009) saw
LL analysis as merely a quantitative method rather than a sub-field of sociolinguistics or
language policy.
Spolsky (2009) argued for a necessity of theory of language choice in LL. He
proposed using public linguistic space as one of the domains that can be explained
through the theory of language management, which is one of the three components of
Spolsky‘s (2004) model of language policy, along with language practices and language
beliefs. Spolsky and Cooper (1991) proposed three conditions relevant to language choice:
writing signs in the language you know (necessary condition), in the language the
targeted audience can read (typicality condition), and / or in the language with which you
want to be identified (typicality condition). Adherence to the second or third condition
depends on what is more salient for sign-writers in their sociolinguistic, political, and
historical context (Spolsky, 2009; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991).
Another sociolinguistic framework for analyzing LL was offered by Huebner
(2009) who drew on Hymes‘ ethnography of communication and suggested focusing on
identifying and describing different genres of LL, applying Hymes‘ SPEAKING model.
Similarly, Hanauer (2009) used the concept of genre in studying the LL of a
microbiology lab, while Kallen (2009) viewed LL as multiple overlapping discourses and
signs as speech acts when analyzing four urban areas in Ireland with the focus on tourism.
Tourists performed the roles of audience, addressee or eavesdropper (Kallen, 2009).
20
Thus, there are multiple theories in various disciplines that can be exploited in
analyzing public signage. The described frameworks are not fixed and solid entities that
can be applied in any given study, but rather negotiable and contextual. In part, this is due
to the continued shaping of LL as a sub-field of sociolinguistics, along with the still
developing definition of LL and reliable methodologies.
Methodology
The studies of signs in public space, whether they refer to themselves as LL or not,
employ a variety of methodologies, which can be quite problematic.
Quantitative vs. qualitative study. There are only quantitative, only qualitative
LL studies, and those that combine the two. Some studies employ LL as part of largerscale studies of language usage. Quantitative studies involve choosing a site or sites for
data collection and photographing and describing the signs, depending on what
constitutes the unit of analysis for the study. Some researchers preferred to use detailed
description instead of photographing (e.g., Brown, 2007). Others made use of advanced
robotic photographic equipment (e.g., Gigapan, Hanauer, 2010) or advanced software
and computer technologies (e.g., georeferencing with MapGeoLing and ArcGis, Barni &
Bagna, 2009) to combine photographing with description which allowed conducting
more in-depth and multi-level analyses.
Analysis of signage usually includes counting the signs and division of them into
different categories (e.g., languages, types or themes). For quantitative analyses,
taxonomies and classifications are very important, as they help determine the patterns
found in LL. The most commonly applied ones have to do with languages on the signs
(mono-, bi-, or multilingual), and types of signs based on their authorship (official, non21
official) and function and use (e.g., business names, advertisements, warnings, street
names, etc.). Other classifications may include prominence of languages or code
preference (e.g., Backhaus, 2007; Scollon & Scollon, 2003) and the material from which
signs are made, which implies permanent or temporary condition of signs (e.g., Reh,
2004; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991). In terms of spatial mobility of sign carriers, they can be
stationary or movable (e.g., Reh, 2004). Types of signs according to their function and
use depend on data; for instance, Spolsky & Cooper (1991) distinguish eight categories.
The ratios are often compared and conclusions are made. Other sources of
information are also used, like surveys and official language policy documents. The
explanations of higher representation of one language over another are usually
interpretative, and qualitative to some extent, even though historical, social, demographic
or political evidence or grounds are provided. However, statistical data does not account
for all the nuances in multimodal LLs.
Qualitative studies focus on a selection of signs that are thoroughly described
(spatial, linguistic, and content analysis), usually using more details and variables than
signs classifications can provide. For instance, the colors used (Malinowski, 2009), the
direction of the text (Scollon & Scollon, 2003), the meaning of the message (Curtin,
2009), the images and the impression of the place or sign (Shohamy & Waksman, 2009).
Besides the sign description, the studies may include interviews with language users,
sign-readers and sign-owners, historical development and observations of sites. The
problem with qualitative-only study of LL is that there can be doubts about
representativeness of signs chosen for analysis. Moreover, it is impossible to make
conclusions about trends and dynamic of LL based on such data only.
22
Combining statistical data from quantitative analysis with more complex
qualitative descriptions can result in deeper analysis and produce more reliable
interpretations. Given the multimodal character of any LL, using both quantitative and
qualitative analysis seems appropriate.
Synchronic vs. diachronic study. To date most of the LL studies have been
synchronic, attempting to capture the language situation at the moment of data collection.
In his review of LL studies, Backhaus (2007) found that synchronic studies of the same
cities or countries conducted at different times could not provide accurate dynamic trends,
because of the differences in geographic areas covered or sampling. A diachronic
approach, on the other hand, shows the dynamic of LL within one area and allows seeing
and evaluating the changes in LL as well as factors influencing those changes. In other
words, diachronic studies are contextualized and comparative on their own. However, as
Pavlenko (2009) has noted, unfortunately rather few studies take on a diachronic
perspective.
Spolsky and Cooper (1991) used a diachronic perspective, in particular layering,
when analyzing signs in the streets of Jerusalem and found how languages, their order,
and translation in signage changed reflecting who had the power. Backhaus (2005, 2007)
dedicated part of his research in Tokyo to how signs were changing with time by
comparing older signs with newer ones and one of his findings was more adequate use of
English on official signs at present, from the point of view of (native) English speakers.
Another study was conducted in St. Petersburg, Russia with the focus on business
names, how they changed since the Soviet times and what the main naming trends were.
Yurchak (2000) found that Romanization and creativity in naming were influenced by
23
late Soviet and early post-Soviet perception of English and the USA. Pavlenko (2009)
synthesized the research available on post-Soviet public spaces and focused on the
processes of language change in former Soviet republics after in the collapse of the USSR
in 1991: language erasure and replacement, upgrading and downgrading, regulation, and
transgressive signage.
Thus, diachronic LL studies can confirm and elaborate the processes of political
and socioeconomic changes, because language in public space can be used as an arena for
power struggle and affirmation, linguistic and ethnolinguistic conflicts, as well as a place
for individuals‘ expression of their identity and beliefs.
Methodology issues. Studies of LL can be rather problematic, partially because
LL is always multimodal, with language or text being only one of many modes present in
public space and context (physical, social, political, economic) bearing much significance.
Therefore, it is not surprising that many methodological and theoretical issues were
raised, which could influence the quality of the studies and inter-study comparability.
Backhaus (2007), Gorter (2006b), Pavlenko (2009), and Spolsky (2009) are some of the
scholars summarizing these issues. The main problems they mention are related to
sampling, the unit of analysis, and categorizations of signs.
Sampling. When an area of study cannot be covered through comprehensive data
collection, sampling is used, which automatically brings the danger of overgeneralizing
the findings (Backhaus, 2007; Gorter, 2006b; Pavlenko, 2009). For example, analyzing
the presence of English on four streets in one large city in Macedonia would be unlikely
to provide enough evidence about the spread of English in the whole country (Dimova,
2007). In his study of Bangkok, Huebner (2006) stressed ―the importance of sample
24
selection in linguistic landscape research‖ (p. 34), by choosing neighborhoods, reflecting
more linguistic diversity than the previous LL study in Bangkok (Backhaus, 2007, pp. 4445; Huebner, 2006, pp. 32-34). In addition, Schlick (2003) found that larger cities in
Europe have more English present on shop signs than provincial towns.
Thus, the issue of representativeness is an important factor when sampling areas.
To illustrate, Ben-Rafael, Lyubansky, et al. (2006) had to find representative Jewish,
Israeli-Palestinian, and non-Israeli-Palestinian localities in order to compare LL patterns
in different Israeli communities. However, if there is no need to have a representative
sample (e.g., Cenoz & Gorter, 2006), comprehensive collection of all data available
seems to be the best solution to the problem.
Unit of analysis. Given great diversity and multimodality of texts in LLs, another
major issue in LL studies, involving quantitative aspect is the clear definition of the unit
of analysis and which texts are to be counted. There are texts on stationary and movable
carriers (Reh, 2004), temporary or permanent signs (Spolsky & Cooper, 1991), and the
choices have their implications. For instance, since texts on stationary carriers presuppose
a mobile reader (Reh, 2004), the language choice there might depend on who are the
expected passer-bys or readers; and since movable carriers include static readers (Reh,
2004), the languages used in the area (along with the origin of a movable carrier) are
likely to influence the language choice on those signs. Thus, including texts on movable
objects in a tourist and non-tourist area might influence the results.
The size of the text is an important variable to be included in the unit of analysis.
To illustrate, Hult (2009) used photographs that ―approximated what would be visible at
street level with the naked eye‖ (p.96); while Backhaus (2007) used ―any piece of written
25
text within a spatially definable frame‖ (p. 66), irrelevant of its size. Spolsky and Cooper
(1991) counted as separate signs plaques with street names in a different language, added
above the existing ones; while Cenoz and Gorter (2006) combined the texts on one
business front, or establishment, into one unit of analysis.
At the same time, Backhaus (2007) excluded monolingual Japanese signs from his
data and Dagenais et al. (2009) excluded monolingual English signs, since both studies
focused on multilingualism in the Japanese capital and two Canadian cities, respectively.
With such different approaches to counting and inclusion of texts, it seems essential to be
as specific as possible in describing one‘s methodology.
Categorizations. Signs classifications are quite diverse as well. In many cases, the
categories emerge from the data collected; and the absence of set categories along with
peculiarities of each context make each classification unique, to some extent. This
complicates the cross-studies comparison even in such a seemingly easy category as
languages. Other two influential aspects include authorship and code preference.
Languages. With regard to language use, the signs have been traditionally
categorized into monolingual (unilingual), bilingual, and multilingual. However, the issue
is much more complicated. There were plenty of instances when a bi- or multilingual sign
did not contain the same information in all the languages present on the sign. Reh (2004)
offered classification according to the arrangement of information on a multilingual sign:
duplicating, fragmentary, overlapping, and complementary writing. According to her
definitions, duplicating writing is the exact translation of the whole message into other
languages. Fragmentary writing is when only selected parts are translated. Overlapping is
when one part of information is in two or more languages, but other parts are in different
26
languages. Complementary writing implies a multilingual writer, because the information
in different languages does not overlap (pp. 8-16).
In addition, Spolsky (2009) argued for distinction between local and global signs,
the latter being international advertisements that are ―simply reproductions of ones used
worldwide‖ (p. 31). Spolsky claimed that their language would not seem to be relevant.
In fact, Edelman (2009) found that including proper and brand names in quantitative data
influences the results of a LL study, at the same time admitting that these names present
valuable data.
A number of scholars also reported language mixing in script, lexicon, and syntax;
for example, Huebner (2006) in the analysis of Thai-English signs in Bangkok
neighborhoods, Yurchak (2000) in post-Soviet business names in St. Petersburg, and
Angermeyer (2005) in Russian-English classifieds in New York. The use of the same
script in the displayed languages may cause difficulties in deciding to which language
certain words belong, as was the case in the qualitative analysis of the catering business
sign in Ukraine, where the most prominent word could be read either in Ukrainian or in
Russian (Bilaniuk & Melnyk, 2008). It could be interpreted as resistance to national
language policy, but in any case it would call for a separate category in a quantitative
study if it had significant frequency. Finally, Pennycook (2009) argued that ―in contexts
of globalization and multilingualism, it is not clear that signs are in a specific language at
all‖ (p. 306). Thus, categorizing by languages might not always be helpful in presenting
adequate sociolinguistic picture of the area under study, or at least the language itself as a
category should be defined. However, classifying signs unequivocally into certain
languages is still a common practice among LL researchers. Even Huebner (2006), while
27
problematizing the definition of a language as a script, at the same time uses language
classification based on the script.
Authorship. Another controversial type of classification is one according to the
authorship of the signs. Landry and Bourhis (1997) distinguish two major categories:
private and government signs. Government signs are posted by official authorities
(municipal, regional, national, or international), while private signs are put up by
inhabitants of the area (individual, group or corporate). Other researchers refer to those
categories as top-down and bottom-up flows (Ben-Rafael, 2009; Ben-Rafael, Shohamy,
et al., 2006), official and non-official, government and non-government (Huebner, 2006),
in vitro and in vivo (Calvet, as cited in Backhaus, 2007).These two types differ in terms
of autonomy in sign design and language usage. Official signs are usually highly
regulated, in compliance with the language policy rules, while private signs enjoy
freedom, to a certain degree, and thus, tend to be more representative of a real socio- and
ethnolinguistic diversity and roles of languages in the area.
However, Malinowski (2009) questions the appropriateness of such binary
distinction, with regard to the authorship of private signs, because the extent of freedom
of the owner of a local business would be different from that of an outlet of an
international corporation. Moreover, the language choice and the placement of signs
could be a result of ―agency of landscape‖ rather than deliberate choice of a sign-owner
(p. 123). One of the implications of his interviewing Korean business owners in a Korean
neighborhood in Oakland, CA was that ―seemingly intentional meanings can in fact
remain hidden to the writers of signs, arising instead from larger historical processes that
have become sedimented into practices of literacy and technologies of design‖
28
(Malinowski, 2009, p. 124). Thus, attributing the sign authorship to sign-owners‘
decisions, simply because they fit into bottom-up flow, might not be accurate.
Likewise, the official signs, or top-down flows, are not necessarily one category.
In the study of two Hispanic neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., Yanguas (2009) found
the difference in approaches between district authorities and local administrations, with
the former imposing English-only public signs and the latter using Spanish. Similarly,
Spolsky (2009) is against collective top-down and bottom-up approach, arguing for studying
the process of sign-making and sign-placing rather than the result and taking into account
all agents involved–the owner, the sign-maker, the reader (intended), and the authority.
Code preference. Classification of signs according to code preference, or
language prominence, is also highly problematic. Within the framework of geosemiotics,
Scollon and Scollon (2003) argue that texts on top, left, and center gain more prominence
in most Western contexts. In addition to placement, the size of the font, color, images,
and repetitions should also be taken into account.
With the adjustment to the Chinese linguistic and cultural context, Lou (2007)
applied geosemiotics to the non-Chinese business signs in Chinatown in Washington, DC.
She found that the businesses‘ adherence to the local regulations aimed at revitalizing the
Chinatown was merely nominal, with imposed Chinese signs placed in subordination to
more prominent English ones. Backhaus (2007) also used code preference as a category
in his quantitative study, but based it on only two variables–placement and size, with size
being more important. In general, code preference seems to include too many variables to
be decided upon in a quantitative analysis unequivocally.
29
LL research, though not quite developed in terms of a clearly defined notion of
LL, its methodologies and theoretical frameworks, provides a large number of studies,
diverse in geography, fields, methods, and foci of research. The interdisciplinary nature
of public signage studies has proved to be useful in looking at what languages are used in
certain areas, for what purposes, and how it compares with claimed ethnolinguistic
diversity or monolingualism, language egalitarianism or linguistic nationalism. Given the
broad dimensions of this sub-field of sociolinguistics, the methodology and theoretical
frameworks for studying LL are wide-ranging as well. The major issues in methodology
have to do with decisions concerning where to collect data, what to consider as unit of
analysis, and how to categorize data to get reliable and precise results. There are no clearcut answers to these questions, but one way of dealing with them would be to provide as
detailed description of data collection and analysis decisions as possible.
Research on Russian-Speaking Immigration to the USA
The existing Russian-speaking communities and recent immigrants in the USA
have received rather limited attention from scholars in different disciplines The research
revolves around historical immigration waves and their demographic analyses, the
general ethnic and socioeconomic status of the immigrants, along with their adaptation
and assimilation to the hosting country. It is complemented by a few interdisciplinary
community-based studies as well as several linguistic and sociolinguistic analyses,
mostly of the Russian language of the immigrant population.
Russian-Speaking Jews and Immigration Waves
The most researched category of Russian-speaking immigrants is Jews (e.g.,
Foner, 2001, 2002; Orleck, 1999; Ritterband, 1997; Simon, 1997). This has to do with
30
several factors: First, among the speakers of Russian, Jewish immigrants have been the
most numerous group throughout the USA history. Second, Russian-speaking Jewish
identity is predominantly ethnic (unlike religious American Jewish identity), so the Jews
remain a salient group even after decades of assimilation. Third, Russian-speaking Jewish
immigrants have always drawn public attention, due to the main reasons for emigrating–
persecution and discrimination in their home country. Additionally, this category of
immigrants received substantial federal support (as refugees) and high involvement of
Jewish organizations and associations (e.g., HIAS and NYANA) in the immigrants‘ life.
Related to that is the encouragement of publications and sponsorship of research about
Jewish population by Jewish organizations in the USA.
The studies of Russian-speaking Jewish immigrants describe the immigration
waves: first (1880-1914), third (1945-1955), fourth (mid-1970s-1982), and fifth (mid1980s-present). They include personal narratives (see Prais, 1893) and demographic and
sociological analyses (Davies, 1922; Lewin-Epstein, et al., 1997; Simon, 1997). The
Russian-speaking Jewish migration is compared with other flows–to other countries
(Ben-Rafael, Lyubansky, et al., 2006; Lewin-Epstein, et al., 1997), from other countries
(Foner, 2001, 2002), and across different waves (Simon, 1997). Recently, more and more
studies have been discussing immigrants‘ ethnic and social identities and adaptation to
the new environment (Gold, 1997; Ritterband, 1997; Zeltzer-Zubida, 2004).
Other ethnic and religious categories of Russian-speaking immigrants are less
noticeable in both numbers and publicity. From 1820 to 1999, the immigrants from the
Russian empire, the Soviet Union and the countries of former Soviet Union constituted
less than 6% of the immigrants to the USA (Neimer, 2003, p. 128); and from the mid31
1970s to 2000, out of approximately 540,000 Russian-speaking immigrants about
150,000 were non-Jewish at the moment of emigration (Neimer, 2003, p. 129). Thus, it is
not surprising that they were included mostly as peripheral addition or as part of general
tendencies in immigration flows.
Geographically, in the 1970s–1990s, the research on Russian-speaking
immigration tended to focus more on the eastern coast of the USA. With New York being
one of the main points of entry for the immigration and having diverse immigrant
population, some studies analyzed this city, in particular (Foner, 2001, 2002). Since the
mid-1990s, though, more attention has been given on the western part of the United
States (Khisatmutdinov, 2003; Uthmann, 2005).
Russian-Speaking Immigration in Sociolinguistics
The sociolinguistic research of Russian-speaking immigrants in the United States
has been focused mainly on the changes in the Russian language of the émigrés, and a
few studies dealt with Russian heritage learners in the US.
There have been several studies discussing what to make of the American
Russian language–a deteriorating, corrupted Russian or another variety or an endangered
language? Scholars from the USA and Russia have described the lexical, grammatical,
and syntactic differences between the immigrants‘ Russian and standard Russian
(Zemskaya, 2001), Standard Soviet Russian (Benson, 1960), or Full Russian (Polinsky,
1995, 2006).
Benson (1960) analyzed corrupted Russian that he observed in informal speech of
Russian immigrants at a New Jersey resort. He argued that substitutions of Russian words
with English as well as morphological adaptations to the new vocabulary were influenced
32
by English interference. Andrews (1993) used it primarily to interpret prosodic and
intonational changes that he researched in the speech of Russian diaspora. However,
Polinsky (1995) argued that the changes immigrant Russian undergoes in the USA cannot
be explained solely by the influence of English. Pereltsvaig (2004) supported her claim in
that her study of aspectual attrition in immigrant Russian showed inconsistency with L2
transfer and interference hypotheses.
The changes in the language of immigrants toward attrition were explained by
Polinsky (1995, 2006) as the consequence of significantly limited or non-existent usage
or the language or incomplete acquisition. Looking at the Émigré Language in Polinsky‘s
terms, Zemskaya (2001) and Andrews (1999) added more complexity, with a list of other
factors influencing the language of Russian-speaking immigrants.
Zemskaya (2001) found differences in the Russian of immigrants from different
waves, saying that prerevolutionary immigrants (first wave) tended to mix Russian and
English much less than the recent immigrants (fourth and fifth waves). The factors
included level of education, proficiency in Russian prior to emigration, attitude toward
Russian, perception of immigration as temporary or permanent, knowledge of other
languages (including the language of the accepting country), and age at the moment of
emigration (Zemskaya, 2001).
Andrews (1999) focused particularly on the fifth wave of immigrants (those who
grew up in the Soviet Union) and studied prosodic, lexical, and structural changes in their
Russian, with connection to the immigrants‘ Soviet background, professional, ethnic, and
cultural identities, socioeconomic status, as well as their attitudes toward English and
Russian.
33
Unlike some other scholars (e.g., Benson, 1960; Polinsky, 1995; Zemskaya, 2001),
he did not view American Russian as a negative development. As a matter of fact,
Andrews (1999) noted that the changes in émigré Russian may be ―indicative of the
direction that the entire Russian language will take for years to come‖ (p. 58). Given the
close contact the recent immigrants have with their country of emigration, through visits,
calls, correspondence, literature, and financial assistance, immigrant Russian may indeed
significantly affect the standard Russian language (Andrews, 1999).
In addition to the discussed works, there are many more studies of Russian
immigrant language, including research done by Pavlenko (2003, 2010) and Schmitt
(2001). They refer to Russian-speaking immigrants as Russian-English bilinguals.
Several studies have been devoted to heritage learners of Russian, who are either
Generation 1.5 or American-born. Their numbers have been increasing, possibly due to
the disappearance of Soviet stigma and obvious political attachment to the Russian
language. The studies focus either on pedagogical aspects (e.g., Andrews, 2001) or on the
process of their language attrition (Polinsky, 2006, 2008a, 2008b).
One study examined the written immigrant language rather than spoken: Like
Andrews (1999), in a very non-judgmental way, Angermeyer (2005) analyzed the choice
of script in the Russian classifieds in the Russian press in the city of New York. He
confirmed the tendencies pointed out by other scholars (Andrews, 1999; Benson, 1960;
Polinsky, 1995; Zemskaya, 2001), e.g. when transliterated nouns are taken from English
in their singular form, the Russian affixes are added to keep the Russian grammar.
There are a handful of studies in other areas of sociolinguistics, where Russianspeaking immigrants are some of the participants. For instance, in her study about
34
transformations of gender identities in second language learning, Pavlenko (2001) had
two Russian-speaking participants. Another study discloses the manipulation of a
bilingual Russian-speaking immigrant through the language nuances during the police
interrogation in English. In this case study, Pavlenko (2008a) discussed different areas of
language competence that cannot be assumed based on the person‘s conversational level
of language proficiency and emphasized the need for translating the complex and highstakes information, like Miranda warnings into the immigrant‘s first language.
Studies of Russian-Speaking Immigrant Communities
Finally, there are three studies researching the specific Russian-speaking
communities from three different perspectives, but all connected to immigrants‘
collective identities: a comparative sociological study of Polish immigrants and Russian
and Ukrainian Jews in Philadelphia (Morawska, 2004); a historical study of a Russianspeaking community in Portland, OR (Uthmann, 2005); and a sociolinguistic ethnographic
study of a religious Russian-speaking community in Midwest (Peterson, 2009).
Morawska (2004) conducted an immigration study with focus on assimilation and
transnationalism of Poles and Russian and Ukrainian Jews who had arrived in the USA
between1980 and 1995. She found that Russian / Ukrainian Jews were adapting to the
United States along ethnic-adhesive path, oriented more towards the host-community,
rather than American non-Jewish environment or Jews in Russia. In addition they were
characterized by little transnational involvements, i.e., interest in Russian / Ukrainian or
Israeli affairs (Morawska, 2004). In other words, Russian / Ukrainian Jews tended to
identify themselves locally, older generation predominantly with the Russian Jewish and
35
non-Jewish community in Philadelphia and younger generation with American Jewish
peers.
A Russian-speaking community in Portland metropolitan area was researched
from a historical perspective with the focus on the profile of a post-Soviet immigrant and
group identities (Uthmann, 2005). Uthman‘s findings confirm the general opinion among
scholars (Gold, 1997; Lewin-Epstein, et al., 1997; Orleck, 1999) that the reason for
people leaving the post-Soviet states for the United States was the need for economic,
along with social and civic, stability. The study also reiterates the claim that the Soviet
past bonds the immigrants in spite of their different ethnic, national and religious
identities, even though the latter may play a unifying, inside-community role.
The study of a protestant Russian-speaking immigrant community in the Midwest
focused on group identities in a different light–negotiation and performance of ethnic and
religious identities through religious literacy. Peterson (2009) concluded that importance
and stability of the religious text and pastors‘ appeals to collective identity within the
congregation resulted in the immigrants‘ downplaying their national identities and
displaying a non-place identity instead, irrelevant of their ethnicity and place.
All the three studies demonstrate the solidarity of (post)Soviet Russian-speaking
immigrants within their communities, whether it revolves around common culture, past,
or religion. However, it cannot be denied that the shared Russian language–with time
evolving into immigrant Russian–has contributed to the development of collective
identities. In the context of immigration to the country with a different language, the
common language might have initialized interactions and bonding between the émigrés
that were later reinforced by other factors.
36
The existing research on Russian-speaking immigrants has plenty of gaps. It
focuses on their ethnic, religious, socio-demographic, and linguistic profile with regard to
different waves of immigration. However, most research characterizes the Jewish
immigration, excluding other categories of Russian-speakers, ethnic and religious.
Additionally, in sociolinguistics, the studies of the Russian immigrant language seem to
dominate the field, leaving gender and identity on the periphery. Finally, there is limited
research on specific Russian-speaking communities in the United States. The present
study of the language use in ―Little Russia‖ is meant to contribute to the scope of
knowledge in this respect.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I reviewed the existing research on LL and Russian-speaking
immigration to the United States. LL is a relatively new subfield of sociolinguistics, with
multimodal and interdisciplinary nature and still developing methodology and theoretical
base. Researchers noted potential reliability of LL studies in reporting the written usage
of languages on a given territory as well as studying the ways of its construction. LL
studies have been used in researching multilingualism, language contact, language
conflicts, power relations, identity representations, and globalization.
With regard to the research on Soviet and post-Soviet Russian-speaking
immigrants in the USA, most of it has been centered around Jewish émigrés and
immigration periodization, with only a few studies of Russian-speaking immigrant
communities. Therefore, my LL study of the language usage in ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖
a multilingual immigrant community in New York, can contribute to the existing body of
knowledge in both LL field and Russian-speaking immigration.
37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The LL of ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ was studied using the combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods. Chapter 3 contains the detailed description of the
site of the study and research methods used, taking into account the methodology issues
highlighted in other LL studies and summarized in Chapter 2. Since my identity and
background have undoubtedly affected–and hopefully enriched–data analysis and
interpretation, I also included the account of my personal narrative of experiencing
―Little Russia by the Sea‖ at the end of Chapter 3.
Quantitative Study
Data was collected through comprehensive photographing of shop and business
fronts in the area of study. The business fronts were counted and categorized in terms of
the type of business they represent, the type of information (signs) displayed in the
business windows, and language(s) used to present that information.
Site of Data Collection
The study was conducted in Brooklyn, NY, in the area often referred to as ―Little
Russia by the Sea,‖ ―Little Odessa,‖ or ―Brighton Beach.‖ This area is associated with the
Russian-speaking community living in that place or visiting it, as well as with the
businesses located there that operate in the Russian language and sell products from
Russia and Ukraine. The data collection site was limited to the street, with a large
concentration of businesses (shops, restaurants, and offices), specifically the blocks
between Ocean Parkway and Coney Island Avenue on Brighton Beach Avenue and less
than a block of Coney Island Avenue (see Appendix A). The site was chosen due to the
38
physical linguistic markers represented by the street signs ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ on
the side of the road. Since it was those linguistic markers that determined the boundaries
of the site, the data collection did not include businesses and shop fronts outside those
markers. For the same reason, the data collection was not tied to Brighton Beach Avenue
or street blocks. In this paper, the term ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ refers specifically to the
area within the linguistic markers, which has served as the site for data collection.
The chosen site is considered the main shopping artery of the area. It is worth
noting, however, that there are Russian stores and businesses outside the studied area,
both further on the two ends of Brighton Beach Avenue and on the side streets crossing
Brighton Beach Avenue. Moreover, the shop fronts with Russian language on them can
be found in other Russian-speaking communities in Brooklyn and other boroughs of New
York. In other words, the choice of the site for the present study by no means implies that
the Russian language on the NYC streets is limited solely to the area of research. The
choice of that particular area was made due to the overall message unequivocally
conveyed by visitors, movies, media, and NYC maps and travel guides that the Brighton
Beach, Brooklyn represents Russia and is a ―heavily Russian neighborhood‖ (see Brady,
2007; Fairbanks, 2009).
Unit of Analysis
Since the present study is focused on language representation in ―Little Russia by
the Sea,‖ the exposure of passer-bys to languages in that area is of primary importance.
Therefore, all readable signs on the store and business fronts are included in data analysis,
which is customary methodology for LL studies. Similarly to Cenoz and Gorter‘s (2006)
study, the unit of analysis is an establishment, referred to as a business front hereafter. It
39
includes all written text on a window front and awnings and all signs within identifiable
space limits of the business. Thus, if the same business had more than one shop within
the area of study, the shops were counted as separate business fronts.
However, not all businesses had fronts that fit the specified criteria. Some
businesses had a sign space (a window front or a door) that they shared with a few other
businesses. A typical case was when there were several offices on the second floor and
they used the same outside door. In those situations, the same space was counted as
several business fronts, with the signs divided between the businesses based mainly on
the content. In this way, each of the signs was counted only once.
Another type of data included a sign (or a group of signs) of a business that was
separated from its business front. For example, the entrance to the business was from
another street, even though the business had a Brighton Beach Avenue address. There
were also cases when a business was located in visible proximity from the Brighton
Beach Avenue and belonged to the adjacent street. Yet another case was when a business
did not have an office nearby, but had a billboard-size sign on a building with the
information aimed at passer-bys and riders of the elevated train (the el). In all of those
situations, a sign or a group of signs referring to one business was counted as a data entry,
and further on, for convenience purposes, will be referred to as a business front, as well.
Specific Decisions
During the data collection, a number of on-the-spot decisions were made about
what to include or in the unit of analysis and these decisions are specified in this subsection.
„Neutral zone‟ stickers. Some of the signs were posted very close to a business
or a business front, but were not related to that business and were not displayed in the
40
business window itself. For instance, many businesses had stickers of other businesses
(usually, taxi companies or shop window gates installers) posted on the metal frame
above or on the side of a business window on the first floor. Those stickers were small in
size and not always noticeable or readable. They contain interesting languages and
content information that is worth studying, however they could have altered the data if
they were counted within a business near which they were located. The decision was
made that those stickers would not be counted as part of data for this particular study.
Credit card stickers. Almost every business had credit card stickers on the
entrance door, informing customers of their payment options. Visa, Master Card,
Discovery, and American Express were by far the most popular ones. Due to the small
size of stickers and words on them and the stickers‘ iconic value rather than symbolic
(linguistic) one, they were not counted when gauging the use of languages within a
business front, unless the credit card signs were magnified and presented in a larger size
and font.
„Neutral zone‟ posters and announcements. Some of the businesses had
announcements and advertisements posted on the walls adjacent to the business windows
or doors. They were most often large commercial ads, announcements of events, and
small job ads. The fact that they were posted next to certain businesses (e.g.,
Mosvideofilm books and video store and M&I International Foods grocery store and café)
was significant, however the spatial positioning (i.e., outside the boundaries of a shop
window) gave reasons to assume that those ads were not placed there by the business
itself. That is why the linguistic and content information on those ads could not be
combined with that of the business adjacent to those signs. Since the text on those ads
41
was readable and visible to the passer-bys, the signs were counted separately and
included in the miscellaneous category.
„Corner‟ businesses. The majority of first-floor businesses located on the corners
of the street blocks had business windows on both sides of the building, i.e. on both
streets. Most importantly, both sides were visible to passer-bys crossing the street. Since
the present study looked at the exposure to languages and the unit of analysis is a
business front, it was decided to take into account both sides of the ‗corner‘ businesses
visible from the Brighton Beach Avenue. This led to a consecutive decision that any
signs on the second and third floors located above a ‗corner‘ business front on the side
street should be included in the data as well, though not as part of that ‗corner‘ business
front.
Data Collection
The data was collected in August 2009 over a period of three weeks, with the
synchronous approach in mind. However, due to the dynamic nature of LL in the area,
some signs in business fronts changed even during that period. In the situations when I
had to retake the photo of a sign or business, I tried to maintain consistency by preferring
the signs that were on that particular business front the day when the rest of the photos
within that block were taken.
The method of data collection was comprehensive photographing of business
fronts in ―Little Russia by the Sea.‖ The equipment used for this study was a Samsung
digital camera Digimax S600, with 6.0 megapixels and a triple zoom. The total number
of photos taken at the time of data collection was over a thousand. Unclear and
incomplete photos as well as the photos that were taken of businesses beyond the set
42
linguistic markers were eliminated. The final amount of pictures for data analysis was
795. The total number of business fronts within the area of study was 271.
The gap between the number of pictures and the number of businesses they
represent can be explained by several technical peculiarities. First, often it was not
possible to take a photo that would capture the whole business front, due to the limited
properties of the camera used and the landscape particularities. To clarify, if the business
front occupied much space on the street and had signs on the second floor in addition to
the first floor, it could take 5-10 pictures to cover all the parts of the business front and
keep the signs on it readable.
Taking photos from the other side of the street to capture the whole business front
was also not always possible because of the el line that goes right above the Brighton
Beach Avenue. The el line often blocked the view of the second floor of the buildings
across the street and caused the light contrast (i.e. between the light under the el line and
the light in the street) which interfered with the quality of the photos taken from across
the street. It should also be pointed out that Brighton Beach Avenue is a very busy street.
That is why photographing business fronts with people constantly passing by posed a
considerable challenge.
Second, the focus on a particular sign sometimes resulted in another sign being
out of focus, and thus, incomprehensible, which meant that an additional photo needed to
be taken. Third, the properties of a business front itself could get in the way of
photographing. Some businesses have large awnings with words written on the sides, or
signs targeting people walking down the same side of the street. This made it impossible
for one photo of the business to be sufficient.
43
Fourth, the automatic camera flash, necessary to enhance the quality of images in
the dim light, caused white spots on photos of the business windows. Sometimes the
spots coincided with the location of the text or sign. Finally, the quality of images
depended on the weather. On a bright sunny day, many business windows served as a
mirror reflecting passer-bys, cars on the road, signs from across the street, and me, the
photographer. At times, the clarity of reflection would prevail over the clarity of some of
the signs in a business front. The last three reasons made it necessary for pictures to be
taken from several different angles. This resulted in a much larger corpus than the
quantity of actual units of analysis.
Data Analysis
In order to answer the question, how linguistic landscape characterizes the place
referred to as ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖ I needed to see what languages were represented
on the business fronts and how those languages (and combinations of languages) were
used, for which purposes both on the level of sign types and that of business types, with
closer attention to the Russian language. Therefore, the business fronts in the area of
study were counted, described, and categorized according to the type of business, type of
information, and language or combination of languages used in business fronts in general
and in types of signs in particular.
Preliminary tables. To make data more manageable, two preliminary working
tables were created, using Microsoft Excel. The first table characterized businesses
according to the types of business and the languages used on the business front. The
following columns were used: name of business, 80 categories with different business
types (e.g. pharmacy, clothes store, fruit market, etc), and eight categories with the ratio
44
of languages used on each business front (English, Russian, Spanish, Hebrew/Yiddish,
Ukrainian, Georgian, Japanese, and Urdu).
In terms of language categories, the traditional approach was used, avoiding the
in-between code-mixing categories (see, for example, Huebner, 2006; Landry & Bourhis,
1997; Reh, 2004; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991). Therefore, languages in the study were
defined mostly by the script. If a Russian word was transliterated into English, hence,
was in Latin script, it was counted as English; and vice versa, if an English word was
written in Cyrillic script, it was counted as Russian, unless there was clear evidence of
another Cyrillic-based Slavic language. For instance, in the event announcement on M&I
International Food’s business front (Appendix B), the word День (den’, which means
day) is counted as Ukrainian, even though the Russian word has the same spelling. The
reason is the whole phrase День незалежностi Украïни (den’ nezalezhnosti Ukrainy,
which stands for Ukraine’s Independence Day) is in Ukrainian.
As far as English and Spanish are concerned, if the words were ambiguous and
could be either in English or Spanish, English was preferred, unless the contextual
information on the sign implied the use of Spanish. Brand names, product names, and
types of credit cards in Latin script were counted as English. These categories need to be
explicated in more detail.
In the data collected there were few proper names in Roman script that could be
interpreted as Italian and French. They included brand names of alcoholic beverages
(Chardonnay) and names of businesses and locations (L’Italia, Vienti, and La Mikelle).
According to Edelman (2009), attributing proper names to assumed linguistic origins and
including them in the data distorts the picture of language usage in the area of study. To
45
illustrate, the price labels in the liquor shop with a Hebrew/Yiddish and Russian name
(L’Chaim / За жизнь) include brand names of French and Italian origin. However, it is
the peculiarity of a business type rather than indication of French and Italian speakers in
the area.
In terms of script usage, credit card stickers are similar to brand names. The types
of credit cards (e.g., Visa and Master Card) are usually written in Latin script, and this is
true not only for the ―Little Russia‖ and the USA, but also for the Big Russia and the
post-Soviet countries. Most of the credit card types were not counted in the data collected
because of the small size of the stickers, but the larger ones were counted as English text.
In addition, when Latin script is used for proper names, it can always be read
(though not necessarily comprehended) in another language which also uses Latin script.
With non-Latin script languages the situation is different, transliteration is required. In
this study, when Russian words were written in Latin script, they were counted as English
(e.g., the Almaz jewelry store, which means diamond). If English words were written in
Russian (Cyrillic script), they were counted as Russian words (e.g., Травел Центр,
which means Travel Center). That is why all the proper names in Latin script were put
into English language category. Had the study been conducted in Little Italy in New York
City, a different approach would have been taken.
It has to be pointed out that the script-based approach to language categories
which has been employed in the present study as part of the common methodology in LL
research tending to define languages unequivocally as, for example, English or Russian,
might have influenced the results of the study. In essence, transliterated words are not
monolingual, since they mix two languages in meaning and form. Excluding
46
transliterations from English and Russian language categories and creating separate
categories for transliterated words might have shown different patterns in language usage
and would have allowed calculating the frequency of English-Russian code-mixing on
business fronts in ―Little Russia.‖
The second preliminary table described business fronts according to the languages
used to convey particular types of information. The first column, which was identical to
that of the previous table, was followed by 29 columns with different types of signs found
on the business fronts (e.g., services, product types, warning signs, etc.).
Only items with written textual information were taken into consideration. Images
were ignored. Types of signs were based on semantic rather than physical features. For
example, a billboard on the wall of a building could have more than one type of
information: business type, business name, services, business hours, and contact
information. Each of these was counted as a different category of signs. At the same time,
‗open‘ and ‗closed‘ notes or business hours within identifiable space limits were
considered a separate sign. If identifiable space contained too small letters that were
unreadable for a passer-by, then it was eliminated from data.
Since they unit of analysis is a business front rather than an individual sign, the
number of signs with similar types of information within one business front was not
counted. For instance, notices, like open and ring the bell, refer to the same type–
informative signs, so they are counted only once per business front. It is the presence of
that type and the languages used within that type, rather than the quantity of signs on a
business front that were taken into account.
47
Focused tables. Using the field notes and the preliminary working tables, the data
was put together in three focused tables. Table Total Languages Ratio divides businesses
by languages into monolingual, bilingual, trilingual, and quadrolingual (including
specific languages) in absolute numbers as well as in percentages from the total number
of businesses analyzed (see Table 1). Table Types of Business by Language characterizes
71 types of businesses into monolingual, bilingual, trilingual, and quadrolingual
(including specific languages) and calculates the frequency of each type of business in
the area of study (see Appendix C). Table Type of Sign by Language categorizes 29 types
of signs / information found on business fronts into monolingual, bilingual, and trilingual
(including specific languages). The table also shows frequency of the types of signs in the
data collected (see Appendix E). The three focused tables were used to highlight the
trends of the usage of different languages in public space.
Qualitative Study
With the frequency of business types and the ratio of language usage in mind,
several representative business fronts were chosen for a more detailed qualitative analysis.
The business fronts were described within the context of their location, assumed
customers and owners, and purpose. Every sign was described separately, both in terms
of the content of the message (including style and grammar) and form (including font size,
colors, positioning, and code preference). The latter was analyzed using elements of
geosemiotics (Scollon & Scollon, 2003).
Qualitative analysis was aimed at revealing some particularities of the LL of
―Little Russia‖ that could be overlooked or misinterpreted in the quantitative study. At
the same time, with the advantage of having identified general trends prior to the
48
qualitative analysis, I believe I was able to refrain from attributing peculiarities of
individual business fronts to the whole categories of business fronts or signs.
It is important to notice that the present study does not include information on the
regulations of commercial and official signs in Brooklyn, New York, which might have
affected the interpretations of both quantitative and qualitative results.
Experiencing “Little Russia by the Sea”
Before getting down to describing my findings of the public signage in the area
called ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖ I would like to provide a brief explanation of what I
experienced myself when I got into the area, from the point of view of a Russian. I had
had certain expectations, assumptions, and fears prior to stepping into that part of
Brooklyn. Some of them strengthened and some dissolved and were substituted by others
after I walked down the Brighton Beach Avenue several times.
I am a native speaker of the Russian language who has lived in Russia over 25
years. I was born in the Soviet Union, to be more exact in the eastern part of Ukraine,
where my mother‘s side of the family comes from. Almost every summer until my third
year as a university student I visited my relatives in Ukraine. I speak some Ukrainian, but
only in non-face-threatening environment, with my Ukrainian friends and relatives.
In Russia, I live in the Far East, in the Amur region. People from Europe are
rarely seen in that area. However, since the town I grew up in is the center of BaikalAmur Mainline, the construction of which mobilized people from all over the Soviet
Union in 1970s, there were families (often mixed) with relatives in Armenia, Georgia,
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Tatarstan, and other former Soviet republics.
Moreover, the city where I went to college and stayed to work afterwards is exposed to a
49
culture and language other than Russian. Blagoveschensk is located on the border with
China, which means there are Chinese tourists, Chinese teachers and students, Chinese
sellers at the markets, and Chinese construction workers. It gives an impression that I
grew up in a rather diverse environment, culturally, linguistically and ethnically.
However, it is not completely true.
Interestingly, the main language of communication has always been Russian. In
Ukraine, my relatives usually spoke a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, and the media
dropped Russian only after the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. My mother being
half-Ukrainian never promoted Ukrainian culture and traditions at home. In my
hometown, in spite of seemingly diverse population, all the people spoke fluent Russian
and shared the common past as pioneers who had settled and worked in the permafrost
area. They also shared the Soviet heritage of the communist organization and values.
Very few of those families went back to their heritage countries after 1991. Even on the
border with China I never felt the need to learn the Chinese language, because all the
Chinese people I dealt with spoke Russian. In terms of culture, the food was probably the
most cultural thing I learned.
Ever since I was a child I thought English was the language that would open up
the rest of the world to me, the one that was did not speak Russian. It was the language of
opportunities. As a confirmation of that belief, during my second year at the university I
received a grant from Freedom Support Act (FSA) Undergraduate Program administered
by American Councils in Russia to study for a year in Wesleyan University, CT, as an
exchange student. At the moment, I am on Fulbright scholarship studying for a Master‘s
degree in Indiana University of Pennsylvania. As an exchange student, I have met people
50
from all parts of the world, learned about their cultures and idiosyncrasies and shared
mine. During these three years, I have also experienced college life in two north-eastern
American towns. Due to exposure to plethora of cultures, my perception of what is
―normal‖ has been stretched, significantly changed, and contextualized.
With that background in mind, I will shift to my presumptions about the ―Little
Russia by the Sea‖. When I was an undergraduate exchange student, I visited New York
City for about a week. However, I avoided going to ―Little Odessa‖, even though I was
aware of that Russian-speaking shopping area. I associated that place with high crime rate
and slums, and was ashamed to show that version of Russia to my international friends.
Those images were implanted mostly through the movies, like Brother-2 and Weather Is
Good on Deribasovskaya, It Rains Again on Brighton Beach. I was not excited about
visiting that area of New York, which I thought would represent the worst of Russia.
The first time I went to Brighton Beach was in November 2008, with American
friends of mine who took me there. My very first impression of the place was that it was
sort of Russia, but not real Russia. What struck me was that the Russian language seemed
to be everywhere: people walking down the street were speaking Russian with each other
and on the phone; customers were addressed in Russian in the stores and fruit markets;
many large signs on businesses and store fronts were in Russian; performance posters of
famous Russian pop-singers, comedians, and actors were in Russian; newspaper stands
with books, magazines and newspapers in Russian; the food items in the grocery store
were from Russia and in Russian; and even pastry sold in the street had Russian-only
price labels, either printed or handwritten. Having come from a town in Pennsylvania,
51
where there is no Russian in the streets at all, I suddenly felt at home with such profusion
of Russian around me.
Moreover, the people in the street looked Russian to me. It is hard to pinpoint
what exactly made them look Russian, maybe it was their facial expression or the way
they were dressed or how they carried themselves. Here are a few stereotypical notes on
that. In Russia, it is not common for people to smile to or greet other people in the street
unless they are acquainted with each other. In terms of clothes, I should say that women
dress up when they go outside and vast majority of women wear heels. Comfort is
secondary to looks.
Furs and fur coats are quite popular among Russian women. This was especially
true for the 1980s, when every woman in Russia (and some Soviet republics) wanted to
have a pretty fur coat. In the northern parts of the country, fur clothes are a necessity,
while in the southern parts they are merely a luxury. These were not necessarily all the
clues for me, but when addressing people while passing out Christian tracks I was almost
always right in spotting native Russian speakers.
Finally, the idea of a restaurant in ―Little Russia‖ seemed to be quite similar to a
restaurant in ―Big Russia.‖ From my experience, in Russia (and Ukraine) there are
different types of places to eat in. The one that is referred to as restaurant is usually a
very expensive place where food is served in a fancy way. This type of place usually has
live music and room to dance and is open till very late at night or till morning. In this
regard, it would be an expensive version of a night club. Coming from a low-middle class
family, I had never thought of going to places like that to simply eat out. I was also raised
with the attitude that the best Russian/Ukrainian dishes are home-made. These were
52
places for corporate parties and big celebrations, like weddings and anniversaries, which
had to be planned ahead and lasted for hours. In the last ten years, at least in
Blagoveschensk the term restaurant has been extended to include places where Chinese
food is served, making the prices more reasonable and affordable.
Walking down the Brighton Beach Avenue, I could easily spot Russian-type
restaurants like Primorski and National, with expensive food, late hours, and nightclub
services. Other places to eat were mostly cafés, though in Russia you would find more
terms for places to eat in. Thus, with regard to language, people, and restaurants, the
―Little Russia‖ actually reminded me of real Russia.
Nevertheless, I observed a number of things that struck me as strange and
confusing and un-Russian. First, the Russian language was not the only one that I heard
strolling down the Brighton Beach Avenue. People also spoke English, Spanish, Polish,
and Chinese. For a moment I was even surprised that a Chinese vendor did not speak any
Russian. Naturally, had I grown up in a city like Moscow or St. Petersburg rather than on
the border with China, I would not have had those linguistic expectations attached to
certain ethnicities. Another surprise for me was seeing the Hebrew language on the store
fronts, inside the stores, and on products. That language was not associated with Russia
for me.
As a matter of fact, exploring ―Little Russia‖ made me realize how ethnically and
linguistically diverse this area was. I walked into a just-opened nails salon to find that its
employees are recent immigrants from China. One of the fruit and vegetables markets I
shopped in surprised me with the eclectic interior design: paintings on the walls and
plaques with messages in Hebrew, sombreros hanging from the ceiling, Latino music in
53
the store, and a poster with a Russian (Soviet) bard (Vladimir Vysotskiy). The employees
explained to me in English that the owner was a Russian and that they were from Mexico.
The customers talked in Russian to each other, though. I also saw signs in the street in
Ukrainian and Georgian languages and I heard the languages of the former Soviet
republics spoken around me.
I had my first experience of hearing Ukrainian in a café. While I was choosing
what to order, the cashier, a young lady, addressed me in Russian. After I placed the
order, paid and sat at the table, a young man came up to the cashier and the two
immediately started speaking Ukrainian. This was the moment when I realized that
―Little Russia‖ did not imply there were only Russians or that there was only Russian. In
large Russian cities, like Moscow, you can hear all kinds of languages. Ukrainian is not
rare there, because of many so called gastarbeiter (temporary workers from another area)
who come from eastern Ukraine for higher wages. However, in my hometown, I hear
Ukrainian only when my mother talks to her sister on the phone. Seeing and hearing
languages of the former Soviet republics was more associated for me with my
international student exchange program experience than with Russia itself.
The second un-Russian feature was that even though salespersons in grocery
stores spoke Russian, they used pounds and gallons and inches instead of kilos and liters
and centimeters, which sounded very American. Moreover, those words were not
translated into Russian but rather replicated, with a Russian ending added to fulfill a
grammar rule in a sentence. In fact, code-mixing seemed to be characteristic of most of
the Russian language ―on Brighton‖: English words (e.g. to slice, health care, and sale)
with Russian pronunciation and grammar were integrated into the Russian speech,
54
without bothering the speakers at all. Besides the language, the concept of tipping
alienated Brighton Beach from Russia for me. Tips (calculated and required) are not part
of Russian culture, so observing a server demanding a tip from a customer in a café
seemed out of place and was quite disturbing.
Lastly, the overall impression of ―Little Russia‖ was somewhat confusing. The
place looked surrealistic as a mixture of a small town and a big city. On the one hand, I
walked past very expensive boutiques and restaurants on very busy streets. On the other
hand, there were rather narrow sidewalks with open cheap pastry stands and fruit markets,
businesses cramped together on a small area, noise from the el train above the road, along
with dirty and sticky pavement and smell of the rotten food in August. I have never seen
such an eclectic combination in Russia, not within the same block. Brighton Beach
Avenue was busy, like in a big city, but it was filled with many elderly people, with metal
mini-shopping carts.
In spite of all the details that did not fit my image of Russia, ―Little Russia by the
Sea‖ displayed some resemblance to Russia. However, it was not today‘s Russia, but
more like the Russia of Soviet times.
Walking along the Brighton Beach Avenue, I encountered different pastry stands,
and some of the vendors behind them–all dressed in white aprons and white hats which
seemed to have been the uniform since the 1980s–acted like they were forced to work for
their gravest enemy. They were rude to customers, made insulting remarks about their
potential clients. I literally got yelled at by one of them, because I was taking a picture of
a shop window next to her. In many stores (especially those selling clothes), nobody
55
approached me and asked if I needed any help. Such rudeness and indifference were
painfully familiar.
The attitude was quite typical in Russia about ten years ago, which I attribute to
the Soviet legacy of undersupplied times, when there was defitzit of everything. People
behind counters were the ones who had access to goods; they were privileged and could
use their position as leverage to access power in other spheres of life. Since businesses
and economy were centralized, there was no need to attract the customers–they would
come anyway. The salespersons did not benefit from the amount of products they sold–
they all received the same salary. Therefore, it was neither required nor necessary to be
nice, helpful, and polite with the customers. Now, in my hometown, you can still
experience that type of attitude from some elderly person in the market. However, it has
stopped being a norm.
On the positive side, some grocery stores brought back the nostalgic memories of
foods from the Soviet times. Products from my childhood, like canned plain seaweed
(with sand grains) and cakes with too much of buttery cream, Bulgarian lecho and
buckwheat that needed to be cleaned and sorted before cooking. At present, in Russia,
some of these products are hard, if not impossible, to find. Most of them have been
improved in terms of quality and packaging, more variety has been added. However, the
original products have certain appeal because of the personal past attached to them, which
adds value to the products here in the USA, as those experiences for the immigrants are not
simply memories from the past, but memories of home, of the world familiar to them.
Another reminder from the past was some performances advertized in Brighton
Beach. Singers like Irina Allegrova were pop stars in early 1990s. You would not see
56
them on TV any more. Apparently, they continue their career among the Russianspeaking diasporas. The fascination with the furs and fur coats among the Russianspeaking immigrants has been preserved in ―Little Russia‖ as well. In Russia, the fur
fashion stepped down and let more practical, lighter coats take a lead, especially in
regions where winters are not too cold.
One more reminder of the Russia from the 1980s–1990s was the abundance of
businesses related to fortune-telling and palm-reading. The psychics‘ services were very
much popular in the USSR and Russia at the end of 1980s and at the beginning of the
1990s, when people were confused and concerned about the future which seemed very
uncertain. For a couple years, psychics and healers were broadcast on all main TV
channels, and people were willing to pay money to get on their live shows. On Brighton,
though, the businesses seemed to be more about telling the future than healing. In general,
there were moments when having stepped out of a store I felt like I went back in time and
space, with the attitude of cashiers, products on the shelves, the way people dress and act,
performance posters, and psychic signs reminding me of Russia when I was 10-15 years old.
In the end, I had rather mixed feelings about ―Little Russia.‖ The people in the
street, the Russian language, and the naming of certain businesses were quite Russia-like.
Still, other languages spoken, people of ethnicities uncommon to my hometown, and the
culture-specific American items (both material and linguistic ones) made the place look
rather alien.
The overall conclusion that I have come to was that ―Little Russia‖ was a
misleading image of contemporary Russia. In fact, Brighton Beach seemed to have
remained stagnant and carried the closest resemblance to Soviet or the first few years of
57
post-Soviet Russia in people‘s behaviors and attitudes, pop culture and clothes, certain
products and popularity of fortune-telling. It looked like an enclave of nostalgic
memories from Russia intertwined with local American and immigrant cultures, which
created a unique hybrid place. Naturally, my experience and interpretation of the place is
very much dependant on who I am, my own experience and understanding of Russia, the
Soviet Union, and the United States.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I delineated the boundaries of the site chosen for the study and
explained the quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. In
particular, I specified the decisions made with regard to the unit of analysis, languages,
inclusion and exclusion of certain items from the data. The process of both quantitative
and qualitative data analysis was described in detail, as well. The chapter ends with the
personal narrative describing my assumptions, impressions, and expectations of the
―Little Russia by the Sea‖ before and during the data collection, because they have
influenced my perception and interpretation of the data.
58
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of the study is to characterize the Russian-speaking neighborhood in
Brooklyn, NY, known as ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ or ―Little Odessa,‖ using quantitative
and qualitative analysis of the LL of the area. In Chapter 4, I present the findings of the
research, starting with the quantitative analysis of the business fronts in terms of languages
presented, types of business and types of signs and their correlation with the languages
used. Then, I describe several representative business fronts using qualitative approach.
Quantitative Study
Languages in Business Fronts – Global Picture
This section provides some general characteristics of ―Little Russia‖ in terms of
languages and their combinations on the business fronts. The overall classification of
business fronts by languages is summarized in Table 1, where the business fronts are
divided into monolingual, bilingual, trilingual, and quadrolingual. A business front was
considered monolingual if the written text it had was in one language only. The criteria
for the text to be counted and its placement into a certain language category have been
explained in Chapter 3. The table shows that eight languages were found on the business
fronts of ―Little Russia,‖ however only two of them (English and Russian) were
displayed on business fronts on their own. The rest were found only in combination with
other languages. Bilingual business fronts always included English, and multilingual
business fronts contained English and Russian. English was present on 99% of the
business fronts, all except for two, which were Russian-only.
59
Table 1
Total Languages Ratio
Businesses by Languages
Total
MONOLINGUAL
English
Russian
BILINGUAL
English-Russian
English-Spanish
English-Georgian
English-Japanese
English-Urdu
TRILINGUAL
English-Russian-Spanish
English-Russian-Hebrew / Yiddish
QUADROLINGUAL
English-Russian-Spanish-Ukrainian
TOTAL
%
107
105
2
146
138
5
1
1
1
17
15
2
1
1
271
39.48%
38.75%
0.74%
53.87%
50.92%
1.85%
0.37%
0.37%
0.37%
6.27%
5.54%
0.74%
0.37%
0.37%
100.00%
Most of businesses in ―Little Russia‖ were bilingual, a little under 54%, vast
majority of which were English-Russian, 51% of all the businesses. The second large
number belonged to monolingual business fronts (39.5%), with the obvious
predominance of English-only businesses–almost 39%. The third place, though with
much lower numbers (around 6%) took trilingual businesses, and 15 out of 17 were
English-Russian-Spanish businesses which constituted 5.5% of the total number. In fact,
there are three times more English-Russian-Spanish businesses (15) than English-Spanish
ones (5). Thus, Spanish was the third most represented language in ―Little Russia,‖ but
only in combination with English and Russian, which might indicate relatively large
Hispanic population and workforce in the area.
60
There was one business front which had four languages–English, Russian,
Spanish, and Ukrainian (0.4%). The rest of the categories (monolingual Russian,
bilingual English-Spanish, English-Georgian, English-Urdu, English-Japanese, and
trilingual English-Russian-Hebrew/Yiddish) accounted for less than 2% each.
Interestingly, only 2 business fronts out of 271 in ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ (0.74%)
were Russian-only. It might mean that either the expectations of the audience or
perception of business owners and sign-makers is that the Russian language by itself does
not fulfill all the communicative and pragmatic goals when displayed on a business front
in the ―Little Russia‖ and sentimental value of Russian is not a sufficient reason for
monolingual Russian business fronts.
However, even though there are less than 1% of monolingual Russian businesses,
the Russian language is present on over 58% of all business fronts, which indicates a
rather high concentration of Russian-related businesses in the area. Still, the fact that
English is by far the dominant language in ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ makes the area
seem a little more like ―Little American Russia.‖
Languages by Business Type
This section deals with the questions concerning types of businesses present in
―Little Russia‖ and where certain languages and their combinations are used in terms of
business types. The data is presented in the table in Appendix C. I start by defining the 71
types of business, in which data was categorized, and proceed with explaining how the
languages were represented in those types, with focus on the three most prominent
languages (English, Russian, and Spanish). The data show that English was in vast
majority of businesses and business types.
61
Determining categories. All 271 business fronts comprising the data corpus for
the study were classified according to the nature of business they represent. The 71
categories depended on whether a business sold products or provided services. The
definitions of types of business are presented in Appendix D.
It is important to clarify the criteria according to which businesses were put into
each category. Unless stated otherwise, the businesses had to either have the type of
business mentioned or the product and service range specified or exemplified on their
business fronts. For example, most of pharmacies had the word pharmacy on their
business fronts (in English, Russian, or Spanish). Others had explanations and product
descriptions that allowed putting them into that category. If the type of business could not
be inferred from the street, I went into the store and visited the website of the business, if
it was available, to gain more insight into the nature of the business.
Since it was not uncommon for one business to be engaged in both making/selling
products and providing services, one business front could correspond with more than one
type of business. To illustrate, Brighton Rx is a pharmacy that offers the services of
notary public and Oceanview is a café which also sells frozen semi-prepared foods.
Moreover, some types of business were included in other, sometimes more general ones,
due to the nature of business and the categories they represented. For example, there are
12 businesses in immigration services, and 10 of them are included in legal services as
well, with total of 15 business fronts of that type. In other words, not all immigration type
businesses are law offices, and not all businesses in legal services state that they deal with
immigration issues.
62
Singling out the immigration category is essential because the area under study is
inhabited mostly by people who or whose families came there from other countries or
who plan to bring family members to the United States. The types of business were
determined in order to categorize businesses for conclusions to be made based on the
quantities of businesses within each type. At the same time, I tried to keep the types as
specific as possible for analysis to be more accurate because the presence of those types
characterized ―Little Russia‖ in certain ways. Thus, sometimes one business front appears
in several categories.
A few more comments about particular types of business need to be made. Fruit
and vegetables markets are a peculiar type of business. They are usually without window
fronts, and thus with little written language, most often displayed only on the awning.
Clothes stores are cross-referenced in fashion stores (10), DVSs (4), and six
business fronts in that category are also shoe stores. Furs represent a rather unique type of
business in the area and for this reason are excluded from the categories of fashion and
clothes stores. Religious stores represent another non-standard category. They sell a
variety of products, but are identified on their business fronts as bookstores. Therefore,
they are duplicated in the bookstore type. In their turn, many bookstores are crossreferenced as music and video stores.
Regarding service-providing types, some deserve more explanation. Businesses
containing the word bank in their names or defining themselves as such on their official
websites were put into the Banks category. Medical care services are represented by
doctors‘ offices, among which dentists are the majority.
63
The home care services present an interesting category. It is separated from the
medical care, even though the former may require some medical expertise. Instead, home
care businesses are included in the job agency type, but are also duplicated into a separate
category. The explanation lies in the dual nature of those businesses. On the one hand,
they provide jobs–home attendant positions, which involve taking care of medical and
physical needs of an elderly person or family and sometimes staying with them. On the
other hand, the agencies advertize their services to the potential clients and their relatives
by guaranteeing specialists and service. In this way, this type is quite different from the
medical care type.
High popularity of home health care services in the area may have a twofold
explanation: First, it is relatively easy to find candidates for home attendant positions
because certificates, even if required, are not difficult to obtain and there are many
immigrants whose home country qualifications do not allow them to get other jobs.
Second, with Russian-speaking elderly population growing in New York, home care
services come in handy, especially for immigrants‘ families with negative attitude toward
nursing homes.
In contrast to the cross-referenced types, there are two categories that
purposefully divided: psychic and religious services. In this study, the established
religions are put into a separate category. Another reason for differentiating between the
two types is the business nature of services: palm-reading implies taking money from
customers for the service provided, while Bible studies can be offered free of charge.
Finally, the existence of a dating services business seemed important to be
highlighted by creating a separate category for it. In such multiethnic area as ―Little
64
Russia,‖ dating companies may serve as somewhat an alternative to immigration services
for people willing to get the U.S. citizenship.
In general, the 71 types of businesses found in ―Little Russia by the Sea‖
represented a variety of product and service types offered in the area. The productoriented businesses were divided into 29 types, with the majority being in clothing, food
products, medicine, and items for the home and personal use. The service-oriented
businesses made up 42 types. Job-related, immigration, catering, and fixing services,
along with beauty salons and travel agencies, were among most represented. It was
typical for one business to be put into several categories, if it provided more than one
type of services or both provided services and sold products, with one complementing the
other. A similar decision was made when some of the types of business overlapped, but
for the purposes of research and accuracy of data analysis both categories were important,
and thus, kept.
Describing the language usage. The types of businesses divided by the
languages that were used on the business fronts show that English was present on all but
a few business types, with monolingual English domineering in many of them.
Exceptions were the business types with the English-Russian combination. They were
immigrant-related types as well as in the types of business oriented toward multilingual
(or at least Russian-speaking) customers or representing non-English identity of the
owners or of the business itself. The third common language on business fronts was
Spanish, and the business types reflected the services used by Spanish-speaking people in
―Little Russia‖.
65
English language. English was present and dominant in all business types. No
English was found only on two business fronts: a café and a cosmetics and perfume store,
which were monolingual Russian business fronts.
The English-only business fronts are an interesting case, since they were located
in the area called ―Little Russia‖ and made up almost 40% of all business fronts. The
types represented solely by English business fronts were inconclusive, because the total
number within each type was no more than two. They included ATM, houseware, car
service, library, website designing, plastic cards making, and dating and marriage
services.
However, the types the majority of which were English-only business fronts
allowed pointing out some trends. Most of monolingual English business fronts were
among banks and financial services, fruit and vegetables markets, beauty salons, fashion
stores, clothes stores, and real estate. Majority percentage-wise, but less in absolute
numbers were business fronts in psychic services, interest clubs and schools, nightclubs,
tax preparation services, optics, household products and appliances, laundry and house
cleaning services, and miscellaneous. Moreover, there were many English-only
businesses that accounted for catering services (9 out of 21), food stores (7 out of 19),
DVS (5 out of 11), and shoe stores (6 out of 14). Russian was present in these types in
more or less the same amount of business fronts.
Regarding the trends, it seems that English was the preferred language in
business-to-business services, expensive stores, and cheaper businesses with little written
language on business fronts due to the nature of business or limited business front space.
Banks, financial and real estate services involve working with companies, not just with
66
individuals, which might justify the use of English as a language of wider communication,
so as not to limit the customers to certain language proficiency. The issues of reliability
and legality might also be involved, especially with continuing stories of Russian mafia
still operating in the area.
The dominance of English in banks‘ business fronts might also have to do with
the corporative nature of this type business and the need to keep the business front
standard, recognizable and to convey the image of stability and, to some extent,
American-ness. In fact, the only bank front that was not a 100% English was a business
under construction, with the leftover signs in Russian and English, from previous
businesses.
Half of the beauty salons had monolingual English business fronts, which could
be explained by the fact that about the same number of businesses within this type were
nails salons and they tended to have owners and employees who were immigrants from
Asian countries, mostly China, and did not speak Russian. Since the area is ―Little Russia‖
rather than Chinatown, English was a preferred language on the business fronts. The
signs with the name and type of business all had the word Nails on them in pink, and
many had an image of a hand with nails on the business fronts.
The use of imagery instead of another language to convey the message to more
audience could also applied in psychic services business fronts. The information was in
English, but the image of a palm with lines on it seemed to be sufficient to make potential
customers aware of the nature of business. It could also imply that the services were
available in English.
67
The fashion stores were mostly in English because fashion is associated with
European brand names and Italian and French languages. Therefore, the use of Spanish or
Russian could potentially cheapen the stores‘ image. Clothes and shoe stores include the
fashion type of business, which account for some of monolingual English store fronts.
Another reason, especially for businesses with less expensive range of items (including
DVS), would be the types of signs displayed on those business fronts (e.g. sale) and
English language preferences attached to those types. The Languages by Sign Type
section in Chapter 4 deals with the types of information on business fronts in more detail.
The fact that fruit and vegetables markets were predominantly monolingual
English can be explained by the lack of business fronts in their traditional meaning.
These were open markets, with awnings, usually on the corners of the blocks. There was
little language displayed, besides the names or type of business. There were price labels
(some of which are in English and some in Russian) on the produce or next to it, but they
were not counted as part of a business front (see Chapter 3).
An equally interesting finding was that the types of business that had very low or
zero representation in English only. There were very few monolingual English business
fronts among the pharmacies (1), medical services (3), furs (1), lottery (3), cosmetics and
perfume (1), gift shops (1), travel agencies (4), insurance services (1), legal services (3),
photo (1), and fax and copy (1) services.
None was found in job agencies, home health care, job consulting and training,
immigration services, translating services, bookstores, music and video, printing,
computer and accessories (stores and repair services), money order services, jewelry and
68
watches (stores and repair services), English-learning and translating software, internet
services, tailoring services, furniture, and box-offices.
There were also some types of business that did not have English-only business
fronts, but the total number of business fronts within each type was one or two, which
makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions based on that data. These included
shipping services, religious stores, sign-making and decorating, key-duplicating and
sharpening services, religious services, a post office, a dormitory, advertizing, a
surveillance equipment and a phone cards store.
The low numbers in those types of businesses may have to do with two reasons:
the nature of business required multilingual business fronts (immigration and translation
services) or the services and products were intended to appeal to customers who were
speakers of language(s) other than English (job-related types, furniture stores, bookstores,
pharmacies, and money order services).
The types of business which had few or no monolingual English fronts also
conveyed the idea of inclusiveness and legitimacy of the use of other languages. Nonspeakers of English were drawn to the business fronts with languages they recognized
and associated with, even if the information in those languages was partial and
incomplete. It seems that English was almost expected to be on every business front,
whether the employees and the owner speak it or not. The use of other languages, besides
English might also indicate the owner‘s and employees‘ native language or the language
of preferred communication.
Russian language. Let us look at how Russian-containing business fronts are
divided by business types. This language category includes monolingual Russian,
69
bilingual English-Russian, trilingual English-Russian-Spanish and English-RussianHebrew/Yiddish, and quadrolingual English-Russian-Spanish-Ukrainian business fronts.
The combination of the Russian and English languages on business fronts and their
break-up according to the types of business deserves special attention, since RussianEnglish business fronts take up over 50%.
With regard to the types of business, the Russian language can be found in
virtually all of them. Russian was present on all business fronts related to jobs (consulting
and training services, job agencies, and home health care services), immigration, Englishlearning, and translating services, religion (stores and services), watches and jewelry
(stores and repair services), bookstores, computers (stores and repair services), internet
services, printing services, (theater and concert) box-offices, tailoring services, and
furniture stores.
The same was true for English-Russian business fronts, except for immigration,
bookstores, and box-offices, where one business front of each type was English-RussianSpanish. The following categories of businesses also had Russian (as well as English),
but they were represented by only one or two business fronts in ―Little Russia‖: phone
cards store, surveillance equipment, post office, advertizing services, sign-making and
decorating services, and key-making and sharpening services.
More representative categories with the majority or half of businesses containing
Russian were photo, fax and copy, legal services (includes immigration lawyers),
insurance, travel agencies, liquor stores, florists, gift shops, music and video stores,
money transfer services, cosmetics and perfume, furs, shoe stores, pharmacies, medical
services, food stores, catering services, lottery, and tax preparation. The situation was
70
similar for English-Russian business fronts, with the exception of three types. EnglishRussian food stores made up a little less than a half (9 business fronts out of 19), while
catering–one third, and only one out of five business fronts in money transfer services
was English-Russian.
In general, Russian on the Brighton Beach Avenue plays a servicing role by being
present in the types of business, important for Russian-speaking customers residing and /
or shopping / using services in the area. These types include dormitory, immigration,
English-learning, translation, job-related, insurance, and medical services, for immigrants
or immigrants-to-be; travel agencies, pharmacies, and home health care, for wealthier or
elderly people who want to be catered to in Russian; and shopping options, like
bookstores, music and video stores, religious (Russian Orthodox) stores, furs, jewelry and
watches, cosmetics and perfume that appeal to the interests of the Russian-speaking
population in the area. Interestingly, all four businesses specializing in English-learning
and translating software had English-Russian business fronts, with no Spanish or other
languages present.
Another function of Russian has to do with the availability of products and
services from Russia. Hence, there is a fair number of groceries and deli stores,
restaurants and cafés, and gift shops. Yet another role of English seems to be consistent
with the expertise of Russian-speaking people in the area, like jewelry and watch repair
services, tailoring (which includes designing blinds and draperies and mending furs and
coats), as well as computer services. The fact that those fixing and mending businesses
exist, though in quite modest quantities, reflects the tendency to repair rather than buy
71
new items, which goes against American consumerism and indicates a not quite
Americanized, immigrant mentality, which I can associate with.
There were a few types of business which have no Russian language at all. They
were library, pet store, ATM business, dating & marriage services, plastic-card making
services, website design services, car services, and TV/VCR screen repair services. It is
worth noting that each of these types was represented by only one or two businesses in
the area under study. Interestingly, not only Russian was absent in those types of
businesses, but also, more specifically, the English-Russian combination. These types
were found to be exclusively English.
The Russian language was present in less than half of the businesses in
telecommunications, beauty salons, discounted variety and clothes stores. However, the
absolute numbers were still rather significant, four to eight business fronts of each type.
Interestingly, only two out of nice business fronts in telecommunications were RussianEnglish. Very few businesses with Russian (and English-Russian, in particular), both
number- and percentage-wise, were in psychic services, interest clubs and schools,
laundry and house cleaning services, real estate, household appliances, fashion, fruit and
vegetables markets, nightclubs, financial services, banks, and optics.
The lack of representation of Russian in some types of businesses could be due to
the image of business and languages associated with it (fashion stores). Another reason
would be lack of functional needs to display Russian on the business fronts. For example,
open fruit and vegetables markets display products, laundry services have washing and
drying machines, telecommunications stores and services use brand names and company
72
names in English which are understood by people using them, and psychic services use
imagery–a palm.
The fact that for the most part English-Russian business fronts go in line with the
businesses containing Russian comes as no surprise, given that English-Russian
businesses make up 87% of all business fronts with the Russian language. The divergence
in several business types, like money order services, telecommunications, restaurants, and
grocery stores, can be explained by the inclusion of other languages, especially Spanish.
Spanish language. Spanish is represented by English-Russian-Spanish and
English-Spanish business fronts. The concentration is mostly in pharmacies (4 EnglishRussian-Spanish and 0 English-Spanish fronts), money transfer services (3+1),
telecommunications (2+1), legal services (2+0), translating services (2+0), and music and
video (1+1). This could reflect the types of services that Spanish-speaking people in
―Little Russia‖ use. In this respect, the role of Spanish would be mostly functional, or
servicing, i.e. to inform the customers in their language about the businesses available in
that area in their language. More detailed analysis of Spanish language use is provided in
the forthcoming section of Chapter 4 (Languages by Sign Type).
Overall, the division of language use by business types shows that the types
represented solely or predominantly in English may have to do with the nature of
business (e.g., telecommunications), image of business (e.g., fashion), and the language
of the owners and employees of that type (e.g., nail salons). The preferred RussianEnglish or multilingual Russian-containing combination on business fronts reflected the
types of businesses geared toward Russian-speaking population as consumers
(immigration, job agencies, pharmacies and medical services, jewelry stores, bookstores),
73
the types of business representing products and services from Russia and former Soviet
republics (food stores and box-offices) or identified with Russian or Russian-speaking
people (gift shops and furs). Spanish added to the multilingual landscape of the area,
mostly in business types, with Spanish speakers as consumers or owners (shipping,
money transfer, pharmacies, and telecommunications).
Languages by Sign Type
This section presents the data from the business fronts in ―Little Russia by the Sea‖
regarding the types of information found on the business fronts and languages used to
convey that information (see Appendix E). First, I explain how the signs were classified
and clarify which signs were included in each type. After that I give an overview of
languages represented in those types of signs and analyze data based on two questions: (a)
Is there a connection between the types of signs and languages used? (b) What is the
Russian language used for?
Determining categories. The information on business fronts was categorized
according to the content, regardless of whether it was displayed in a single spatially
definable block or in several places on a business window, whether it was a complete
message in itself or only part of a message. With a few exceptions (see the type contact
information), each word was counted as only one type of sign, and more specific
categories were preferred over general ones. With a business front being a unit of
analysis, I was interested in the presence of languages in the types of signs, rather than a
ratio of languages within a particular type of sign on one business front. Therefore, the
number of signs of the same type in the same language on one business front was
disregarded.
74
The information on business fronts was divided into 29 types (see Appendix E).
The first category, business name, was not present on all business fronts and was
distinguished from business type(s), service(s), and product type(s). It was also not
unusual to find the business names in much smaller fonts and in much less conspicuous
parts of business fronts than the other three types of signs. Sometimes the type of
business was displayed together with the name of business or as part of the name (Café
Arbat or Rabinowitz Pharmacy) or instead of the name (Law Office).
For the purposes of consistency, the decision was made to prefer products type(s)
and service(s) categories to the business type category, especially in cases when a sign
could be dually interpreted. To illustrate, the words furs and меха (mekha, which is the
Russian word for furs) on business fronts were recorded as product type(s) rather than
business type. Similarly, ―consulting,‖ ―spiritual reading,‖ and ―money orders‖ were
considered to be service(s), not business types. Basically, all three types described
business fronts in terms of what businesses do and what they offer. The function was the
same but the form was slightly different. Product type(s) and service(s) also included any
categories of products and services listed on the business fronts, respectively.
The fifth category, specific products, included the exact names of products sold
by a business (usually accompanied by price labels or detailed product descriptions),
brand names (sometimes on posters advertizing them), and menus displayed on business
fronts of catering businesses. Another category related to products had to be added in
order to reflect the signs on business fronts that were not related to the nature of business.
Additional products were usually notices and posters of phone cards, metro cards, and
75
prepaid phones, found on the fronts of grocery stores, gift shops, cosmetics and perfume
stores, cafés, etc.
Logo was singled out as a separate category, even though some researchers do not
consider logos (and abbreviations) as language or words. Since I defined languages by
their script (especially English and Russian), I chose to use the category in spite of the
possible dangers of ambiguity. The risk of mixing up the languages was reduced due to
the differences between Latin and Cyrillic scripts.
The eighth category was contact information, which could include street address
of the business, location (for example, if the business was located on the second floor or
round the corner or where the entrance was), website or email address, or the words
telephone or fax. Since some of that information could be only in English (e.g., website),
it seemed appropriate to look at how contact information was broken into four constituent
parts listed in the previous sentence. Therefore, these four categories were added
separately to see if there was any difference in languages representation. These were the
only types of information that were duplicated.
The 13th type of signs was events. It was comprised of notices of grand openings,
announcements of performances, concerts, meetings, and the like. The next three
categories were slightly more general: instructing notices, prohibiting and warning
notices, and informing notices. Instructing notices included signs saying ―push,‖ ―pull,‖
―ring the bell,‖ or ―pay inside.‖ Prohibiting and warning notices had messages prohibiting
smoking or bringing food into a business, warnings for shoplifters about prosecution and
surveillance, as well as ―watch your step‖ signs. Informing notices included a variety of
signs, from the typical ones, like ―open,‖ ―closed,‖ and ―for rent,‖ to the ones notifying
76
since when the business had been operating, if the business had moved or was still in the
same location (e.g., "we are still here‖), if there was a ―minimum charge‖ and if the
business was ―coming soon.‖
However, there were a few types of signs that could be included in the informing
notices category but were put as separate types. Sales and discount notices were present
on a significant number of business fronts (49), thus calling for a special attention to that
type. Language notices deserved a separate category as well, but mostly because of the
nature of that type of sign. The signs informed the customers about languages in which
services in that business were provided. Another category that was not put into informing
notices was “we accept” notices type. It had signs about acceptance of personal checks,
medical insurance, and food stamps.
The 20th category was credit cards notices. It is worth noting that the credit card
stickers with words on them (e.g., Visa, MasterCard, and American Express) were not
counted as part of data. However, when the notices with the types of credit cards were
enlarged and occupied a more significant part of the business window, they were taken
into account. I think that extra efforts taken to display a larger size of a credit card type
had its implications beyond simply informing customers about the services available.
Another example of items in that category was a handwritten notice on New Brighton (a
fruit and vegetables market) business front which said, ―CREDIT CARDS
TRANSACTIONS‖. In those situations, the notices were counted.
Finally, there was a category which I called “we card” notices. This type of sign
was typical for businesses selling alcohol and tobacco. Interestingly, even though
grammatically it could be put into informing notices category, the purpose of it was to
77
warn more than inform. Not surprisingly, the sign was usually accompanied by direct
prohibition to buy alcohol for minors or let others use your ID.
The 22nd category would be business hours. For the most part, signs of that type
looked rather standardized: the heading (business hours or store hours), seven days of the
week with the times when the business was open. The notices about when businesses
would not be operating were included in that category as well.
Job ads made up the 23rd category. They were notices attached to business fronts
about job openings either in that particular place or in other places). The next type of
signs was advertizing business. It included any notices on a business front promoting the
business itself (e.g., ―you are in good hands‖, ―we will help you‖, or ―European style at
affordable prices‖).
Related to that type of signs was the category I identified as awards and
participation. Some businesses posted awards they received or projects they participated
in as a way of advertizing their business. For example, I found several Zagat Survey
ratings displayed on the business fronts of catering facilities. The 26th category
represented the official notices, which were counted due to the readable size of the font.
In particular, these were the notices about sprinkling systems in a building, licenses for
stoop line stands located in front of a shop window and the notices from NYC
Department of Consumer Affairs with the address and telephone number which one could
use to file a complaint about a business.
The 27th category was other business notices, which advertized the products and
services of another business. To illustrate, Brighton Deli & Appetizing had
announcements of tours on its door and shop window and M&I International Foods
78
displayed posters advertizing National restaurant. The one but the last category was
leftover notices, which were literally the signs (or parts of signs) that were not taken off
after the business had changed or were worn-out posters advertizing products (nonexistent or not offered).
The last category referred to as miscellaneous notices could to a certain extent
relate to the advertizing business type of signs. The illocutionary force of those messages
varied from the names of countries to greetings, welcoming notices, invitations, and
wishes. However, the perlocutionary force could be interpreted as the same – new
customers came inside and used the services or bought the products from that particular
business, because they either identified with the store owners due to the message or
responded to the ― localized act of communication‖ (Kallen, 2009, p. 272). The former
could be assumed from the name (and flag) of a country displayed on the business front,
while the latter could be inferred from the welcoming notices which acted as a
doorperson inviting customers in.
In general, the types of signs describing what a business does, sells, and offers
had higher frequency. Business types were present on 40% of all business fronts, services
on 48%, and product types on 34%. Out of 271 business fronts, 27% displayed
information about specific products in their windows. There were two more rather
represented categories, business hours and informative notices, with almost a quarter
each. By far the most popular type of signs was business names.
What was surprising, though, was that about 8% of business fronts did not show
their business names. Moreover, language notices represent a category that would not
exist in a monolingual or in a truly bilingual neighborhood. In ―Little Russia‖ language
79
notices were only on 3% of all business fronts, which means that for the most part there
were certain expectations based on the languages used on the business fronts and on the
perceptions of the neighborhood.
Interestingly, many business fronts (about one third) included some sort of contact
information. Partially it could be related to the fact that the location type of signs
reflected physical landscape of the area under study–the close proximity of businesses to
each other and the rails of elevated train interfered with the visibility of many businesses,
which is vital for businesses‘ survival. Therefore, the positioning of a business front (as
defined for the purposes of this study) depended on visibility of signs and did not always
correspond with the location of the business itself. Hence, 11% of business fronts had
information about the location of their business.
To reiterate, the types of signs found on business fronts in ―Little Russia by the
Sea‖ included both the typical categories, like business name, type, services, products,
contact information, job ads, informing, instructing, and prohibiting and warning notices,
and quite peculiar ones, for example, location, other business notices, and additional
products. However, their frequency demonstrates certain physical and sociolinguistic
characteristics of the area under study. Turning to language use, I think that the proposed
29 categories divided the information on 271 business fronts into quantifiable units that
help determine the diversity of languages representation and patterns between the usage
of languages and types of signs.
Describing the language usage. In terms of languages, the business fronts were
grouped depending on what languages and their combinations were used in certain types
of signs on a business front. As a result, the types of signs were found to be monolingual
80
(in English, Russian, or Spanish language), bilingual (English with Russian, Spanish,
Hebrew/Yiddish, Georgian, Japanese, or Urdu and Russian with Spanish or
Hebrew/Yiddish), and trilingual (English-Russian-Ukrainian and English-RussianSpanish).
It did not mean that all the signs within a bilingual or trilingual type were in all
two or three languages, respectively, because the unit of analysis was a business front,
not a sign. For instance, a post office (Mail Box City) had its schedule with working hours
in English only; however, it also had two notices stating that the post office would be
closed the following Monday, in both English and Russian. Therefore, the business hours
type of signs was put down as English-Russian for that business front.
From Appendix E, it can be seen that there are three language categories that
stand out: English types, English-Russian types, and Russian types. This shows a slightly
different distribution of languages and language combinations, compared to that
according to the business fronts, where Russian-only business fronts ranked at the bottom
(see Table 1). Other languages are represented in low numbers. I analyze the most
representative categories in terms of types of signs in which they were used.
English-only. Not surprisingly, English is present in all types of signs and
English-only has the highest representation among all high-frequency types. The clearly
English-dominant category is business names, with 213 out 248 business fronts. Other
high-frequency categories with the majority of business fronts in English include
business and product types, services, and contact information, followed by specific
products, business hours, informing notices.
81
The dominance of English in high-frequency signs can in part be explained by the
large number of monolingual English business fronts in the corpus, as well as by certain
naming trends, like business names being in English only. The fact that most businesses
in ―Little Russia‖ display information about their products and services only in English
shows that the area is catered well to monolingual English-speaking customers.
Three other high-frequency English-only dominant types are described in more
detail. One of them is contact information, with 74 out of 89 business fronts in Englishonly. Comparing this data with the break-up into the constituents of contact information,
it is evident that the reason why the number is not 100% and why there are 4 business
fronts with monolingual Russian contact information is the absence of the street address
and website and email information on those business fronts. These two types of signs are
only in English.
Location type is also mostly in English, even though the combination of Russianonly and English-Russian signs gives 12 business fronts containing location signs in
Russian, which is almost 40%. Thus, location type is basically the only constituent of
contact information that may challenge the dominance of English.
Another English-dominant signs type would be business hours, with 59 out of 64
business fronts in English-only. The reason for that might be that most of the business
hours‘ notices are standard stickers or plaques that are purchased ready-made. The days
of the week are already printed there in English and the actual hours are put in manually.
Since the information to be added is often numbers rather than words, there is little
change that can be made to languages ratio in the notice. The only two times when
English-Russian was present were when an additional notice was posted, either with extra
82
information about the days or times the business would be closed or open, or with the
information duplicating or summarizing the English notice.
Finally, the informing notices type is predominantly English-only. There are 4
Russian-only and 6 English-Russian business fronts, which together make up a little over
15% of all business fronts with informing notices. In terms of the types of business, the
business fronts containing informing notices in Russian are clothes stores, catering
facilities, and job agencies, while English is present in informing notices of various
businesses.
Among the less frequent types are sale & discount notices and instructing notices.
Regarding the first type, 40 out of 49 business fronts have sale & discount notices in
English only. In particular, the word ―sale‖ and the phrase ―…% off‖ are almost always
used only in English. More detailed messages usually appear in Russian as well.
Instructing notices include rather frequent ―push‖ and ―pull,‖ which are often simply
monolingual stickers on the door, but a couple are accompanied by the Russian version.
More detailed instructions on how to enter the business may appear in Russian only or in
both Russian and English. The directions to pay inside the store were rare, but appeared
in both English and Russian.
The categories that are represented by only English signs are logo, address,
website and email, awards and participation, credit cards, and ―we card‖ notices. Official
notices are all but one in English, too. Logos depend on the companies‘ official names
(which are predominantly in English). Awards are given by American ratings companies,
thus, are not translated into other languages. Addresses and websites de facto require
83
Latin script. Credit cards are standard requirements for businesses and keep the proper
names (Discover or American Express) in the original–English–language.
In the official notices, the exception is a bilingual English-Spanish sign from
NYPD on a liquor store. The fact that official signs in ―Little Russia‖ never include
Russian, and the only language besides English is Spanish reflects the general tendency
in New York. Spanish-speaking neighborhood might have more official signs in Spanish,
but the same does not apply to Russian.
―We card‖ notices are somewhat official, since they demonstrate business owners‘
abidance by the law. One of the reasons for the type of notice to be in English is for the
official inspections and police officers to be able to read it. Another reason could be that
the notice applies first and foremost to teenagers, who are the first to learn the English
language among the immigrant population. Thus, the target audience does not need a
special notice in their first language.
To recap, English is present in all types of signs and in many cases its presence is
dominating. This is especially true for high-frequency sign types, like business names,
business types, products and services. Official and semi-official signs tend to be Englishonly.
English-Russian. The English-Russian category is the second largest one after
English-only. It is represented most in high-frequency sign types, like English-only, but
in smaller numbers. These types of signs are business types (31 out of 109), product types
(35 out of 91), services (43 out of 131), business names (26 out of 248), and specific
products (21 out of 74). It means that many businesses in ―Little Russia‖ did present
84
essential information about the products they sell and services they offer in Russian, not
only in English.
The only type of signs where English-Russian category prevails is low-frequency
―we accept‖ notices. There are 6 business fronts out of 13 that display the information in
both English and Russian. Together with 3 Russian-only business fronts Russiancontaining signs make up almost 70% of all business fronts with that type of signs.
Two thirds of them were found in two major categories: pharmacies and food
stores. The first category, along with the medical services one, had notices about
accepting insurances, like Medicaid; while the second category had to do with accepting
food stamps. In general, ―we accept‖ notices seemed to aim at attracting more customers
by informing them about the inclusiveness a business had regarding health insurance and
food stamps policy. In this way, notices were intended for people with lower income or
dependant on social aid, appealing to their basic needs–food and health.
Russian-only. As can be seen from Appendix E, most of Russian-only types of
signs on business fronts fall into high-frequency services and business types, with 19 and
17 business fronts, respectively. However, the ratio shows that these numbers make up
only 15% and 16% of the total number of business fronts with these types of signs (131
for services and 109 for business types). Even though some businesses used only Russian
to describe their services or business types on their business fronts, the majority preferred
English, followed by 43 (33%) and 31 (28%) business fronts, respectively, containing
both English and Russian.
Similarly, another high-frequency type, business names, has the average number
of business fronts with this type in Russian (7), but it constitutes less than three percent of
85
all business fronts with that type of information on them. Combined with 26 EnglishRussian and 1 Russian-Hebrew/Yiddish business front, the figure is higher, but is still
rather low (14%). In other words, English is more represented than Russian (whether by
itself or in combination with other languages) in high-frequency types of signs, which are
related to the nature and names of businesses.
Shifting to low-frequency types of signs, additional products, events, and job ads
are particularly interesting because they have relatively high representation among
Russian types of signs (10-12), but the total numbers of businesses with those types
varies between 15 and 20, which gives Russian types a high ratio of 50-67%. Additional
products (unrelated to the nature of a business) are mentioned or advertized on 12
business fronts only in Russian (out of 20). These are mostly gift shops, music and video
stores, pharmacies, and two fax and copy business fronts.
However, the tendency seems to be more in the sign type itself: many of the
additional products type signs are phone card posters of different brands. Since the
product is geared toward immigrant population, with relatives and strong connections in
their home countries, and the neighborhood is ―Little Russia by the Sea‖, it seems fair to
assume that it would be by and large Russian-speaking people who buy that product. The
rates on the posters usually include not only Russia with its two largest cities, but also
most of former Soviet republics (some with their capitals and big cities), a few European
countries, Mexico, Australia, and the USA.
Another type of low-frequency types of signs with high Russian ratio is events.
There are 10 business fronts out of 15 with this type of information in Russian and one
with Russian-English-Ukrainian combination, which constitutes over 70% of all business
86
fronts with events signs. Many Russian signs within the events type are in fact
performance announcements of plays, concerts, and comedians, with the performers
being Russian-speaking and either local or visiting from Russia, Ukraine and other
countries.
It has to be noted that the positioning of events signs is functional only for five
business fronts, three of which offer box-office services and one is the venue for the
event. The majority of events, however, are not directly related to the business where
they are posted, even though they are often attached to the business front from inside. It
means that either the owners had granted their permission for a sign to be posted there or
it had been their own initiative.
The performance posters were found on pharmacy, travel agency,
telecommunication and catering services‘ business fronts. A possible explanation would
be the self-proclamation of the owner‘s identity and an attempt to create a bond with the
customers by offering unsolicited information from their former home. Some
performances emphasize popular culture; others focus on ethnic and religious cultures
and traditions. Besides that, certain businesses tend to serve (or are perceived as serving)
as pillars of community and centers of subcommunities‘ life. In this case, failure to post
an announcement could threaten the reputation and status of business.
The third low-frequency type of signs is job ads, with 10 business fronts out of 20
in Russian-only. Thus, 50% of business fronts with job ads were Russian-only type. The
distribution of that type across the types of business is as follows: Three business fronts
are home health care business fronts and the rest are one in each category, which are
bookstore / music and video, food store, catering, DVS, florist, blinds and draperies, and
87
a pharmacy. As far as the job positions advertized, there is a mixture of qualified and
low-qualified positions, from a cook and a seamstress to home attendants, servers, and
sales persons.
Posting a job ad only in the Russian language implies an additional job
requirement–fluency in Russian, or given the population in the area it could also imply
using Russian as their first language or since their childhood. There could be three
reasons for such a requirement: The customers could be Russian-speaking, or the staff
and the customers, or the owner wanted to keep solidarity by helping Russian-speaking
immigrants to get a job. It should also be pointed out that a Russian job ad was never the
only type of sign in Russian on the business front.
Advertizing business and language notices were also low-frequency types but had
less Russian-only representation, about one third of all business fronts with these types.
In absolute numbers, however, the differences were larger: there were eight business
fronts with Russian advertizing business signs, but only three with language notices.
Moreover, there were also three business fronts with English-Russian advertizing
business notices. Regarding the connection between the use of Russian in these types of
signs and the types of business, there does not seem much in these cases. Except for two
travel agencies‘ and two catering facilities‘ fronts, for Russian advertizing business notices,
and two job agencies‘ fronts, for Russian language notices, all the rest were different
types of business.
Miscellaneous notices type is represented by 3 Russian-containing business fronts
(2 Russian + 1 English-Russian) out of 8, which is almost 40%. The messages are a
greeting, invitation, and good wishes. The purpose of these types is not functional, but
88
rather solidarity. By using phrases in Russian, the owners identify with immigrant
Russian-speaking population.
Russian is present in low numbers in specific products, instructive notices,
telephone and fax, and ―leftover‖ type of signs. Monolingual Russian signs types are not
used in official notices, awards and participation, credit cards, in ―we card‖ type,
Other languages. As can be seen from Appendix E, languages other than Russian
and English had very low representation in types of signs, in terms of both variety and
numbers. Spanish is analyzed first, since compared to the rest of the languages, it was
more represented in the overall language palette of the business fronts.
Spanish in types of signs was noticed in more language combinations than in
types of business. The types of signs were in Spanish-only, English-Spanish, RussianSpanish, and English-Russian-Spanish. Even though Spanish was only in twelve types of
signs (out of 29), with only one business front in most of them, the types of signs where
Spanish was present are worth pointing out. In particular, most Spanish-containing signs
were in services, with half (4) in money transfer services. The services were also written
in Spanish on business fronts of legal services, immigration, shipping, pharmacies, and
music and video types.
Four business fronts had language notices in Spanish: a law office, a dentist‘s
office, immigration services, and a nail salon. Two business fronts displayed product
types in Spanish; one had a sales notice and the other an advertizing business notice in
Spanish (along with English and Russian). They were both in telecommunication services.
This indicates that Spanish-speaking people serve as customers, though not many
businesses cater specifically to them.
89
Spanish-speaking population is not necessarily favored in ―Little Russia by the
Sea.‖ Few business fronts displayed prohibiting and warning type of signs in Spanish, but
all three had to do with surveillance and threats to prosecute shoplifters. In addition to
that, Ocean Wine & Liquor store had an official notice from New York Police
Department (NYPD) in English and Spanish promising a money reward to whoever
would report the use of fireworks.
There were also two job ads (in construction, cleaning, and driving) in Spanishonly and two ―we accept‖ notices (food stamps). Even though the Russian language was
more represented in the latter type of signs, there were no business fronts with ―we accept‖
notices in both Russian and Spanish. Thus, according to the use of Spanish on business
fronts, the Spanish-speaking population in the neighborhood has low representation and
is perceived not simply as consumers of products and services, but as low-income
immigrants, low-qualified workers, and potential criminals.
The rest of the languages had singular or zero representation in the types of signs.
It means that these languages were used in very specific cases. To illustrate, Japanese and
Georgian exist only in combination with English: Japanese in the informing notice type
(i.e., the opening of the restaurant) and in welcoming notice (miscellaneous type), and
Georgian in business name and business type. In both cases, even though the types of
signs were bilingual, those particular signs were not translated literally into English, and
Japanese was spatially separated from English.
Summarizing the quantitative study, out of eight languages in the public space of
English is a dominant language on business fronts of ―Little Russia‖ in general, in most
types of business, and in almost all types of signs, with the last two being true for
90
monolingual English. Monolingual Russian, on the contrary, is almost non-existent in
types of business. Russian is usually present in combination with English (and Spanish)
in both business and sign types, and is prevalent in those related to immigration, jobs, and
events. Spanish ranks third after English and Russian, but with much less representation
in the types of signs.
Qualitative Study
Having given quantitative overview of languages used in public signage in ―Little
Russia by the Sea,‖ I selected five business fronts containing the Russian language. The
decisions were made based on the data in Appendices C and E. In terms of language, all
five business fronts are English-Russian. According to the type of business, the business
fronts correspond to different businesses and different categories: there is a restaurant
(catering services), a shoe store, a law office (legal services), a pharmacy, and a ―service
center‖ (immigration services). Geographically, they are located in several different
blocks and parts of the ―Little Russia‖ (see Appendix A). This section provides analysis
of each business front regarding information represented on it, the languages, and the
purposes of using those languages (especially Russian).
Restaurant
Location and place description. As a catering facility, I picked Primorski
Restaurant (282 Brighton Beach Ave.). It is located on the Brighton Beach Avenue, on
the side that is closer to the ocean, between 2nd and 3rd Brighton Streets. It looks cramped
between a jewelry store and a financial services business, even though compared to many
other businesses in ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ it occupies much space. The building does
not have a second store with billboards posted for the train passengers to observe or with
91
the door leading upstairs to other businesses. In this way, the restaurant seems to have
more room on the window front all to itself.
A huge blue awning is hanging over the business front, which does not allow
much light on the business entrance and the window space, but apparently gives enough
shade in hot weather and protects from rain and snow (see Figure 1, Appendix F). This is
especially important for Russian customers: It is not uncommon for people in Russia
during long parties or celebrations in a restaurant to go outside and stand in front of it
smoking and talking. The entrance is a glass door in the middle of the business front with
window spaces on the right and on the left of it. Next to them, there are also two
symmetrical walls of granite with the menus imprinted on each side. The business front is
covered with various notices and signs of different types and sizes, imprinted and
attached manually (permanent and temporary), typed and handwritten.
Signs and languages. There are two languages present on the business front,
English and Russian. Some notices combine them (fragmentary, complementary or
overlapping writing), others are duplicated in both languages, yet others use only one of
them. English language seems to be more visible than Russian: the name and type of
business are located in the center of the awning printed in large font, with no competing
language next to it. The words in the largest font are in English. More permanent signs
are in English, too. The types of signs on the front of Primorski Restaurant include
informing notices (menus), events, services, job advertisements, advertizing business,
official and miscellaneous notices (welcoming). Each sign is described separately.
Name. The awning has the name and type of business in large upper-case white
English letters, centered and framed (see Appendix F). The name is repeated at the
92
bottom of the awning embossed and in much smaller letters, but still in upper case. From
a passer-by‘s perspective, however, none of these words or even letters would be visible
for someone walking on the same side of the street where the restaurant is located. Thus,
the message on the awning is meant for people driving along the Brighton Beach Avenue
or walking across the street.
The colors and the size of the font make it stand out and create a memorable
effect. The colors on the awning–blue and white–create associative effect of the water
and foamy waves, matching the meaning of the restaurant‘s name–Primorski–near the sea.
It is not unusual for businesses to use Russian words transliterated into English for
business names. Thus, even though the word in coded as written in English (Latin script),
the meaning of it would not be accessible to English speakers not knowing Russian.
For English-speaking audience, the name would bear authenticity of a ‗Russian‘
neighborhood and comfortable level of exoticism (Kallen, 2009). Most of the Russian
speakers, however, would be able to read the sign and understand the meaning, in spite of
significant differences between Cyrillic and Latin script, since a foreign language
(usually European) has been an obligatory several-years school course in the Soviet
Union and Russia. For Russian-speaking audience, the fact that the name of the restaurant
is in Latin script might indicate prestige and better quality of food and service. At the
same time, making the meaning of the name recognizable for Russian speakers hints that
the service is available in Russian.
The phrase Primorski Restaurant is repeated at least six times on the business
front, and is in English only, except for the event announcement, where Primorski is
93
referred to in Russian, as a venue for the event. However, the notice was not produced by
the management of the Primorski Restaurant.
Menus. The most prominent notices on Primorski Restaurant’s front are large
tablets with menus (general and lunch special ones) and a large board with informing
notice about special prices for dinners. The general menu is printed black on three yellow
tablets attached to granite walls at eye-level. The name of the restaurant is painted above
the tablets. The menu is in two copies, located symmetrically on the left and right sides.
To the right of the tablets (on both sides) there is another menu–lunch special. It is
printed in blue ink on a white sheet of paper. This menu is much smaller in font size than
the general one, less noticeable and does not seem permanent. However, the fact that it
has been laminated and positioned next to the permanent, solid menu implies that the
lunch menu is meant to stay for more than a few days or a month.
Both menus have information only in English. Interestingly, most Russian and
Ukrainian dishes on the menus are translated into English rather than simply
transliterated, as is the case on some other restaurant fronts in ―Little Russia.‖ For
example, the menus use ―RUSSIAN CREPES‖ instead of bliny, ―DUMPLINGS‖ instead
of vareniki and pelmeni, and ―STUFFED CABBAGE‖ instead of golubtsy.
There are a couple exceptions, like ―OLIVJA (POTATO) SALAD‖ and
―BORSCHT‖ which is the name of probably the most well-known Russian dish in the
USA. In the latter case, the spelling is American, because the Russian word does not have
a t in it (borsch). The English lunch-special menu has two versions: ―Blintzes‖ (from
Yiddish) and ―Russian Crepes.‖ This could have the intention to show the difference
94
between the two in that the former are stuffed and the latter are not (at least in that menu),
It could also serve as reference to two types of culture–Jewish and Russian.
At the same time, most Georgian dishes are transliterated, with a short description
of the type of dish added in smaller font: the soup category has ―KHARCHO (LAMB &
RICE),‖ other dishes include ―KHACHAPURI (GEORGIAN CHEESE PATTY),‖
―KHINKALI (GEORGIAN DUMPLINGS),‖ ―CHAKAPULI (BRAISED VEAL),‖ ―KUPATY
(GEORGIAN SAUSAGE),‖ ―LAVASH (GEORGIAN BREAD),‖ and ―Chakhokhbili (Chicken
Stew with Tomatoes and Onions).‖ Most of these Georgian dishes would be familiar to
Soviet and post-Soviet Russian-speaking immigrants, without any explanations. As for
the audience that does not speak Russian, Georgian bread just like Russian crepes would
contain sufficient information for understanding.
The preference to include Georgian names (lavash) and avoid Russian ones (bliny)
has implications on how the restaurant is perceived: Without any explicit identity markers
on the restaurant front (no Georgian language or symbols, not a hint on Georgia in the
name of the restaurant), the names of the dishes on the menus not only indicate that the
restaurant specializes in Georgian cuisine, but also highlight Georgian identity by
shadowing Russian names.
There is also a large notice on the white paper posted on the window to the left of
the entrance (see Appendix F). Spatially, the notice is divided into three parts: the top line
with the price and the word ―LUNCH,‖ the left section with the schedule (days and
times), and the bigger center and right section with two pages of menu. The largest font is
given to the cost of the meal, which is supposed to attract more customers.
95
In contrast to the right-left Kreuss and van Leeuwan‘s composition mode used in
Scollon and Scollon‘s (2003) geosemiotics, the new information (price) occupies the left
(given) part of the notice, which may be explained by a pragmatic reason–the top-left
corner allows for a larger font which guarantees more noticeability. The smallest font is
the third section–the menu which is in two copies: the left sheet is in English, and the
right one is in Russian. The left sheet is identical to the lunch menus placed next to the
general restaurant menus.
The top and left sections are in English only, which is clearly given preference in
this notice. Russian is present only in small font, on the right side (Scollon & Scollon,
2003). Moreover, the information in Russian is fragmentary, since side orders and one
dish (―Russian Crepes with Jam or Sour Cream‖) are excluded from the Russian version.
Additionally, the descriptions of Georgian dishes are not included in the Russian menu.
Overall, the composition of the notice gives an impression that English is the
original language and Russian is the translated language, which is rather unlikely,
however. The omission of some information on the Russian menu can be accounted for
by the expectations from the owners that the Russian-speaking customers would be
familiar with the Georgian dishes and the side dishes usually served. At the same time,
the Russian menu expands the last sentence which in English says ―Price does not include
tax and services‖ by adding the exact percentage of tax and tips. In English, the sentence
might be considered obsolete, but some Russian speakers (especially recent immigrants
or those expecting ―Little Russia‖ to be real Russia) might not be aware of the American
culture to tip servers and to not include tax in the prices.
96
The third prominent notice is a large advertisement of special prices for dinner for
a couple (see Appendix F). It is positioned on the right of the entrance, symmetrically to
the lunch-special notice, but more than twice as large. The material is the same as that of
the previous notice; however, the quality is better. There is more color, and there are no
segments on white sheets of paper attached to the background. The advertisement is one
whole piece, which makes it look more expensive, probably aimed at a better-off
audience than the lunch-special announcement. The cost seems to support this conclusion:
$29.99 for dinner versus $5.99 for lunch.
The notice is bilingual, with English almost completely duplicating Russian
writing. The difference lies in the components of dinner: The Russian version says that
dinner includes ―salad, hot appetizer, meat or fish dish‖ while the English version offers
―Cold Appetizer, Two Entrees, Dessert.‖ The Russian sentence seems to be more specific
about the type of cold appetizer (salad) and the entrees (one is hot appetizer and the other
is meat or fish). However, only English version mentions dessert. Bilingual speakers
seem to have an advantage in this case of having access to more information, but even
monolingual speakers of English or Russian would be able to get enough information
from the notice to make a decision whether to walk into the restaurant or choose another
place.
In terms of the code preference, the composition of the notice is twofold: centermargins and top-bottom. The white background seems to be the center of the notice,
while the blue stripes indicate margins. The central part contains the core information
about the dinner special (what it includes and how much it costs) and the restaurant
(name). The peripheral information is the days when the offer is valid (on top) and an
97
additional benefit of two free glasses of wine (at the bottom). Going from the center to
the margins, it can be seen that English is relegated to the periphery, granting Russian the
dominant position with the largest bold red word ―УЖИН‖ (uzhin), which means
―dinner.‖
In its turn, the center also shows vertical linear preference of Russian, with
Russian being above the English translation. The exception is the first line with the name
of the restaurant which is consistently put in English (Latin script). There are three
phrases in the red color which draws attention, especially against the white background:
―Primorski Restaurant,‖ ―УЖИН‖ (dinner), and ―Dinner Special.‖ Even though only one
of them is in Russian, it is the most prominent word on the notice, because it is in bold
font and capital letters. The name of the restaurant is bold, too, but the font size is smaller,
and only initial letters are capitalized. The English translation is much smaller and in less
prominent font. Therefore, the English language is put into a subordinate position in the
notice. However, given that most of the visible language on the restaurant front is English,
this seeming inconsistency might be attributed to the choices of the sign-maker rather
than sign-owner.
Service. Below the lunch-special notice, there is a notice about the service offered
by the restaurant: ―FREE Wi-Fi internet.‖ The red and yellow letters are stuck to or
painted on the window. The colors match the color scheme of the restaurant, the font is
bold, and the words are rather easy to spot. The notice is only in English, probably for
pragmatic reasons: Whoever knows how to use Wi-Fi, will be able to recognize that from
the notice without duplicating the message in Russian or other languages.
98
Official notices. The official notices are always in English, and Primorski
Restaurant is not an exception. In the top right corner of the window front, there are two
metal plates attached to the granite wall one above the other. The message informing
about the location of sprinkler system in the building stands out with its bold bright red
letters against the white background of the plates. It was evidently placed by the
authorities who made sure the sign was conspicuous. However, the fact that it exists only
in English makes its accessibility limited to English-speaking population, which
counteracts its visibility and thus, reduces its effectiveness.
Another official notice is a sticker with the owner‘s name and license number.
Unlike the previous one, this sticker does not have to be put up on the most visible place.
Thus, it is attached to the window in the bottom left corner. The text is virtually
impossible to read, unless a person makes considerable effort. The notice is in English
and, along with credit card stickers, is treated like something that has to be present on the
window front, but is of too little significance to be made noticeable. The similar ―hiding‖
of the official notices is on other business fronts as well.
Advertizing business notice. Under the lunch special ad and menu, there is a
small, letter-size handwritten notice taped to the window advertizing pelmeni and
vareniki (dumplings) in the restaurant(see Appendix F). The colors are consistent with
the rest of the business front–white, red, and blue. The sign maker used elaborate font to
convey the message. The top-down composition shows obvious preference of Russian.
As a matter of fact, the spatial distribution of text on the sheet of paper makes it seem like
the initial intention was to have only the Russian part of the message. The English text
looks as if it had to be squeezed into the remaining space.
99
In spite of the fact that Russian is given preference in the ad, the content of the
message requires a bilingual English-Russian reader, since the notice represents
complementary bilingual writing. The English part, at the bottom of the notice resembles
a menu entry, with ―Dumplings w/meat, cheese, potato, cherry 3.89$.‖ The bottom right
corner has the word ―Homemade.‖
In contrast, the Russian part is the product promotion. The meaning is the
following, ―We are inviting you for pelmeni (meat-filled dumplings). You have not eaten
anything like that in your life. And believe it, our vareniki (dumplings) are first-class!‖
Most interestingly, the message is very poetic. Even though it is written as a text, it is in
fact a rhymed poem, which creates certain mood and perception on the part of the reader.
To some extent, it could probably be associated with the English word ―Homemade‖
written in the corner of the notice.
Job ads. Job advertizing is another type of signs displayed on Primorski
Restaurant front. There are two jobs printed (one in blue color and the other in red) and
attached almost at the same level to the glass window, underneath the dinner special
informing notice. The ad on the left is for servers with experience and the one on the right
is for a chef with experience.
Both ads are in Russian only, which implies that the candidates should be
Russian-speaking. Since there is no mentioning of English proficiency, it may be
assumed that none is required: the chef would be working with Russian-speaking staff
and the servers with Russian-speaking customers. It is also possible that the word
experience implies some speaking skills in English, at least for the servers.
100
It is not unusual for the businesses owned by Russian-speaking immigrants to
offer jobs to exclusively in Russian, unless the job does not require communication in
Russian and is low-paid. For example, a Russian music and video store (Mosvideofilm)
posted an ad for a cleaning position in Spanish.
Events. There are also two event announcements posted on the lower part of the
right-side restaurant window (see Appendix F). The one on the left informs the audience
about the weekly meetings of a singles club (dating service) in Primorski Restaurant. It is
printed on a letter-size sheet of paper, with the most of the text in black, except for the
name of the restaurant and the name of the club (blue) and the first invitation phrase and
the cost (red). There is also an image of a red heart with a cupid in the middle, which
symbolizes love. The low durability of the material and non-sophisticated look of the
notice imply temporality of the sign. However, the content of the message assumes
recurrence of the event (every Friday); so, it is not a one-time meeting.
The notice has two languages–English and Russian, with the amount of Russian
text significantly exceeding English. The notice can be translated as follows, ―You are
invited by Single Club ―Together‖ to the evenings for making acquaintances every Friday
at 8 pm in Primorskiy restaurant. $25 (Banquet included). Phone for the information.‖
Interestingly, this notice is the only place on the restaurant front where the name of the
restaurant is in Russian.
The only English phrase is the organizer of the event–―Single Club ‗Together‘‖,
but it is the most prominent phrase on the notice. It is positioned in the center of the
notice and the word ―Together‖ has the largest font. Nevertheless, the message itself–
101
invitation, location, and time (except for the exact hour)–and contact information are only
in Russian.
At first glance, it may seem that the event announcement is aimed at bilingual
Russian-English speakers, since it represents fragmentary bilingual writing, according to
Reh (2004). At the same time, given the image of a cupid in a heart and the phrase
―evenings for making acquaintances,‖ the name and type of the club in English are not
essential for grasping the core meaning of the event. Thus, even though only bilingual
readers would understand the whole message, monolingual Russian readers would be
able get the main concept and would have the important details to make an informed
decision about whether they are interested in the event and able to attend it. However,
monolingual English readers would not have enough information to decipher the message.
The second event announcement, to the right of the dating club notice, is not
taking place at the Primorski Restaurant. It is for the recital at the Millennium Theater.
The notice has been printed in color on a glossy paper, which makes it seem higher
quality than the first one. It still looks temporary–simply taped to the window front, and it
is a one-time event.
The Russian text on the notice can be translated as follows, ―The ‗Millennium‘
Theatre presents on November 13 at 8 pm a recital – Pavel Shuvaev with the ‗Oddiss‘
band. Information and tickets…‖ The notice also has a stanza from the song by P.
Shuvaev, ―And in the morning you will be ready for the fight; for something usually
called here ‗life‘.‖ English is relegated to the website name (the bottom line) and the logo
of the Millennium Theatre (top right corner).The stanza on the notice implies that the
songs are in Russian, and the photo with the name of the band‘s front-man indicates that
102
the name and the face should be familiar to the audience. True, Pavel Shuvaev is a movie
actor and singer. Basically, the event announcement is monolingual, Russian-only, and
thus, for speakers of Russian.
Posting event announcements not related to the business or the place seems rather
common for Russian-speaking businesses in ―Little Russia.‖ Many of the events take
place in the Millennium Theatre. The reason for allowing the use of their business
window space would be the community connection, be it linguistic, cultural or nostalgic.
Miscellaneous. Finally, there is an informing and welcoming notice posted on the
door. Blue letters are printed on the white sheet of paper. The notice is bilingual, and the
writing is overlapping. The code preference is determined by the higher position of
Russian, with English message appearing underneath. The Russian part can be translated
as follows, ―WE ARE OPEN – LUNCHES AND DINNERS.‖ The English part has the
translation of the first line ―WE ARE OPEN,‖ which is printed in exactly the same color
and font as the Russian message. The second line ―WELCOME‖ is in smaller font and in
darker color, which might mean that either it was added later or that it was meant to stand
out.
Interestingly, the Russian message (not translated into English) is the only place
on the business front where the word choice is somewhat borrowed from the English
language and American culture. The word ―ЛАНЧИ‖ (lanchi) is the English word lunch
transliterated and adapted to Russian syntax (the Russian ending -и is used for plural,
instead of English -es). The second word ―ОБЕДЫ‖ (ob’edy) has gone through another
type of modification. It is a Russian word which means a meal eaten in the middle of the
day or during a lunch break, but in almost all Russian/Soviet schools during an English
103
class students were told that this word is unequivocally translated into English as dinner;
hence, dinner is always a meal eaten in the middle of the day. The Russian for the
evening meal is ужин (uzhin) which was translated into English as supper.
With the adoption of the American culture and terminology of lunch as a mid-day
meal and dinner as an evening meal, the word for dinner remained the same in Russian
but the signified was shifted from a mid-day meal to an evening or afternoon meal.
Similar cases of syntax adaptation, transliteration, and change in meanings have been
noticed by Angermeyer (2005) in his analysis of classifieds in Russian newspapers in
New York.
To sum up, Primorski Restaurant has a variety of signs on the business front, and
the two languages they are written in seem to be competing in terms of language
preference. The visibility belongs to English, as well as the amount of the language
(87%); however, Russian is more represented in various types of signs, with English
dominating only in the general menu and the name of the restaurant. The purposes for
using Russian seem to be pragmatic–informing Russian-speaking clientele about meals
option and cultural nuances, as well as sentimental–rhymed dishes‘ ad and communitybuilding event, i.e. performance of a Russian-speaking band.
Pharmacy
In the Soviet Union, pharmacies were government-owned businesses selling
rather narrow range of products–medicine and products related to medicine (e.g., syringes,
gloves, food for diabetics). Nobody would go to a pharmacy to buy snacks, drinks, clothing,
greeting cards, gifts or souvenirs. In the last ten years the assortment has become much
wider, but from my experience it is still nothing like that of the pharmacies in the USA.
104
Location and place description. Oceania Pharmacy (415 Brighton Beach
Avenue) occupies the first floor of a two-storied building (see Appendix G). English and
Russian text appears on the window itself, the door, the awning, and the sign above at the
right angle to the building. In fact, the awning covers the entrance to both the pharmacy
and the second store businesses–a real estate agency and an insurance and brokerage
company. All three businesses share the same street address, 415 Brighton Beach Avenue.
Signs and languages. Oceania pharmacy has several types of signs (i.e., business
name and type, logo, product types, additional products, services, business hours, and
sales notice) and its English-Russian ratio is approximately 3:1.
Both the awning and the sign above it are made in a similar fashion, with the
English word ―PHARMACY‖ in the middle, the name of business Oceania above it, and
the Russian word for pharmacy (АПТЕКА) below. The sign has the information on both
sides, making it visible to passer-bys. The awning supplements it with the Rx sign in the
left corner. This sign for prescriptions is not common for the pharmacy fronts in Russia
and might not be familiar to recent Russian-speaking immigrants. There is also the number
of the building and the telephone number underneath Rx sign and the English phrase
―SURGICAL SUPPLIES‖ in the right-side corner. This additional information is on the
same level as the Russian word, in the same gold color, but in a slightly smaller font size.
English seems to be more prominent than Russian. On both the sign above and the
awning the English word ―PHARMACY‖ is in much larger font and in a more standingout color (white) than the Russian word ―АПТЕКА‖ (apteka), meaning ―pharmacy.‖ The
name of the pharmacy Oceania appears only in English. On both the awning and the sign
above it, the type of business is the only word in Russian, and it is on the bottom line.
105
The business window also has the word ―PHARMACY‖ in both English and
Russian. They are lit up in blue neon light. Here, both words appear on the same level
and in the same font, color and size. Nevertheless, the fact that the English version is
positioned on the right side of the window, makes English appear more dominant,
according to Scollon and Scollon (2003).
Like many other pharmacies in ―Little Russia,‖ Oceania pharmacy has products
displayed in the business window. In some pharmacies, it is impossible to see the inside
the store, because of the full shelves of products, with English, Russian, and Hebrew or
Yiddish on the packaging and ads attached next to them. Oceania is different in the way
that there are fewer products displayed, and none of them is medicine. Instead, there is
hair dye, detergent, diapers, and shampoo, all in English. In addition, the window is
decorated with the fall leaves and a mannequin of a woman sitting and looking into the
street.
The shop window has a relatively large notice in the right-bottom corner,
informing customers about what seems to be a quite typical service offered in the
pharmacies in ―Little Russia‖ (see Appendix G). The customers can pay their bills in the
pharmacy. The service seems to be especially for senior citizens (immigrants) who are
not accustomed to using the Internet for paying their bills or do not have the Internet and
who shop in the pharmacy. The notice is bilingual (English-Russian), with exact
translation. English text is printed in red and Russian in blue. However, with regard to the
code preference, English is consistently dominant, with Russian relegated to the bottom
position.
106
The glass door also has a couple notices. One is the schedule of working hours;
and the other is a picture of a MetroCard (used for New York subway and bus system),
informing the customers that it is ―Sold Here.‖ Both notices are in English. The former
type is in English in over 90% of businesses in ―Little Russia,‖ possibly due to
availability of standard business hours signs, which are only in English.
The latter notice is in English, probably because the public transportation is the
area of responsibility of municipal authorities and the ratio of Russian-speaking
population in the city is not as significant as, for example, Spanish-speaking population.
There can be found some notices in Spanish posted by the local authorities, but not in
Russian. In addition, the message of both notices can be understood without knowing
English, due to the use of imagery (MetroCard) and standard (thus, familiar) table-like
format of business hours.
Overall, the Oceania pharmacy, though having a bilingual business front, gives
preference to English. The most prominent words are in English, the brightest colors
(white on green and red on white), the largest font, and the positioning (center and right
side) privilege English over Russian. As a matter of fact, 77.7% of text on the business
front is in English.
The Russian writing is fragmentary. Russian-speaking clientele is acknowledged
with the translation of the word pharmacy on the business window, the awning, and the
sign above it and the notice about the complimentary service of paying bills at the very
bottom of the business window. Paradoxically, monolingual speakers of Russian seem to
have sufficient information and clues from the business front to be aware of most of the
107
services offered and make use of them. Thus, Russian serves the pragmatic function of
providing information about available services, and is subordinate to English.
Shoe Store
Location and place description. Shoe House, or ‗Дом обуви‖ (dom obuvi),
located on 515 Brighton Beach Avenue, is one of the few businesses in ―Little Russia‖
(12% of all business fronts) that display their name in Russian. The types of signs present
on the front are business name and type, product types, informing and sales notices.
The store occupies both floors of the building, but apparently, the second floor is
used for storage, as a warehouse (see Appendix H). The design of the store front
resembles a house, thus reflecting the name of the store. The top sign is in the form of a
roof. There are three signs that look like pillars and go down from the ―roof‖ to the
awning, which forms the ―foundation‖ of the ―house.‖
Signs and languages. The ―roof‖ has an image of a foot in a red shoe with a hand
holding it by the ankle. (Note: A lot can be said about possible sexist implications of the
image, but it would be deviation from the focus of the study, since it is not known how
much the store owner was involved in the image design.) The image is in the middle of
the ―roof‖ and the name of the store ―Shoe House‖ on the sides. The ―pillars‖ have
Russian adjectives written vertically, instead of the usual left-to-right vector. The left one
says ―women‘s,‖ the middle one ―men‘s,‖ and the right one ―children‘s.‖ The adjectives
have feminine ending implying the word ―shoes,‖ which is a feminine uncountable noun
in Russian.
The awning, or the ―foundation,‖ has the most prominent words on the store front,
the name of the store in Russian ―ДОМ ОБУВИ‖ (dom obuvi). The name of the store
108
reminds of the names that were quite wide-spread in the Soviet Union, in particular, with
the use of words dom (house), mir (world), and magazin (shop). These words are noticed
in several store names in ―Little Russia.‖ Interestingly, the rules of capitalization in the
name are those from the Russian language (unlike the case with the dishes in Primorski
Restaurant). In particular, only the first letter of the first word in the phrase is capitalized.
The bottom line of the awning has two phrases ―EUROPEAN SHOE OUTLET‖
symmetrically located on the right and on the left sides. The phrases are in English, in a
smaller font than the rest of the text on the ―house.‖ The central part of the awning, right
above the door has an additional part. The front has a smaller version of the image on the
―roof‖ and the sides have the name of the store in Russian, visible to all passer-bys.
The store windows display shoes as well as pieces of clothes (e.g, short-sleeved
shirts, blouses, and pants). To the left of the entrance there is a sales announcement in the
center of the window (see Appendix H). The announcement is in English, with the words
―SUMMER SALE‖ and ―FREE!‖ standing out. The two lines in between, in a much
smaller font, contain the details of the deal.
The same message is almost exactly duplicated in Russian to the left side of the
entrance. However, the sign is positioned in the bottom left corner, rather than in the
middle of the store window. Moreover, the colors are reversed; the English sign is red
text on the white background, while the Russian is white on the red. The word ―SALE‖
appears in English, but the rest of the message is almost identical to the English sign.
There is a slight difference in the presentation of the message. The English version
sounds like a command, while the Russian version seems more like a condition, ―[If]
(implied) you buy one pair of summer shoes, the second is FREE!‖
109
The syntax in this sentence is neither English nor Russian, because the pauses are
emphasized with dashes. Russian syntax would require a comma after shoes, not a dash.
Since this notice is temporary, it could have been produced with less attention to detail
and by a different sign-maker than the permanent ones, i.e. the ―house‖ signs.
There is another informing notice to the left of the entrance, below the store
window. It informs customers about the availability of wide width shoes. The notice is
bilingual, with Russian occupying the bottom line and in smaller and not as bold font,
probably due to the longer words. In addition, the Russian version does not have the first
line of the message in English ―BIG SELECTION OF,‖ which is in much smaller font size
than the rest of the message–―WIDE WIDTH SHOES.‖ The Russian and English texts
are separated with a horizontal line.
Overall, English takes up 66% of textual information on the Shoe House store
front. The code preference on the store front under the ―house‖ is English. More text is
given in English than in Russian, and Russian tends to be positioned lower or under the
English text. At the same time, the top structure of the store front (more permanent)
seems to be more bilingually balanced. The Russian words are more prominent than
English ones, even though the English name of the store has the highest position; but the
bilingual writing overlaps only in the store name, requiring knowledge of both languages
to understand the signs. Russian is used primarily for informative pragmatic purposes,
with the exception of the store name that has a sentimental value of Soviet times in
Russia.
110
Legal Services
Location and place description. The Law Office on 243 Brighton Beach Avenue
occupies the space above a food store. The Law Office is a type of business rather than a
name. As a matter of fact, there are several businesses in ―Little Russia‖ without the
company or owner‘s name, with no more than a ―law office‖ to identify them. However,
since I provide the description of only one of them, I will refer to the business as the Law
Office.
The entrance to the office is a door leading to the second floor. It is cramped
between the food store and the fruit and vegetable market. In ―Little Russia,‖ the second
floor seems to be a typical location for various offices, with shops and stores occupying
the first.
Signs and languages. The business front is represented by the door frame with
the awning, a sign above it at the right angle to the building, three windows on the second
floor with small awnings and two signs between them (see Appendix I). The Law Office
has a few types of signs: type of business, services, contact information and
advertisement for another business. The information on the business front is in Russian
and English, with 75% of text in Russian.
The blue awning above the entrance has white text on all three sides. The front
has the English phrase ―LAW OFFICE,‖ with the image of even scales and the number of
the building above it. Both sides have the Russian version in a slightly smaller font, which
says ―АДВОКАТ‖ (advokat), meaning ―lawyer.‖ The awning has a strip of cloth attached
to the awning, with reversed colors and Russian text ―ИММИГРАЦИОННЫЕ УСЛУГИ‖
(immigratsionnye uslugi), which means ―immigration services,‖ on all three sides.
111
There is also an ad for a real estate company attached to the left side of the
awning. The sign stands out due to a different color scheme, with orange added. The
notice has the picture of a globe with a house occupying a quarter of it and the name of
the company (along with the type of business) in the center. The top line is much smaller
in font size and contains email address. The bottom line shows a telephone number. The
text is in English only and is on both sides of the sign. Apparently, the Law Office works
with the company‘s clients or the company is owned by friends or relatives.
The walls around the entrance are also covered with signs. There is a small blackon-yellow sign above the doorway with one word in Russian ―НОТАРИУС‖ (notarius)
and its equivalent in English ―NOTARY PUBLIC‖ underneath. This duplicating
bilingual writing gives preference to Russian, as it occupies the top line and the font size
and boldness make it more prominent. The signs on the left and on the right of the
entrance have lengthier messages, but understanding the messages requires proficiency in
Russian, since the signs are monolingual.
The left side has two vertical stripes of text: The very left one is blue text on
white background saying ―immigration services;‖ and next to it is a blue stripe with three
words in white, going from top to bottom ―НОТАРИУС‖ (notarius), ―ПЕРЕВОДЫ‖
(perevody), and ―РАЗВОДЫ‖ (razvody), meaning ―notary,‖ ―translations,‖ and
―divorces,‖ respectively. Apparently, these are four main types of legal services that
should attract the Russian-speaking clientele, with immigration being the most often used
one.
The sign on the right side explains the service regarding changing visa types. The
board seems to stand out. It does not fit well in the space available–it seems a little too
112
short and too wide. Moreover, it does not look as new and the colors (yellow and red) do
not match the rest of the business front. This might mean that the sign was either an old
version or it was designed for another location which would explain the dimensions. The
message is in Russian, with visa types being in Roman alphabet and much larger and
bolder than the rest of the text. The notice says,
ВНИМАНИЕ СТУДЕНТАМ J-1// ОБМЕНИВАЕМ ВАШ СТАТУС НА B 2
(Туристический) или F-1(Студенческий) // ТАКЖЕ ПРОДЛЕВАЕМ
ТУРИСТИЧЕСКИЙ СТАТУС
B-1, B-2 // по всем вопросам звоните: ... до 6:30в / ...
после 6:30‖ (vnimaniye studentam J-1 // obmenivayem vash status na B 2
(turisticheskiy) ili F-1 (studencheskiy) // takzhe prodlevayem turisticheskiy status
B-1, B-2 // po vsem voprosam zvonite: … do 6:30 v / … posle 6:30).
It can be translated as follows: ―Attention J-1 students // We exchange your status to B 2
(Tourist) or F-1 (Student). We also extend B-1, B-2 tourist statuses. If you have questions
call: … before 6:30 pm, … after 6:30.‖ I tried to use the English words with the similar
connotations. I have never heard that Russian word translated as ―exchange‖ used with
visa type or visa status. It is more often used when exchanging currency or clothes in the
store.
This sign addresses a very specific audience: Russian-speaking young people who
come to the United States with temporary, non-immigrant visas, but with intention to stay
here longer or permanently. Some of them come with tourist visas, but many come with
student visas. The latter are given by American programs, like ―Work & Travel,‖ which
are quite popular among Russian university students. They allow first- to third-year
113
students to come to the USA for a summer, get a part-time job and then spend this money
travelling.
There are also a few American government scholarships (e.g. Fulbright, Muskie,
and Freedom Support Act) that provide opportunities for students from other countries
(including Russia and former Soviet Republics) to study in American high schools and
universities. These students get a J-1 visa, which does not allow getting a full-time longterm job, has limitations on the length of stay, tied to requirements of a sponsoring
organization, entitles visa holders to return to their home countries, and may apply a twoyear home residency rule after the completion of the program. Many students, however,
attempt to stay in the USA; hence, the demand for legal services dealing with students‘
visa status.
The second floor, where the Law Office is actually based, has three small awnings
over the windows, with large bold-faced, capitalized words describing the types of
business and services offered in English. From left to right, they say ―LAW OFFICE,‖
―MORTGAGES,‖ and ―REAL ESTATE.‖ Interestingly, these types of service are not the
same as the ones displayed and described at the entrance. It may imply that for the
English-speaking audience, property-related legal services would be more appropriate or
necessary than for the Russian-speaking clients, who are more concerned with receiving
legal status.
Another explanation could be high level of assimilation among Russian-speaking
immigrants. Once (or if) the legal issue is settled, the immigrants master the English
language and adjust to the local way of life. The children of immigrants (second
generation or Generation 1.5) tend to be more proficient in English than in Russian.
114
Therefore, it would not be a problem for bilingual immigrants to understand and use
services displayed on the awnings. In fact, they might be more comfortable to discuss
those issues in English.
Yet another factor that needs to be taken into account is that immigrants, who
arrived in the United States before or during the first years of Gorbachev‘s rule in the
USSR, had not had much experience with real estate and mortgages. In fact, the concept
of mortgages is still developing in Russia, and the translation still does not reflect the
exactly same meaning or produce the same associations. To a certain extent, the switch to
English is similar to the code-switching demonstrated by Russian-speaking female
interviewees in the study by Pavlenko (2001). Both women tended to use English words
when discussing in Russian feminism, which they learned about and embraced in the
USA. Thus, certain areas of life as getting a mortgage or buying and selling property are
―American‖ and are given English preference.
Moving to the next notices, the two plates attached to the walls between the
windows on the second floor have detailed information about the specific services offered.
However, there is little correlation between the lists and the service types displayed on
the window awnings. The list on the right is dedicated exclusively to the immigration
services (representation in the immigration court, refuge, family reunion, Green Card,
bride and groom visas, student visas, change of visa status, and working visas). The list
on the left is focused on family- and business-related legal services. The former covers
divorces, marriage contracts, separations, name changes, and wills; the latter includes
closings, documentation on starting, buying or selling a business, and licensing.
115
All the information is presented in Russian, except for the word ―closings.‖
Similarly to ―mortgage‖ and ―real estate,‖ this word is business-related and has strong
―American-ness.‖ Therefore, it might not be familiar to Russian-speaking immigrants in
its Russian version or Russian might not be preferred to describe the finalizing of a deal.
Finally, there is a sign above the entrance awning, with the information duplicated
on both sides. The sign is made up of two parts. The top one is the larger and sturdier part,
with bilingual text on three sides. The front side has ―LAW OFFICE‖ written in a topdown vector and the side has two prominent phrases ―LAW OFFICE‖ and ―REAL
ESTATE,‖ with more text under each heading. The phrases are in English, but the
information under the word ―law office‖ is in Russian. It lists the types of legal services
offered: immigration, divorces, criminal law, traumas, notary public, and translating.
However, the explanation of real estate services is in English, which might indicate
different target audiences.
The second part of the sign is attached under the first one and could be a later
addition to the existing sign. This part is in Russian-only and simply emphasizes the two
services mentioned on the larger sign. They are ―professional translations‖ and ―notary
public.‖ Like the main sign, the addition displays the information on both sides.
To recap, there is a lot of repetition on the Law Office front. Even though the
Russian language occupies more public space than English, it is the latter that has the
largest and boldest font. Most of the text displayed is the description of services offered.
Thus, the language distribution seems to be highly pragmatic, depending on which
services are seen as pertaining to which language group, with a little bit of codeswitching.
116
Immigration Services
Location and place description. The Service Center (3177 Coney Island Avenue)
is located on the corner of Brighton Beach Avenue and Coney Island Avenue. The place
is not so much a legal services office, but more of an immigration services business. The
Service Center seems to specialize in consulting customers and helping them fill out
various immigration documents.
Signs and languages. The business front can be divided into four parts: the top
sign extending over other businesses, the door, the window, and the space under the
window (see Appendix J). Content-wise, the Service Center has the name of business,
services, contact information, and advertisements. With regard to languages, 66.6% of the
text is in Russian, and the rest is in English.
The top and bottom signs share the same color scheme: blue, red, and white,
matching the colors of American flag. The top sign has most of the text. The upper line
shows the name of the business in large red font, with the images of symmetrically
positioned American flags on the sides of it. The name of the business is in English.
Underneath the name, there are four columns of bullet points with detailed list of services
offered. The first three columns are in Russian, and the last one is partial translation of
the Russian text into English. The text is much smaller than the name of the business, but
most of it is visible except for the part of column four that is covered with the airconditioner. Under the columns there is a separate board with the contact information, i.e.,
telephone and fax. The letters (English) and numbers are in large red font.
Let us look at the content of the columns. The first column lists services related to
immigration and international travelling: professional translations of any documents,
117
assistance with filling out immigration forms, family reunification, green card,
permission to work, citizenship, travel passport, and invitations. The phrase
―ВОССОЕДИНЕНИЕ СЕМЕЙ‖ (vossoyedineniye semey), which stands for ―family
reunification,‖ is emphasized by larger and bold-faced font. It may imply that this type of
service is the most often used. Since 1982 the Jewish immigration from the former Soviet
Union has been curtailed, with the family reunification becoming the main way of
immigrating into the USA.]
The second and third columns–also in Russian–combine rather diverse services,
not necessarily related to immigration. The second column has services of notary public,
computer-related services, flyers, resumes, stamps, business cards, invoices, prescriptions,
and copies (at the lowest prices). The third column continues with developing films
(prices are mentioned) and a free second set of prints and free portrait picture. The last
bullet point offers sending fax ―to all ends of the world.‖ The first line in the second
column (notary public services) is in bold, but the size of the font is the same as the rest
of the text. Therefore, it does not stand out as much as the phrase from the first column –
―family reunifications.‖
I would like to focus specifically on four words in Russian that stood out for me.
They are ―РЕЦЕПТЫ‖ (retsepty), ―ФЛАЕРСЫ‖ (flayersy), ―ИНВОЙСЫ‖ (invoisy), and
―ТРАВЕЛ ПАСПОРТ‖ (travel pasport) which stand for ―prescriptions,‖ ―flyers,‖
―invoices,‖ and ―travel passport‖ respectively. The first word ―рецепты‖ (―prescriptions‖)
seemed puzzling at first, since it is homonymic to ―recipes.‖ The context of the Service
Center, translation and immigration services was not sufficient for me. On the other hand,
for immigrant Russian-speaking population, especially elderly people, probably using
118
prescriptions more often than an exchange student, there might be no need for additional
context, e.g., the word ―медицинские‖ (―medical‖) or ―выписывать‖ (―write out‖).
The other three interesting words appear in transliteration. The use of the phrase
―ТРАВЕЛ ПАСПОРТ‖ (travel pasport) meaning ―travel passport‖ looks unusual,
because this is not an official term. It seems to be an equivalent of a reentry permit, a type
of a travel document for non-US citizens. The phrase itself might be an invention of
immigrants to make sense of the concept. What is unconventional is that the phrase was
invented in its English form and with English syntax, because ―travel‖ does not transform
into an adjective with a suffix and an ending, according to the Russian language norms.
The effect of using unofficial terminology on the business front may be twofold: On the
one hand, it shows that the business does not represent official U.S. government; and on
the other, it appeals to the target audience in the language and style they understand.
The last two words, ―flyers‖ and ―invoices,‖ transliterated as ―ФЛАЕРСЫ‖
(flayersy), and ―ИНВОЙСЫ‖ (invoisy), respectively, are not standard borrowings from
English, either. However, this is not surprising. The Russian word for ―flyers‖–
―листовки‖ (listovki) has historic revolutionary and political connotations, which at times
makes it sound awkward outside that context. Invoice is another business word, like
mortgage, that has a Russian translation, but it is not used as often by the public and
might not be recognized. In addition, the English word is less confusing, especially if the
Russian word is shortened from ―счёт-фактура‖ (schyot-faktura) to ―счёт‖ (schyot),
which has multiple meanings and thus can easily be misinterpreted without the context.
What is surprising, however, is how the word ―flyers‖ is adapted. Unlike all the
previously described cases and in contrast to the findings of other scholars (Andrews,
119
1999; Angermeyer, 2005; Zemskaya, 2001), the word is taken in its plural form
(флаерс – flayers) and has the Russian ending signifying plurality (-ы – -y). It is more
common to see and hear ―флаеры‖ (flayery), without the s-sound.This hybridism might
mean the individual way of coining the neologism or the use of the English word only in
plural which led to fossilization of the form with -s as singular. In any case, the codeswitching does seem to require the Russian syntax, which results in adding the Russian
ending for plural. Thus, the word gets both English and Russian plurality.
The fourth column is in English, but it is not completely readable because of the
air-conditioning structure blocking the view. The English version leaves out the
immigration services, but includes translations and notary services. The printing services
are more detailed, listing copying, invoices, business cards and flyers, with the price of
flyers added. The film developing is also as specific as in Russian.
It seems like the language choice is depended on the expected audience,
according to good-reasons principle (Ben-Rafael, 2009). Printing, notary public, copying
and film developing services are bilingual, implying that the customers can be either
bilingual or monolingual speakers of either Russian or English. However, the services
regarding immigration and international travel are only in Russian, implying that they are
intended for the Russian-speaking audience, mono- or multilingual.
Translations pose an interesting case–neither Russian nor English versions specify
translations from which into which languages they offer. The Russian text does not seem
to need explicit statements. Since the message is in Russian and since the language of the
official documents in the United States is English, it is implied that the translations are
Russian-English or English-Russian. The English text, however, is not as clear as it is
120
written in the dominant, though not official, language in the country, which is why the
message seems to imply a bilingual reader–someone who understands that the rest of the
sign is in Russian, so the translations must be connected to that language.
The second prominent sign on the business front–under the window–is a white
board with bullet points in two columns. The column on the right has the services related
to immigration. They are reiterated from the top sign, with the exception of invitations,
which are specified according to the purpose, i.e. visit, permanent residence and business.
The left column stands out because of the red color and the much larger font of the first
word ―ФОТО‖ (foto), which means ―photo.‖ The services listed here mostly complement
the top sign and seem to be aimed more at serving the needs of the recent immigrants.
They include making photos for official documents, fingerprints, free medical insurance
for children with immigrant or guest status.
The window above the board sign is covered with sheets of paper and signs. Some
of them are facing the inside of the office, but four are aimed at the passer-bys. The
largest and the most colorful one is the ―DV LOTTERY‖ sign stuck a little carelessly, at
an angle, which could have been done deliberately. The simpler and smaller sign is
attached to the right of it. It is two words in black italicized bold underlined font in the
middle of the sheet, saying ―АПОСТИЛ // ФОТО‖ (apostil // foto), meaning ―apostille //
photo.‖ The first Russian word would usually have a slightly different spelling, with an
extra letter at the end ―апостиль‖ (apostil’). The other two signs have a considerably
smaller font. One is a small desk sign in the bottom left corner saying ―NOTARY,‖ in
English; and the other is an advertisement for cheaper life insurance in the top left corner,
in Russian.
121
Finally, the fourth part of the business front is the door and the space adjacent to it.
The door has an informative sticker near the handle with ―BUSINESS CARDS &
STAMPS‖ in the middle and ―ORDER HERE‖ on the margins around it. The rest of the
stickers are located in the top section of the door and are official (with license number)
and security ones. To the left of the door, there is a color poster advertizing ―color
picture-cards‖ and a purple sign below it indexing in English ―For BUSINESS CARDS
Order Here Today.‖
To recapitulate, the language choice on the Service Center business front seems to
follow the good-reasons principle of addressing the customers in the language they
understand. The clientele seems to be mainly Russian-speaking, with many services
being for immigrants, and with most of the text being in Russian. The choice of
vocabulary is shifted to what can be called immigrant Russian, with transliterations and
unofficial terms. The translation into English is fragmentary, as the immigration-related
services are excluded. Instead, the focus seems to be on business cards, with the poster
and service promotion in English-only. With the USA flags and colors on the business
front, the Service Center seems to celebrate American-ness, which is not identified with
the necessity to speak the English language, but does require it in the written form–
official documentation.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented the findings of my study of LL of ―Little Russia by the
Sea‖ moving from more general to more specific. First, I described total languages ratio
(Table 1), then languages by business type (Appendix C), and afterwards, languages by
sign type (Appendix E). I finished the chapter with detailed qualitative analysis of five
122
business fronts. The trends highlighted in the quantitative study (e.g., dominance of
English, prevalence of English-only business names, use of Russian for pragmatic
purposes) were confirmed in the qualitative analysis and further expanded (e.g., use of
Russian for sentimental purposes, the complexity of Russian-English division). Some
quantitative data was challenged (e.g. the languages ratio within a business front did not
always correspond with the code preference).
123
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In Chapter 5, I explain how the findings of the study answer the research
questions posed in Chapter 1: (a) Which languages are used in ―Little Russia‖ and what is
the rank of Russian? (b) What are the purposes of using Russian language? I analyze the
LL of ―Little Russia,‖ drawing upon Russian-speaking immigration to the USA and LL
research. I finish with the summary of the main features of ―Little Russia,‖ the possible
interpretations of what ―Little Russia‖ might mean to the Russian-speaking immigrants,
and the limitations of the study.
Languages in “Little Russia”
The aim of the study was to characterize the multilingual neighborhood ―Little
Russia by the Sea.‖ Historically, the area has been inhabited by Soviet and post-Soviet
Jews, mostly from Ukraine and Russia, with the recent growing numbers from the
Central Asian nation-states. First generation immigrants who grew up in the Soviet Union
share the Russian language. Thus, even though ―Little Russia‖ is not Russian ethnically,
it could be Russian linguistically, with Russian as a language of wider communication.
I start by addressing the first research question stated in Chapter 1: Which
languages are visible in the public space of ―Little Russia‖? How often can Russian be
seen there? There are total of eight languages found on business fronts. According to the
data, the most visible language in the neighborhood is English, present on over 98% of
business fronts and in all types of signs. Russian is second, with 60% of business fronts,
but unlike English, there are less than 1% of monolingual Russian business fronts.
Spanish is third, with only 5.54%, and the rest of the languages (Hebrew/Yiddish,
124
Ukrainian, Georgian, Urdu, and Japanese), are represented in only one or two business
fronts.
The presence of English and Russian in linguistic palette of ―Little Russia‖ seems
to comply with Ben-Rafael‘s (2009) structuration principles of LL combined with
Spolsky and Cooper‘s (1991) conditions for language choice. I apply three perspectives:
power-relations, good-reasons, and collective-identity principles, leaving out the
presentation-of-self, since it is often manifested in non-language-related ways and mostly
inside the businesses and is less salient for the purposes of the study.
The dominance of English in ―Little Russia‖ illustrates the power-relations
principle, which shows ―differential uses of linguistic resources in LL which carry prints
of dependence relations that may exist between groups of actors‖ (Ben-Rafael, 2009, p.
48). In the framework of the study, however, the dependence is not between the actors of
LL, but rather between the languages used: English is perceived as the language of power,
prosperity, and success in the USA. This language symbolizes prestige, reliability,
legality, and to some extent, standard. That is why business-to-business services and
banks prefer English on their fronts, even if an ATM inside offers the choice of 15
languages.
In this case, English might not necessarily be associated with the effects of
globalization, but in a narrower way, as the language of the country of immigration. This
is the language of official written documentation and notices (e.g., NYPD announcements
and license stickers). Since 1970s the Russian-speaking immigrants (Jews, in particular)
strove to master English to adapt to the American society and to regain or improve their
socioeconomic status (Chiswick, 1997; Orleck, 1999). In the types of signs, the presence
125
of English is especially evident in the names of businesses–one of the most prominent
parts of a business front. In particular, 239 out 248 business fronts in the data analyzed
displayed the name of their business in English (Latin script), and only 34 included
Russian (see Appendix E). On the other hand, another possible explanation could be the
municipal regulations for business naming in the area, which were not covered by this
study.
A slightly different situation would be with various businesses of non-Russianspeaking immigrants: Chinese-owned nail salons, Mexican fruit markets, and Pakistani
‗dollar‘ stores can be found next to Russian and Ukrainian–both Jewish and non-Jewish–
hair salons, law offices, food stores, and fur stores. Irrespective of their level of English
proficiency, non-Russian-speakers use English on their business fronts; even though it is
not the language most of them identify with, nor the language of most clients.
Stretching a little the conditions of language choice (Spolsky & Cooper, 1991),
English is the language the owners want to associate their business with and are probably
in the process of learning, because their native language presents little value outside their
ethnic community (unless the business is culture-specific and tourist-oriented, like a
Japanese restaurant). In those situations, English is also more powerful and prestigious
than Russian (as language within the community), and thus chosen as the language of
wider communication.
The significant presence of Russian and much less significant presence of Spanish
can be attributed to the salience of Ben-Rafael‘s (2009) good-reasons principle, i.e. being
compelled to use similar strategies to appeal to the same category of people. Applying it
to the current study, it evokes ―presumed reader‘s condition,‖ or addressing the target
126
audience in the language they know (Spolsky, 2009; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991) –Russian
and Spanish. The customers of ―Little Russia‖ are predominantly Russian-speaking
immigrants from post-Soviet republics, with neighboring Spanish-speaking population,
mostly Mexicans. In 2000, Russian and Spanish were the top two languages spoken at
home in Brooklyn Community District 13, to which the Brighton Beach area belongs,
and constituted 55% and 17%, respectively (Brooklyn Community District 13 Profile,
2008).
The same good-reasons principle can be applied to the tourist-oriented EnglishRussian business fronts (some restaurants, food stores, bookstores, and gift shops).
According to Kallen (2009), tourists are drawn to places exhibiting some level of
authenticity and exoticism (e.g., Russian language on a business front in ―Little Russia‖)
but within the boundaries of the familiar frame (e.g., English words, sufficient to
orientate the customer, like the Russian name in Latin script, type of business or types of
products / services).
The collective-identity principle implies the sign-owners‘ attracting customers by
putting emphasis on belonging to a certain group that they identify with (Ben-Rafael,
2009, p. 46). In terms of language choice, the principle is similar to ―symbolic value
condition,‖ i.e. writing signs in the native language or in the language the sign-owner
wants to identify with (Spolsky, 2009; Spolsky & Cooper, 1991).
One example of collective-identity would be the notice on Primorski Restaurant
advertizing dumplings (Appendix F). This is a short poem, available only in Russian,
with rhyming style similar to traditional Russian chastushki, although they are usually
sung in a humorous and satirical (rather than advertizing) way at informal and semi127
formal occasions. This poem brings up collective past and culture and being directly
addressed to the Russian-speaking reader, it serves as a speech act creating such
associations with the place as homemade food, friendly atmosphere, a place where you
are invited.
Another example of appealing to collective identity is the frequent use of business
front space for displaying announcements in Russian about upcoming Russian Jewish and
Russian-speaking performances, plays, concerts, and events. Posting such type of
information gives the message of the owner‘s belonging to the Russian-speaking
community and support of it.
Finally, business naming can also demonstrate claims to collective identity. One
of the trends is to appeal to common Soviet past, by using names that used to be typical
in the Soviet Union for a similar type of business (for instance, Shoe World–Mir obuvi,
Kids’ World–Detskiy mir). Another trend is using the names that evoke attachment to
certain geographic location (e.g., Café Arbat, the Saint-Petersburg books and video store,
and the Black Sea bookstore) in the country of emigration.
The third trend is to refer to the Russian words transliterated into English (for
example, Primorski Restaurant–a restaurant by the sea or Skovorodka–a frying pan),
which shows that the owner knows Russian and values it. It is even more salient when a
name of a business appears in the Russian language, which has not been found very
frequently (e.g., Shoe House–Дом обуви, Home Made Cooking–Домашняя кухня).
It has been true of other language-mediated identities as well, but they are rather
rare: Georgian identity in Georgia XXI Century restaurant, Russian Jewish identity in
L’Chaim / За жизнь liquor store, and Ukrainian identity in National restaurant‘s flyers
128
with the name in English, Ukrainian and Russian (Appendix B) would probably be the
only cases in the corpus of data, with other than Russian-speaking, Soviet, or post-Soviet
identity. These surprisingly limited manifestations of ethnic, national, and linguistic
identities from post-Soviet countries have to do with the development of their collective
identities in the United States, which is discussed in the following subsection.
Thus, the three structuration principles of LL (power-relations, good-reasons, and
collective-identity) through the lens of language choice can be used to explain the
dominance of English and relatively large amount of Russian on the business fronts of the
area under study. However, the collective immigrant identity in ―Little Russia‖ is much
more complex and goes beyond Ben-Rafael‘s (2009) principles. It is discussed later in
Chapter 5 (Potential Meanings of “Little Russia”).
Use of Russian in “Little Russia”
The second research question is about the purposes for using Russian in ―Little
Odessa.‖ Based on the findings concerning the types of business and the types of signs,
the following functions of the Russian language can be highlighted: servicing, material,
and sentimental.
Servicing function is based on using Russian as language of wider communication
for target audience. It overlaps with the good-reasons principle in that it is related to
seeking to meet the needs of the Russian-speaking population. The recent immigrants
often need jobs and legal consulting; the settled and better-off ones are interested in
entertainment and arranging care for elderly relatives; and all appreciate every-day
services in the language in which they are most fluent. Hence, the Russian language
dominates on business fronts of job-related and immigration (legal) services, travel
129
agencies and home health care services, and is often used on stores and pharmacies as
well as on signs of job ads, products and services. This function is the most prominent,
according to the data on types of business and types of signs.
The material function of the Russian language in ―Little Russia‖ is represented by
the availability of goods imported from Russia. They include food items, medicine, books,
souvenirs, china, lotions, clothes, etc. with labels, names, and annotations in the Russian
language. However, in contrast to the servicing function, the material function is more
conspicuous inside the business rather than from the street. Pharmacies and food stores,
book stores and gift shops carry variety of items familiar to the Russian-speaking
customer, who might be emotionally attached to the goods of their past or contemporary
products in Russia. At the same time, the businesses have rather few of those items
advertized on their business fronts or displayed in the window.
The third function of the Russian usage is sentimental. It connects Russianspeaking collective identity to the common past, common culture, common other
language or ethnicity, or common values. This function is fulfilled through several
different means in LL. Firstly, through the signs–either monolingual Russian or bilingual
English-Russian–indicating expertise and values non-characteristic of American ones.
Among business types, there are several fixing and mending categories (watches and
jewelry, TV screen fixing, tailoring, draperies designing, coat mending, key-duplicating
and knife-sharpening services). Besides evoking nostalgic memories, because those types
can be found in every single town in Russia in abundance, their presence in ―Little Russia‖
is the evidence of non-American identity. The ―fix-it‖ mentality rather than ―throw-awayand-buy-a-new-one‖ consumerist attitude is in a way a sentimental leftover from the
130
Soviet and post-Soviet identity. It is related to the fact that in Russia (as well as in other
countries of the former Soviet Union, I believe), most often it has been cheaper to fix
things than to buy them again, which is usually not the case in the United States.
The second means of fulfilling sentimental function is in the types of signs used in
―Little Russia,‖ in particular, events. It overlaps with the collective-identity structuration
principle of LL, which has been discussed earlier in this chapter. The concerts of Russian
pop-stars, comedians are advertized usually in monolingual Russian posters on business
fronts, excluding non-speakers of Russian. Since many of them have already passed their
peak of glory and popularity in Russia, some over twenty years ago, the events carry a
sentimental value pointing to the community culture.
Thirdly, the sentimental value of the Russian language usage is demonstrated in
business naming, one of the most conspicuous sign types. The trend is to give stores
names typically used in the Soviet Union. It parallels Ben-Rafael‘s (2009) collectiveidentity principle, discussed in the previous subsection. The names in this case are given
in Russian only or in both Russian and English. The Russian language is essential, since
the phrases would not elicit the same response if they had only translated or even
transliterated version. To illustrate, ―Little Russia‖ has two stores named Дом обуви
(dom obuvi), and they each have their own English version of the name Shoe House and
Shoe Warehouse. However, it is the Russian phrase that brings up sentimental
associations. Transliteration as an in-between language may fulfill the sentimental
function as well, since the words are associated with their Russian meaning, though given
an English form.
131
Finally, the sentimental value can sometimes be elicited from the analysis of a
bilingual text. The English-Russian menu in Primorski Restaurant has differences in
listing the names of Georgian dishes served (see Chapter 4). The Russian version omits
the explanations of Georgian dishes, using only transliteration (from Georgian). The
assumption is that Russian-speaking immigrants are familiar with Georgian dishes, which
is true for many first-generation immigrants who have never been to Georgia. Thus, the
Russian menu contributes to the community-bonding, appealing to the sentimental
memories of Soviet interethnic cuisine.
Summing up, there are three functions of the use of Russian: servicing the needs
of Russian, material in the forms of supplying authentic goods from Russia, and
appealing to sentimental values of common culture and past attached to the Russian
language.
Other Features of “Little Russia”
Studying the LL of ―Little Russia‖ I noticed two distinct characteristics of the
area, without which the description of ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ would be incomplete:
the amount of written text on business fronts and the immigrant language of
transliteration and code-switching.
Value of Written Text
In general, ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ is characterized by large amounts of text in
the shop windows. Even though business fronts in ―Little Russia‖ often have rather
limited space and are cramped between two or three other businesses, it was quite
common to find large portions of text on the business fronts.
132
Stores and businesses posted on the windows and doors printed-out information
about the usefulness of certain products, newspaper articles related to what the store sells,
events and services descriptions, menus, along with unrelated to the nature of businesses
advertizing, entertaining, and commercial posters (for example, see Appendix B). In fact,
very few businesses had just a name and/or type of business, office hours and pull / push
or open / closed signs. The vast majority of businesses used the available space to display
some sort of information (mostly, in English or Russian).
This peculiarity could be the manifestation of the immigrants‘ respect for the
written word, which had developed historically and culturally both in the Soviet Union
and in families of Jewish origin. Jewish culture promotes literacy and education; and
Judaism heavily relies on the Holy Scriptures. The fact that Hebrew language was
preserved after the exile of the Jews in the second century is the result of educational
policy aimed at teaching reading and often memorizing written sacred texts (Spolsky,
1982, pp. 144-146).
As far as the Soviet legacy is concerned, after the formation of the Soviet Union,
one of the country‘s goals was the so-called likbez, which stands for ―liquidation of
illiteracy.‖ Literacy was perceived as empowerment, key to knowledge and independence,
and later success. As a result, the USSR had eight (later nine) years of compulsory
secondary education plus two additional years and free higher, graduate and postgraduate education. I myself was raised with the attitude that a good book is the best gift
for any occasion. Thus, for me, it is not surprising, that a short shopping strip of ―Little
Russia,‖ has nine bookstores and a public library. In fact, the largest bookstore SaintPetersburg put up a notice above entrance announcing ―NOW WE HAVE BOOKS IN
133
ENGLISH.‖ This implies that the majority of literature is in Russian, and that Russianspeaking population constitutes most of the readers and buyers in ―Little Russia.‖
Thus, much value is attributed to written literacy, which can be seen in the public
space of ―Little Russia.‖ Jewish and Soviet cultural attitudes toward written language and
literacy might have shaped the LL of ―Little Russia,‖ with its high reliance on written text.
Immigrant Language
―Little Russia‖ as an immigrant community tends to use code-switching in written
text in public space. There have been studies on émigrés Russian, or American Russian,
as a spoken language, which indicate the tendency to substitute vocabulary items with
English words, keeping Russian syntax (Andrews, 1999; Benson, 1960; Polinsky, 1995;
Zemskaya, 2001). The only study found on written immigrant Russian is by Angermeyer
(2005) who analyzed classifieds in the American Russian press, with the focus on codeswitching in two forms: inserting English words in Latin script or transliterating them
into Cyrillic.
The same tendencies were found in the analysis of LL of ―Little Russia.‖ The
business front of the Service Center had cases of transliteration, like травел паспорт
(travel pasport), инвойсы (invoisy),and флаерсы (flaiersy), which stand for travel
passport, invoices, and flyers. The Law Office exemplified another form–simply inserting
English words in their original script (e.g. closings in the middle of the Russian list).
It seems that the choice of one form over another on the business front may imply
certain levels of prestige of the business. The authority of the Law Office with its legal
advice is higher than that of the Service Center, offering printing, cheap copying, and
134
film-developing services along with filling out immigration forms and notary public
services.
The menus present a richer corpus for analysis. Primorski Restaurant avoided
transliteration of English words altogether, but it has to be mentioned that Russian there
is limited to the lunch menu that does not have many American dishes to compare with
other restaurants. Still, it is interesting to note that less fancy cafés offer a variety of
dishes in émigré Russian, like ―Салмон в Белом Соусе‖ (salmon v b’elom souse) –
―Salmon in White Sauce‖ and ―Туна в Сесеми Соусе с Авакадо Сивид Салатом‖ (tuna
v sesemi souse s avakado sivid salatom) – ―Sesame Seared Tuna‖ in Oceanview Café, , or
―Салат из шримпов‖ (salat iz shrimpov) – ―Shrimp salad‖ and ―Сифуд ассорти‖ (sifud
assorti) – ―Seefood salad‖ in Café “Arbat.”
The ―Little Russia‖ has a distinct language of the Russian-speaking immigrant
population, which is reflected in the public space in the transliteration of English words.
The phenomenon and attitudes toward it need further research.
Summary
The aim of the study was to characterize the LL of ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖
which is historically a multilingual and multiethnic neighborhood, with the focus on the
variety of languages represented in it and the role of Russian in ―Little Russia.‖ I would
like to list the main features of the LL of ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖ based on the
conducted study. ―Little Russia‖ is characterized by:

Large amounts of written text in public space, which is the result of high
appreciation for written literacy from Russian-speaking immigrants;
135

Dominance of English on business fronts, as the language of power and wider
communication;

Presence of Spanish as a language of immigrants in the expanding neighbor
areas;

Substantial amount of Russian in the public space of ―Little Russia,‖ used for
servicing (to offer products and services to Russian-speaking population),
material (goods made in Russia), and sentimental (use of Russian appealing to
collective identity and evoking memories from the Soviet past) purposes;

Various combinations of code-switching between Russian and English along
with the presence of transliterated Russian and English.
To complete the picture of ―Little Russia by the Sea,‖ I employ Ben-Rafael‘s
(2009) concept of LL as gestalt, which according to him, requires architecture and people.
The area represents eclectic combination of fancy business fronts and shabby stores,
stoop vendors in front of expensive restaurants, businesses with overlapping front space,
doing their best to make themselves noticeable in the cramped together buildings and
with the elevated train line blocking the sun.
People are just as eclectic: Multilingual and multiethnic elderly-dominated crowd,
some with mini shopping carts, others in en vogue outfits and high heels, yet others drunk,
navigates through the noisy, busy, and dingy Brighton Beach Avenue for different
reasons, to different places, but all within ―Little Russia.‖
Potential Meanings of “Little Russia”
In this section, I would like to present some hypotheses and extrapolations of the
LL study results into what ―Little Russia‖ might mean to Russian-speaking residents or
136
visitors of the neighborhood. The possible interpretations of the area include the place of
solidarity based on the Russian language, ―imagined communities‖ of the Russianspeaking America or re-created Soviet past, and the place of assimilation and resistance.
―Little Russia‖ may signify solidarity between the Russian-speaking immigrants
demonstrated in using the Russian language in the public space. Even though the
immigrant population of ―Little Russia‖ has never been homogenous, Jews from Russia
and Ukraine remain the dominant groups. In 2000, about 54% of foreign-born population
in the area including ―Little Russia‖ (Brighton Beach-Sheepshead Bay) were from
Ukraine (Brooklyn Community District 13 Profile, 2008). However, the preferred use of
Russian would be expected due to particular migration patterns.
It is important to note, that Ukrainian Jews who immigrated to New York were
from the East Ukraine. This area has strong ties with Russia, its culture and language,
unlike the West Ukraine (Bilaniuk & Melnyk, 2008). In 1991, over 11 million citizens of
Ukraine were Russians (out of 48 million), and the Russian language was either first or
second to most of the population (Pavlenko, 2006, p. 84). Thus, Ukrainian émigrés were
fluent speakers of Russian and many had it as their native language. This also could
explain their lack of nationalism and zeal to promote the Ukrainian language in diaspora
and support derussification processes in Ukraine.
Moreover, having come to the United States, Ukrainians were not forced to make
a choice between the two languages (Russian and Ukrainian) in a culturally and
politically heated environment as was the case in Ukraine (Bilaniuk & Melnyk, 2008).
They could simply continue the practice of Russian-language dominance in the public
137
space, which they had been used to, and which now could be perceived as nostalgic
memories of the past and indispensible part of their immigrant identity.
Jewish immigrants were similar in a way that the Russian language was their first
language, while Yiddish was a forgotten or never-learned language for many younger
Jews. Additionally, Jewishness did not imply Judaism for most Soviet Jews, which was
the main cause of tensions between them and the American Jews (e.g., Orleck, 1999).
Thus, there was little connection to Yiddish or Hebrew, and Russian was a natural
language of communication. During the recent two decades, with the Brighton Beach
neighborhood becoming filled with more and more immigrants from various successor
states of the USSR, including non-Jews, Russian has reiterated its role as lingua franca in
―Little Russia.‖
What is paradoxical, though, is that the language that serves as a unifying factor
for the Russian-speaking community in America has been causing divisions in some postSoviet territories (of emigration) and its use there has been rather controversial (Pavlenko,
2006, 2008b, 2008c). In other words, the imagined community of ―Little Russia‖ seems to
have developed collective immigrant identity with the Russian language as its basis. The
struggles of immigrant adjustment tend to unite the diverse Russian-speaking population,
which focuses on the common language, common past, and common culture, rather than
on ethnic, religious, and linguistic stereotypes of each other.
Other two possible meanings Russian-speaking immigrants may attribute to
―Little Russia‖ are the images of ideal America or idealized / romanticized Soviet past.
The idea of a perfect America, especially for economic immigrants, may be associated
with the numerous opportunities the country has to offer with minimum difficulties or
138
negative experiences (e.g. culture shock). In this respect, the ideal America may equal
Russian-speaking America. The transition to a different country could be alleviated
through the use of immigrants‘ first language in everyday life. This is exactly what
―Little Russia‖ offers: the servicing function of the Russian language in signage (services,
products, and menus) and Russian-speaking shop assistants, servers, doctors, lawyers,
and pharmacists. At the same time, it is America, with economic opportunities and
democracy, pounds and food stamps, tipping and English.
Paradoxically, for some, ―Little Russia‖ may represent nostalgic Soviet past. This
is the place where Russian speakers would go to celebrate a family occasion in a Soviettype restaurant (for hours) or shopping for things they would buy prior to emigrating
from the Soviet Union (e.g., furs). The material function of Russian in the LL was
represented by products from the former Soviet Union (foods, movies, cosmetics,
newspapers, and books). The sentimental function–by the Soviet-type business names,
like the Shoe House, Kid’s World, Pharmacy, and Arbat; by the concerts and
performances of outdated music bands and singers and old actors and actresses; and by
rhymed ads and Soviet slogans on business fronts (e.g., “Если ты читать не будешь,
скоро грамоту забудешь”on the RBC music, video, and bookstore, which can loosely
be translated as ―If you do not read, you will soon forget how to read”). ―Little Russia‖
seems to draw attention to the positive aspects of the Soviet past: emphasis on literacy,
union, strength, family values, and morals; thus, idealizing the life in the Soviet Union
and re-creating it in ―Little Russia.‖
Because of the dual nature of ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ representing America and
the Soviet Union at the same time, for some immigrants, ―Little Russia‖ might be a
139
transitional stage – an Auge‘s non-place, where immigrants can come, negotiate their
cultures, identities, and languages with those of the real America, outside ―Little Russia,‖
re-construct or re-imagine them, and move on. They would not stay for too long. They
might come back for an enjoyable visit, but not for permanent residence.
Related to the described paradox of ―Little Russia‖ as ―Little Russian-speaking
America‖ and ―Little Soviet Russia‖ is the assimilation-resistance paradox. On the one
hand, the dominance of English and its presence on 98% of business fronts in ―Little
Russia‖ may be an indication of assimilatory trends and the importance of using English
for an American identity. Additionally, it is English (as the language of power) that is
necessary to get education and a good job, in other words, to succeed economically in the
United States, unless the immigrants are prepared to live the rest of their lives in Russianspeaking neighborhoods, like Brighton Beach. Thus, the permanency of their
immigration might account for high level of assimilation to the local community and low
level of transnationalism as involvement in activities in other nation-states, which is
consistent with the findings of Morawska (2004) comparing Russian Jews and Poles in
Philadelphia. Thus, the new immigrants might be preoccupied with adjusting to their new
American life and perceive ―Little Russia‖ as a gradual transition toward the full
immersion in the USA and becoming Americans.
On the other hand, the mere existence of ―Little Russia‖ in New York, an
American city, with Russian products and signs as well as businesses offering services in
Russian and employing Russian-speaking staff might signify the resistance to the idea
that to be an American you need to speak English and have the same values and culture
as those of people born in America. The area is ‗equipped‘ for Russian speakers: if offers
140
extensive opportunities for shopping and entertainment for people with different
socioeconomic status, along with jobs and health care. Theoretically, it would be possible
to live in ―Little Russia‖ the whole life without the need to learn English. The presence of
such types of businesses as fixing clothes and household products seems to contradict the
American consumerism. Preserving Russian for inside-community interactions, like
social events, concerts, and job ads may indicate the intended exclusion of monolingual
English speakers. In other words, ―Little Russia‖ may be perceived by some as the place
where it is not necessary to assimilate to the American way of life.
Like the previous paradox, the assimilation-resistance one might be reconciled.
―Little Russia‖ could imply the development of hybrid Russian-speaking–American
identity. New York, with its numerous ethnic neighborhoods and eclectic cultures,
provides enough space for such hybridism. The evidence of the hybrid identity could be
seen in the qualitative analysis of the languages on the business fronts. In particular, the
use of émigré Russian on the Service Center, code-mixing and transliterated English and
Russian on the Primorski Restaurant’s menus and the Law Office’s list of services.
To summarize, the possible interpretations of what ―Little Russia‖ means to the
Russian-speaking immigrants residing there or visiting the area go beyond the data the
LL study provided, but are important extrapolations from the study results and Russianspeaking immigration research that might provide directions for understanding the area.
These potential meanings include the paradoxical unity that Russian seems to ensure in
―Little Russia,‖ while this role of the Russian language is contested or even reverted in
some post-Soviet states; the paradoxical views of ―Little Russia‖ as Russian-speaking
America versus idealized re-creation of the Soviet past that might be reconciled by the
141
perception of the area as a transitional phase between past and present, Russia and
America; and finally, the paradoxical trends of assimilation and resistance which might
coexist in a hybrid Russian-speaking–American identity.
Limitations of the Study
There are several ways the study could be improved and expanded. First, on the
technical side, higher quality photos of the business fronts could facilitate data analysis.
The study could be improved by using a higher definition camera, with professional
lenses, that tone down the light and reflection in the glass business windows. Using the
camera that would allow capturing the whole business front from a closer range would
also reduce the total amount of pictures to be analyzed. Due to the elevated train above
the Brighton Beach Avenue, it was not always possible to take a single picture of the
business front with readable signs on it.
Second, the traditional language categorization has shown to be problematic and
script-based language definition–too simplistic. Transliterated words consist of two
languages and should not be put into a single language category. Moreover, the
qualitative study of the business fronts in ―Little Russia‖ showed complex meanings of
English-Russian code-mixing which would justify not counting transliterated words as
English or Russian language, based on their script. Using transliterated English and
Russian as separate categories or as bilingual subcategories might change the results of
the quantitative study. It would also allow studying the frequency and purposes of codemixing in the public space of the Russian-speaking immigrant community in the Brighton
Beach area.
142
In addition to that, I would argue against using quantitative approach to code
preference. The language on some business fronts revealed invert relationship between
the amount of written text and the size of the font. However, one does not always
compensate for another and the font size does not always indicate code preference.
Larger font size or bolder letters do not necessarily indicate intended code
preference. For example, Russian phrases tend to be longer, with more letters, so on
duplicated bilingual signs there is often less space for Russian words, which have to be
squeezed in and, for aesthetic purposes, made less bold or smaller. With a bilingual
notice, for example, it becomes difficult to unequivocally determine the code of
preference, based solely on the font size or on the amount of language. Hence, qualitative
approach seems more appropriate for that purpose.
The fourth limitation of the present study is the absence of information on the
language regulations of commercial and official signs in ―Little Russia.‖ The regulations
need to be taken into consideration since they influence how much agency the business
owners have in using certain languages and language combinations on the signs on their
business fronts. Had this information been obtained, it might have led to more in-depth
interpretations of the results of the study.
Fifth, the described research is synchronic in nature, which is limiting the
representation of the languages‘ usage in the area under study. The LL in ―Little Russia
by the Sea‖ is very dynamic. The signs on businesses and the businesses themselves are
changing very fast. For example, during the data collection I observed the emergence of
Kebeer Bar & Grill business, on the corner of Brighton Beach Avenue and Coney Island
Avenue. Another example is Imperial Meat Market (205 Brighton Beach Ave). I took
143
two pictures of this business front with a week in between the photo sessions, and the
notices on the shop window changed significantly.
Another reason for diachronic research is the differences in code preferences
between the signs within the same business front, which could be explained by the
change of the owner and keeping some of the older signs. Therefore, doing a diachronic
study of the ―Little Russia by the Sea‖ area would provide additional data and more
detailed information on the language usage in the area. Moreover, it might help identify
the trends in the community.
One more enhancement to methodology would be conducting the interviews with
the owners, employees, and customers of businesses. The interviews could help eliminate
some of the possible explanations of language choice on the business fronts and clarify
the sign-owners‘ intentions of or lack thereof, as was the case in Malinowski (2009).
Finally, the studies of other Russian-speaking neighborhoods in New York as well
as in other US cities could provide interesting comparative data on their development and
highlight peculiarities which could have been overlooked or taken for granted in a singlesite focused study. To recap, a larger-scale diachronic study using more professional
equipment and more detailed language categories, including regulations and interviews
and comparing the Brighton Beach area with other Russian-speaking neighborhoods
would be helpful in providing additional insights on ―Little Russia by the Sea.‖
144
REFERENCES
Alm, C. O. (2003). English in the Ecuadorian commercial context. World Englishes, 22,
143-158.
American Association for Russian Language, Culture and Education. (2005).
Andrews, D. R. (1993). American intonational interference in émigré Russian: a
comparative analysis of elicited speech samples. The Slavic and East European
Journal, 37(2), 162-177.
Andrews, D. R. (1999). Sociocultural Perspectives on Language Change in Diaspora:
Soviet Immigrants in the United States (Vol. 5): John Benjamins.
Andrews, D. R. (2001). Teaching the Russian heritage learner: socio- and
psycholinguistic perspectives. The Slavic and East European Journal, 45(3), 519530.
Angermeyer, P. S. (2005). Spelling bilingualism: script choice in Russian American
classified ads and signage. Language in Society, 34, 493-531. doi:
10.10170S0047404505050190
Backhaus, P. (2005). Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo—a diachronic look at the
linguistic landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175/176,
103-121. doi: 0165–2516/05/0175/0176–0103
Backhaus, P. (2006). Multilingualism in Tokyo: a look into the linguistic landscape. In D.
Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism (pp. 5266). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban
Multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
145
Backhaus, P. (2009). Rules and regulations in linguistic landscaping: A comparative
perspective. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding
the Scenery (pp. 157-172). New York: Routledge.
Barni, M., & Bagna, C. (2009). A mapping technique and the linguistic landscape. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
126-140). New York: Routledge.
Baumgardner, R. J. (2006). The appeal of English in Mexican commerce. World
Englishes, 25(2), 251-266.
Ben-Rafael, E. (2009). A sociological approach to the study of linguistic landscapes. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
40-54). New York: Routledge.
Ben-Rafael, E., Lyubansky, M., Gluckner, O., Harris, P., Israel, Y., Jasper, W., et al.
(2006). Building a Diaspora: Russian Jews in Israel, Germany and the USA (Vol.
13). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.
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. In D.
Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: New Approach to Multilingualism (pp. 7-30).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Benson, M. (1960). American-Russian speech. American Speech, 35(3), 163-174.
Bilaniuk, L., & Melnyk, S. (2008). A tense and shifting balance: bilingualism and
education in Ukraine. [Article]. International Journal of Bilingual Education &
Bilingualism, 11, 340-372.
146
Brady, E. (2007, October 28). Grandmother Russia, The New York Times. Retrieved June
25, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/thecity/28gran.html
Brooklyn Community District 13 Profile. (2008). New York: Retrieved June 25, 2009
from www.nyc.gov.
Brown, N. A. (2007). Status language planning in Belarus: An examination of written
discourse in public spaces. Language Policy, 6, 381-301. doi: 10.1007/s10993007-9048-5
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. In D.
Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism (pp. 6780). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2008). The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input
in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 46,
267-287. doi: 10.1515/IRAL.2008.012
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2009). Language economy and linguistic landscape. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
55-69). New York: Routledge.
Chiswick, B. R. (1997). Soviet Jews in the United States: language and labour market
adjustments revisited. In N. Lewin-Epstein, Y. Ro'i & P. Ritterband (Eds.),
Russian Jews on Three Continents: Migration and Resettlement (pp. 233-260).
Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2004). Reading shop windows in globalized
neighborhoods: multilingual literacy practices and indexicality. Working Papers
147
on Language, Power & Identity, 21, 1-28. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from
http://bank.ugent.be/lpi/workingpapers.htm
CompStat, Report on Crime Rate, 60th Precinct. (2010). Retrieved June 7, 2010 from
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs060pct.pdf.
Coulmas, F. (2009). Linguistic landscaping and the seed of the public sphere. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
13-24). New York: Routledge.
Curtin, M. (2009). Languages on display: indexical signs, identities and the linguistic
landscape of Taipei. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape:
Expanding the Scenery (pp. 221-237). New York: Routledge.
Dagenais, D., Moore, D., Sabatier, C., Lamarre, P., & Armand, F. (2009). Linguistic
landscape and language awareness. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic
Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 253-269). New York: Routledge.
Davies, J. (1922). The Russian Immigrant. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Diehl, L. (2000). The Soviet Reunion Russian spirit revives a once-aging Brighton Beach.
New York Daily News. Retrieved June 10, 2009 from
http://www.nydailynews.com
Dimova, S. (2007). English shop signs in Macedonia. English Today, 23(3-4), 18-24.
Edelman, L. (2009). What's in a name? Classification of proper names by language. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
141-154). New York: Routledge.
148
Fairbanks, A. M. (2009, March 1). Brighton Beach, N.J. The New York Times. Retrieved
June 20, 2009 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/nyregion/thecity/01film.html
Foner, N. (2001). New Immigrants in New York: Columbia University Press.
Foner, N. (2002). From Ellis Island to JFK: New York's Two Great Waves of
Immigration: Yale University Press.
Gold, S. (1997). Community formation among Jews from the former Soviet Union in the
US. In N. Lewin-Epstein, Y. Ro'i & P. Ritterband (Eds.), Russian Jews on Three
Continents: Migration and Resettlement (pp. 261-283). Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Gorter, D. (2006a). Further possibilities for linguistic landscape research. In D. Gorter
(Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism (pp. 81-89).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Gorter, D. (2006b). Introduction: the study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach
to multilingualism. In D. Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to
Multilingualism (pp. 1-6). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Gorter, D. (Ed.). (2006c). Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Griffin, J. L. (2001). Global English infiltrates Bulgaria. English Today, 17(4), 54-60.
Griffin, J. L. (2004). The presence of written English on the streets of Rome. English
Today, 20(2), 3-8.
Hanauer, D. I. (2004). Silence, voice and erasure: psychological embodiment in graffiti at
the site of Prime Minister Rabin's assassination. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 31,
29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.aip.2004.01.001
149
Hanauer, D. I. (2009). Science and the linguistic landscape: A genre analysis of
representational wall space in a microbiology laboratory. In E. Shohamy & D.
Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 287-301). New
York: Routledge.
Hanauer, D. I. (2010). Laboratory identity: A linguistic landscape analysis of
personalized space within a microbiology laboratory. Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies, 7(2), 152-172.
Hicks, D. (2002). Scotland's linguistic landscape: the lack of policy and planning with
Scholand's place-names and signage. Paper presented at the World Congress on
Language Policies, Barcelona. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from
http://www.linguapax.org/congres/taller/taller2/Hicks.html
Hornsby, M. (2008). The incongruence of the Breton linguistic landscape for young
speakers of Breton. Jounal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(2),
127-138. doi: 10.2167/jmmd538.0
Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok's linguistic landscapes: environmental print, codemixing
and lanugage change. In D. Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic Landcape: A New Approach
to Multilingualism (pp. 31-51). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Huebner, T. (2009). A framework for the linguistic analysis of linguistic landscapes. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
70-87). New York: Routledge.
Hult, F. M. (2003). English on the streets of Sweden: an ecolinguistic view of two cities
and a language policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(1), 43-63.
150
Hult, F. M. (2009). Language ecology and linguistic landscape analysis. In E. Shohamy
& D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 88-104).
New York: Routledge.
Hyde, B. (2002). Japan's emblematic English. English Today, 18(3), 12.
Itagi, N. H., & Singh, S. K. (Eds.). (2002). Linguistic Landscaping in India with
Particular Reference to the New States. Mysore: Mahatma Gandhi International
Hindi University.
Kallen, J. (2009). Tourism and representation in the Irish linguistic landscape. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
270-283). New York: Routledge.
Khisatmutdinov, A. A. (2003). In the New World, or the History of Russian Diaspora on
the Pacific Coast of North America and the Hawaiian Islands. Vladivostok: Far
Eastern University Press.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an
empirical study. Jounal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23-49. doi:
10.1177/0261927X970161002
Lewin-Epstein, N., Ro'i, Y., & Ritterband, P. (Eds.). (1997). Russian Jews on Three
Continents: Migration and Resettlement. Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Lou, J. (2007). Revitalizing Chinatown into a heterotopia: A geosemiotic analysis of shop
signs in Washington, D.C.'s Chinatown. Space and Culture, 10(2), 170-194. doi:
10.1177/1206331206298547
MacGregor, L. (2003). The language of shop signs in Tokyo. English Today, 19(1), 18.
151
Malinowski, D. (2009). Authorship in the linguistic landscape: a multimodalperformative view. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape:
Expanding the Scenery (pp. 107-125). New York: Routledge.
Morawska, E. (2004). Exploring Diversity in Immigrant Assimilation and
Transnationalism: Poles and Russian Jews in Philadelphia. International
Migration Review, 38(4), 1372-1412.
Neimer, Y. L. (2003). Immigration to the USA, Russian and other. [Иммиграция в
США, русская и иная]. Mir Rossii (Universe of Russia), 12(1), 121-137.
The Newest New Yorkers 2000: Immigrant New York in the New Millennium. Briefing
Booklet. (2004). New York: Department of City Planning Retrieved June 16,
2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/planning.
Orleck, A. (1999). The Soviet Jewish Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2001). "How am I to become a woman in an American vein?":
transformations of gender performance in second language learning. In A.
Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller & M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Multilingualism,
Second Language Learning, and Gender (pp. 133-174). New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Pavlenko, A. (2003). "I feel clumsy speaking Russian": L2 influence on L1 in narratives
of Russian L2 users of English. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects onf the Second
Language on the First (pp. 32-61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (2006). Russian as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
26, 78-99.
152
Pavlenko, A. (2008a). "I'm very not about the law part": nonnative speakers of English
and the Miranda Warnings. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect,
42(1), 1-30.
Pavlenko, A. (2008b). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: language revival,
language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual
Education & Bilingualism, 11(5), 275-314.
Pavlenko, A. (2008c). Russian in post-Soviet countries. Russian Linguistics, 32(1), 59-80.
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Language conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes. Journal of
Slavic Linguistics, 17(1-2), 247-274. doi: 10.1353/jsl.0.0025
Pavlenko, A. (2010). Verbs of motion in L1 Russian of Russian-English bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(1), 49-62.
Pennycook, A. (2009). Linguistic landscapes and the transgressive semiotics of graffiti.
In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery
(pp. 302-312). New York: Routledge.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2004). Immigrant Russian: Factors in the restructuring of the aspectual
system under attrition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, Berkley, CA. Retrieved June 20, 2009 from
http://www.pereltsvaig.com/professional/publications/publications.html
Peterson, H. W. (2009). Literacy Practices and Identity in a Slavic Immigrant
Congregation: An Ethnographic Study. Ph.D., Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana, PA. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://hdl.handle.net/2069/191
153
Polinsky, M. (1995). American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition.
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (Cornell Meeting).
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics, 14, 191-262.
Polinsky, M. (2008a). Heritage language narratives Heritage Language Education: A
New Field Emerging (pp. 149-164).
Polinsky, M. (2008b). Relative clauses in Heritage Russian: Fossilization or divergent
grammar. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 16.
Prais, G. M. (1893). Russian Jews in America: Essays About History and Life of RussianJewish Emigrants in the United States of America (1880-1891). St. Petersburg,
Russia: A. E. Landau's Publishing House.
Puzey, G. (2007). Planning the Linguistic Landscape: A Comparative Survey of the Use
of Minority Languages in the Road Signage of Norway, Scotland and Italy. M.Sc.
thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2118/1/2007PuzeyGDissertationMSc.
pdf Available from The University of Edinburgh ERA database.
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.
Ritterband, P. (1997). Jewish identity among Russian immigrants in the US. In N. LewinEpstein, Y. Ro'i & P. Ritterband (Eds.), Russian Jews on Three Continents:
Migration and Resettlement (pp. 325-343). Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
154
Sadikhova, F., & Marjan, A. (2000). Where's the Azeri? Trends among store signs in
Baku. Azerbaijan International, 8(1), 38-39.
Schlick, M. (2002). The English of shop signs in Europe. English Today, 18(2), 3-7.
Schlick, M. (2003). The English of shop signs in Europe. English Today, 19(1), 3-17.
Schmitt, E. G. (2001). Beneath the surface: signs of language attrition in immigrant
chilren from Russia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina. Retrieved
June 30, 2010 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=728926191&sid=1&
Fmt=6&clientId=63512&RQT=309&VName=PQD (AAT 3013450)
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material
World. New York: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. New
York: Routledge.
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (2009). Introduction. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.),
Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 1-10). New York: Routledge.
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.
Simon, R. J. (1997). In the Golden Land: A Century of Russian and Soviet Jewish
Immigration in America. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Sloboda, M. (2009). State ideology and linguistic landscape: a comparative analysis of
(post)communist Belarus, Czech Republic and Slovakia. In E. Shohamy & D.
155
Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 173-188). New
York: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (1982). Sociolinguistics of literacy, bilingual education, and TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly, 16(2), 141-151.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Progelomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E.
Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landcape: Expanding the Scenery (pp.
25-39). New York: Routledge.
Spolsky, B., & Cooper, R. L. (1991). The Languages of Jerusalem. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Taavitsainen, I., & Pahta, P. (2008). From global language use to local meanings: English
in Finnish public discourse. English Today, 24(3), 25-38.
Tavernise, S. (2003, October 8). Too Young, a Russian enclave is too much the Old
Country. New York Times.
Torkington, K. (2008). Exploring the Linguistic Landscape: the case of the 'Golden
Triangle' in the Algarve, Portugal. Paper presented at the Lancaster University
Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching. Retrieved
December 20, 2009 from http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/pgconference/v03.htm
Trumper-Hecht, N. (2009). Constructing national identity in mixed cities in Israel: Arabic
on signs in the public space of Upper Nazareth. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.),
Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 238-252). New York:
Routledge.
156
Tufi, S., & Blackwood, R. (2010). Trademarks in the linguistic landscape:
methodological and theoretical challenges in qualifying brand names in the public
space. International Journal of Multilingualism. doi:
10.1080/14790710903568417
U.S. Census 2000. (2003). Retrieved June 15, 2009 from www.census.gov.
Uthmann, R. L. (2005). Finding Stability: Post-Soviet Russian Immigrants in Portland,
OR. MA, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. M.A. thesis. Retrieved
June 16, 2009 from http://hdl.handle.net/2376/421 Washington State University
Research Exchange database.
Yanguas, I. (2009). The linguistic landscape of two Hispanic neighborhoods in
Washington D.C. Revista Electronica de Linguistica Aplicada, 8, 30-44.
Yurchak, A. (2000). Privatize your name: symbolic work in a post-Soviet linguistic
market. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(3), 406-434.
Zeltzer-Zubida, A. (2004). Affinities and affiliations: the many ways of being a Russian
Jewish American. In P. Kasinitz, J. H. Mollenkopf & M. C. Waters (Eds.),
Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation (pp. 339360). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
Zemskaya, E. A. (2001). The language of the Russian abroad: research conclusions and
perspectives. [Язык русского зарубежья: Итоги и перспективы исследования].
Russkii yazyk v nauchnov osveschenii, 1, 114-131.
157
APPENDIX A
Map of ―Little Russia‖
5
―Little
Russia by
the Sea‖
linguistic
markers (the
first and the
last ones)
1 – Primorski
3
Restaurant
(282 Brighton
Beach Ave)
2
2 – Oceania
Pharmacy
(415 Brighton
Beach Ave)
1
3 – Shoe House
(515 Brighton
Beach Ave)
4
4 – Law Office
(243 Brighton
Beach Ave)
5 – Service Center
(3177 Coney
Island Ave)
158
APPENDIX B
M&I International Food (249 Brighton Beach Ave)
Figure 1
Figure 2
159
Figure 3
Figure 4
160
APPENDIX C
shoe stores
toy stores
lottery
cosmetics & perfume
3 3 1
16
6
1
3
2
1
1
English
1
2
7
6
9
5
3 3 1
16
6
1
3
1
1
1
BILINGUAL
8
1
10
3
4
5
2 2 3
8
8
1
4
2
2
8
7
4
7
7
2
3
English-Russian
8
1
9
3
4
4
2 2 3
7
8
1
4
2
2
8
6
4
7
7
2
2
Russian
liquor stores
clothes
5
florist
household appliances
household products
furs (and leather)
9
jewelry and watches
discounted variety stores
6
gift shops
fashion
7
English-learning &
translating software
fruit & vegetable markets
2
music and video
food stores
1
book stores
optics
MONOLINGUAL
Languages
religious (book) stores
pharmacies
Type of Business by Language
1
English-Spanish
1
1
1
1
English-Georgian
English-Japanese
English-Urdu
1
1
TRILINGUAL
4
1
1
1
1
English-Russian-Spanish
4
1
1
1
1
English-Russian-Hebrew/Yiddish
1
QUADROTLINGUAL
1
English-Russian-Spanish-Ukrainian
1
Russian-containing
12
1
11
3
4
5
2 2 3
7
8
1
4
3
2
9
7
4
7
7
2
3
Total
13
3
19
9
13
11
5 5 4
24
14
2
7
4
2
9
8
4
8
7
3
4
161
legal services
insurance
2
2
4
6
3
1
3
5
2
2
4
6
3
1
3
Russian
psychic services
telecommunications
5
5
tailoring services
ATM services
5
3
translating services
tax preparation services
3
8
immigration services
other financial services
real estate
home health care
job consulting & training
banks
computer (repair) services
medical services
8
2
watch & jewelry repair
beauty salons
2
9
money transfer services
nightclubs
10
1
box offices
1
English
phone cards store
MONOLINGUAL
Languages
pet store
catering services
computer & accessories
store
furniture
(table continued)
1
BILINGUAL
3
3
1
2
9
1
7
4
2
1
1
2
3
5
5
2 6 3 11
10
3
9
5
1
English-Russian
3
3
1
2
7
1
6
4
1
1
1
2
2
5
5
2 6 3 11
10
3
9
5
1
English-Spanish
1
English-Georgian
1
English-Japanese
1
1
1
English-Urdu
TRILINGUAL
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
English-Russian-Spanish
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
English-Russian-Hebrew/Yiddish
QUADROTLINGUAL
English-Russian-Spanish-Ukrainian
1
1
Russian-containing
3
3 0
1 3
10
1
6
5
4 1
1 2
0 4
5 5
2 6 3 12
12
3
11
5 1
Total
3
3 1
1 3
21
3
15
8
5 6
6 4
2 9
5 5
8 6 3 12
15
4
11
5 4
162
interest clubs & schools
sign making & decorating
plastic-card making
surveillance equipment
dating services
miscellaneous
1
1
3
English
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
advertizing services
2
website designing
1
dormitory
shipping
1
library
fax & copy
1
post office
photo
1
printing service
car service
1
key-duplicating &
sharpening services
laundry & house cleaning
services
1
internet services
2
religious services
4
job agency
MONOLINGUAL
Languages
travel agency
TV & VCR screen repair
(table continued)
Russian
BILINGUAL
8
12
1
2
1
1
6
6
7
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
English-Russian
8
12
1
2
1
1
6
6
7
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
English-Spanish
1
English-Georgian
English-Japanese
English-Urdu
TRILINGUAL
1
1
English-Russian-Spanish
1
1
1
English-Russian-Hebrew/Yiddish
1
QUADROTLINGUAL
English-Russian-Spanish-Ukrainian
Russian-containing
Total
8
12
1
2
1
1
0
0
7
7
7
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
0 1
0
1
12
12
1
2
1
3
1
1
8
8
7
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
1 1
1
4
163
APPENDIX D
Definitions of the Categories According to the Type of Business
Type of Business
Definition
Product-oriented business types
1
Pharmacies
2
3
4
Optics
Food stores
Fruit & vegetable
markets
Fashion stores
5
6
Discounted variety
stores (DVSs)
7
Clothes
8
Shoe stores
9
Furs (& leather)
10 Toy stores
11 Lottery
12 Cosmetics & perfume
13 Furniture stores
14 Household appliances
15 Household products
16 Religious (book)stores
17 Bookstores
18 Music & video stores
stores that sell medicine or specialize in vitamins and
supplements
businesses selling glasses and contact lenses
businesses selling food products, grocery, and deli
businesses specializing on fresh produce sold in the open stores
businesses either referring to themselves as such by including
on their business fronts words fashion, or мода (moda) in
Russian, or boutique or classified as such by me based on the
products they sell and price range they have. The businesses of
that type are cross-referenced as clothes or shoe stores.
businesses specializing in selling large assortment of small
items within a numerically low price range (for example, a
dollar). These items may be small appliances, second-hand
products, low-priced food items, cheap clothes or shoes.
businesses that sell men‘s, women‘s, and children‘s clothes,
swimwear, sportswear, and underwear, regardless of price
businesses that have footwear as a significant part of their
merchandise
businesses specializing exclusively in clothes and accessories
made of fur, with some leather products in the background.
businesses that sell toys for children and mention that on their
business
businesses that sell lottery tickets, usually in addition to other
types of products (mostly grocery).
businesses that specialize in those products (they state this in
their shop windows or in the name of the store)
businesses that indicate on their business fronts that they offer
furniture
businesses selling electric appliances for home (e.g. for
kitchen, bathroom, cleaning and personal use)
businesses selling tableware, kitchenware, and hardware,
functional items for the house as well as textile items (bedding
and draperies)
businesses selling products related to the (Russian) Orthodox
Christian religion (for instance, books, icons, and candles)
businesses that dedicate substantial part of its product range
and store space to books
stores, which sell their products in tape, CD, DVD, Blu-ray and
VHS formats.
164
Type of Business
19 Gift shops
20
21
22
23
Jewelry & watches
Florist stores
Liquor stores
Real estate
24 Computer &
accessories stores
25 English-learning and
translating software
26 Pet stores
Definition
businesses selling (Russian) souvenirs and gifts for the home.
They include paintings, items made of porcelain, ceramic, and
wood, crystal crafts and chandeliers.
businesses selling varieties of jewelry and watches
places where one can buy flowers
businesses selling various alcohol beverages
businesses dealing with individuals and other companies
regarding buying, selling, or renting property
businesses selling computer hardware, software and any
additional computer-related products
businesses selling computer programs geared toward people
who need help with English, either studying it or translating
from and into English
stores that sell fish, birds, and small animals as well as
accessories for keeping them
businesses producing personal identification cards
27 Plastic-card making
businesses
28 Surveillance equip-ment companies selling cameras to other businesses
businesses
29 Phone-card stores
businesses specializing solely on selling phone cards from
various providers. The phone cards are used to make
international calls.
Service-oriented business types
1
Banks
licensed financial institutions accepting and channeling
deposits into lending activities.
2 Money transfer services businesses that either specialize in money orders or indicate
them as one type of services provided by those businesses.
Banks and post-offices are not included in that category.
3 Tax preparation services businesses that specifically state they help prepare / fill out tax
forms (banks are not included in that category)
4 ATM services
businesses that specifically state they provide ATM services
(banks are not included in that category)
5 Other financial services businesses providing brokerage, accounting, auditing, checkcashing, business consulting, and other services, excluding tax
preparation or money transfer (banks are not included in that
category)
6 Catering services
businesses where people eat in. Those businesses characterized
themselves on their fronts as restaurants, cafés, and bars.
7 Nightclubs
businesses offering night entertainment, like dancing, singing,
and live performances. Most of those businesses were also
expensive restaurants..
8 Beauty salons
businesses providing barber, hairdresser, nails, spa or tanning
services
9 Medical services
businesses providing medical care
10 Watch and jewelry
businesses specializing in fixing watches and jewelry items
repair
165
Type of Business
Definition
11 Telecommunications
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
type of business that provides mobile phone products and
services
Travel agencies
businesses engaged in taking people on tours
Job agencies
companies that provide people with suitable employment
opportunities according to their expertise, for a fee
Home health care
a type of a job agency, providing home attendant positions
Job consulting and
companies providing consulting services and training
training services
opportunities for potential job searchers (two job agencies are
cross-referenced here)
Insurance companies
provide services for individuals and businesses, regarding life,
health, property, and business insurance
Legal services
a type of business represented by law offices, legal consultants,
and lawyers dealing with a wide range of legal issues (family,
criminal, commercial, and immigration law) as well as
businesses offering services of a notary public
Immigration services
businesses dealing with immigration issues and service centers
providing help for immigrants and their families
Translating services
services usually offered within the range of either immigration
or legal services
Photo services
businesses offering services of taking, developing, and printing
photos (often within immigration or legal services businesses)
Fax & copy services
often offered within immigration or legal services businesses,
photo centers and pharmacies
Internet services
provided by internet cafés and computer-related businesses
Printing services
businesses printing documents from digital devices in different
formats as well as binding books
Computer (repair)
businesses providing computer-related services, like installing
services
software, changing or adding hardware, and fixing problems.
These services often accompany computer stores but can also
be independent of them.
Shipping services
include post-offices and shipping companies
Interest clubs & schools businesses specializing on a certain hobby or interest (music,
dancing, chess, billiard)
Psychic services
businesses engaged in fortune-telling and palm-reading,
Religious services
referring to established religions as opposed to psychic services
Sign making &
businesses specializing in designing artistic signs and
decorating services
decorating places for celebrations and holidays (e.g., with
balloons and flowers).
Box-offices
businesses selling tickets to performances and concerts
Laundry & houselaundromat businesses as well as businesses cleaning private
cleaning services
houses, apartments, or room
Tailoring services
fixing and sewing type of business, includes clothes and coat
mending, blinds and draperies designing
Key-duplicating &
businesses involved in making copies of keys and sharpening
sharpening services
knives, scissors, and tools.
TV & VCR screen repair businesses fixing screens of TVs and VCRs
166
Type of Business
35 Car service
36 Post office
37 Library
38 Dormitories
39 Website designing
40 Advertizing services
41 Dating services
42 Miscellaneous
businesses
Definition
businesses servicing cars
businesses providing mailing services
businesses providing books and media materials for the public
to borrow
businesses providing a place for people to stay, with limited
privacy, but at cheap rates
businesses designing websites for other companies (businessto-business)
businesses providing opportunities for companies or
individuals to promote their products or services
businesses arranging dates and marriages
Due to ambiguous messages and ―leftover‖ signs from previous
businesses, it was difficult to determine some fronts‘ status as a
business at all, and if it was to which type of business it was
related.
167
APPENDIX E
business name
Logo
business type(s)
product type(s)
specific products
additional products
service(s)
events
contact information
address
location
website email
telephone, fax
sale & discount
notices
instructing notices
prohibiting &
warning notices
Type of Sign by Language
MONOLINGUAL
220
9
76
54
52
18
81
14
78
48
26
25
26
41
31
25
English
213
9
59
46
45
6
61
4
74
48
19
25
24
40
27
25
Russian
7
17
8
7
12
19
10
4
7
2
1
4
Languages
Spanish
1
BILINGUAL
28
32
36
21
2
45
11
5
1
7
7
6
English – Russian
26
31
35
21
2
43
11
5
1
7
7
3
English –Georgian
1
1
English –Japanese
English –Urdu
English –Hebrew/Yiddish
Russian – Hebrew/Yiddish
1
Russian –Spanish
1
English –Spanish
1
TRILINGUAL
1
1
English – Russian –Spanish
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
1
5
English – Russian –Ukrainian
1
1
TOTAL
248
9
109
91
74
20
131
15
89
48
31
25
27
49
38
31
FREQUENCY
92%
3%
40%
34%
27%
7%
48%
6%
33%
18%
11%
9%
10%
18%
14%
11%
168
"we card" notices
"we accept" notices
informing notices
business hours
job ads
language(s) notices
adv-zing business
awards & participation
official notices
other business notices
credit cards
miscellaneous
leftover notices
(table continued)
MONOLINGUAL
6
6
57
62
18
7
19
5
8
5
9
5
5
English
6
2
53
59
6
2
11
5
8
5
9
3
4
Russian
3
4
3
10
3
8
2
1
Spanish
1
2
2
BILINGUAL
7
7
2
2
1
1
3
1
English – Russian
6
6
2
1
1
1
1
Languages
3
1
3
English –Georgian
English –Japanese
1
1
English –Urdu
1
English –Hebrew/Yiddish
1
Russian – Hebrew/Yiddish
Russian –Spanish
English –Spanish
1
1
TRILINGUAL
English – Russian –Spanish
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
English – Russian –Ukrainian
TOTAL
FREQUENCY
6
13
64
64
20
9
23
5
9
7
9
8
6
2%
5%
24%
24%
7%
3%
8%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
169
APPENDIX F
Primorski Restaurant
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
170
APPENDIX G
Oceania Pharmacy
Figure 1
Figure 2
171
APPENDIX H
Shoe House
Figure 1
Figure 2
172
APPENDIX I
Law Office
173
APPENDIX J
Service Center
174