Introduction

For growing numbers of language learners, contact with a target language outside formal educational institutions has increased in recent years, mostly as a result of globalization and the associated expanded access to the internet or other technological advances. While these opportunities are most obvious for the major economic languages of the world, and English in particular, the opportunities are not restricted to these languages. One readily available opportunity for language learners to make non‐institutionalized contact with the target language is the linguistic landscape of the environment outside the learners' classrooms, an opportunity especially prominent for learners of English. This non‐institutionalized contact with these languages can result in various opportunities to engage with different interpretations of linguistic, social, and ideological uses of communicative resources that are different from, but have the potential to complement and reshape, traditional classroom‐based approaches to additional language learning.

Taking advantage of these opportunities requires both learners and teachers to make connections between the multiple layerings in their informal experiences with one or more languages outside the classroom and the formal reflective/analytic affordances of the classroom. Clarifying how to make use of the opportunities embedded in these informal sources of language requires consideration of how awareness is raised, what linguistic and other features learners attend to, whether particular forms of awareness are required for work with the diverse features that are to be found, and what kinds of awareness result from reflectively engaging with language found outside the classroom.

The uses of language that learners encounter outside their classroom can include many different lexical and grammatical forms and a wide range of linguistic styles. The examples can also enable learners to engage with content that is more centrally embedded in their lifeworlds than traditional, classroom‐based learning materials. So the informal examples can increase both the range of meanings and the range of forms that learners encounter. An additional benefit of some examples is that they show ways of “playing” with the language being learned, which means that learners can experience novel ways to manipulate the language they are learning. This play has the potential to offer important insights into layers of meaning and other features such as morphological boundaries and various kinds of sound‐based connections within and between languages. Discovering the capacity to play with the language may also give learners empowering/exploratory experiences of engaging with the language.

All of these possibilities can expand the number and kind of opportunities for learners to connect with the language they are learning. For younger learners, some of these new ways of using language may be close to their everyday experiences of how languages are used (e.g. being a music or sports fan rather than being an international tourist) and may express those ways of being in forms that are closer to age‐appropriate styles than material that they encounter in general textbooks prepared for mass distribution. As discussed in Roos and Nicholas (2019), they also offer opportunities for social/ideological reflections.

As we will show in this chapter, the extent of the opportunity provided by linguistic landscapes means that in some ways the traditional understanding of a “foreign language” context is losing its meaning – indeed even the thinking behind Kachru's (1984) notion of “expanding circle contexts” is being overtaken. The increasingly varied ways in which learners can encounter examples of languages that have originated “elsewhere” means that fewer and fewer experiences are ever totally novel. As a result, the idea that the additional language is only available in the classroom is increasingly less valid, no matter where the learning is taking place. Opportunities to integrate learners' informal engagement with language(s) outside the classroom with formal classroom experiences through what has been referred to as nonformal learning (Stickler and Emke 2011) are increasingly available, but in order to appropriately build on such opportunities it is important to understand how they should be structured and the nature of the affordances of each context.

By exploiting the combined affordances of the formal classroom and informal environments outside the classroom, the research reported in this chapter offers an overview of how linguistic landscapes and other examples of informal uses of the target language in the learner's local environment can provide opportunities to initiate and promote additional language development. We build on the arguments in Malcolm et al. (2003) that all environments have formal and informal learning affordances. We show how uses of language found in the informal environment outside the classroom can broaden opportunities for both learning the additional language and learning about that language specifically as well as about language/languages in general in the (more) formal environment of the classroom. We emphasize the flexibility of this approach and diverse ways to embrace the expanded affordances that are embedded in our use of the term nonformal (see discussion in Colardyn and Bjornavold 2004). In considering these affordances, we deliberately extend the discussion of such affordances to include learners other than the traditionally discussed adult learners. One of the questions that we address is which aspects of the world outside the classroom are embraced by younger learners.

To address the question of the potential of linguistic landscapes as a resource for language learning, we present examples from two combined case studies that explore how school‐aged learners of English in Germany worked with examples taken from their linguistic environments. In presenting these examples, we show how the approaches currently included in the literature can be extended via particular pedagogic practices. The practices have, to date, not been clearly documented. In particular we focus on the issue of awareness. We discuss awareness as both a prerequisite for and an outcome of the learning experience. While the literature contains multiple examples of pedagogic initiatives related to linguistic landscapes, there has not been extensive discussion of the issues of the prerequisites for any such pedagogic initiative, what emerges from the learners' engagements in those initiatives and the suitability of such an intervention for younger learners.

The linguistic landscape: From a colorful canvas to critical pedagogical approaches for language learning

Linguistic landscapes research is a field that has been growing and diversifying rapidly in recent years. As the field has widened, so have the definitions of “linguistic landscape.” The classic definition given by Landry and Bourhis (1997, p. 25) illustrates the default understanding of the linguistic landscape as the language contained on signs in public spaces:

The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region or urban agglomeration.

However, the assumptions reflected in this characterization have been overtaken by much wider views of what may be available to learners. The first change is that definitions of linguistic landscape now show a dramatically expanded understanding of written language in the public space. The initial focus on writing on signs has changed to include “inscriptions of all kinds appearing in society, such as those on signs, clothing, newspapers and personal items.” (Wienold 1994, p. 640 as cited in Barrs 2013, p. 6) Further, the visuality involved in the perception of writing has been expanded radically to include the perception and interpretation of multiple forms of images (see Huebner and Phoocharoensil 2017). In summarizing Shohamy and Waksman's (2009, p. 313) ideas of what can be considered as linguistic landscape, Gorter (2013, p. 197) points out that definitions go “beyond displayed ‘written’ texts of signs in multilingual versions and include ‘verbal texts, images, objects, placement in time and space’ as well as human beings.” With the widening of understanding of what a linguistic landscape could include has come a widening of terms used to refer to either the scape as a whole (e.g. geosemiotics (Scollon and Scollon 2003)) or to particular features of it (e.g. smellscapes (Pennycook and Otsuji 2015) or skinscapes (Peck and Stroud 2015)). The recognition of the breadth of resources that can be seen as contributing to the scape means that there is a danger in some approaches of engaging superficially with the diversity of resources rather than questioning how people engage with the scape and whether they all engage with those resources in the same way. As Pennycook (2010, p. 67) warned, “We need to view the landscape not as canvas or as context but as integrative and invented environment.” This point means that different participants will play different parts in that environment and hence connect with it in different ways. Its implications apply not only to research, but even more importantly to pedagogic approaches. The purpose of pedagogic work is not only to open up what is available to be seen, but to also understand and create agentive ways of engaging with what is seen, which will necessarily differ for different individuals (see contributions in Kalaja et al. 2016 for discussion).

No matter how defined or labeled, the linguistic landscape constitutes a resource containing a wealth of texts. The texts can be studied from many different perspectives that range from issues related to their creation and use to perceptions of signs as well as to people's relationships with or their experience of being in a particular linguistic landscape and their attitudes about the languages that are being used there (see Chesnut et al. 2013, p. 103; Gorter 2013; Cenoz and Gorter 2008, p. 269).

As Scollon and Scollon (2003, p. xi) point out “one very important aspect of the meaning of language is based on the concrete, material, physical placement of that language in the world.” This claim makes explicit that engaging with language in place opens up a very wide range of meanings that will operate at a number of different levels. The more the understanding of what is included within the construct of “language” is elaborated, the more layers of meaning are opened up to learners and teachers. Therefore, the approach that we take here is not an attempt to determine what should (or should not) be included in a view of linguistic landscapes, but rather to show how learners and teachers can open up this space so that what learners engage with is maximally meaningful. However, a corollary of this perspective is that learners need to be able to connect with those resources. As we will document below, various authors have indicated that this connection is not an automatic response to the presence of the resources. Connecting requires teachers to intervene so that features of the landscape become able to be “seen”. Key to the characteristics of these interventions is the raising of awareness so that attention can be focused.

The processes of raising awareness and directing attention are fundamental educational processes. Linguistic landscapes have begun to be studied from educational perspectives, but despite having been used as a pedagogical tool to explore “questions of language, identity and representation” and “to uncover the social meanings of language” (Burwell and Lenters 2015, p. 202), in neighborhoods, communities, and cities, less attention has been paid to defining some of the key requirements that have made these activities successful.

Assuming that the necessary pedagogic approaches can be created, engaging with the rich resources of a linguistic landscape offers profound insights into not only language, but also social relations that are sometimes seen as problematic by the learners. These relations are sometimes regulatory (e.g. Ben‐Rafael et al. 2006), but at other times they entail resistance to or comment on specific behaviors or acts by governments or others (e.g. Pennycook 2008). In other cases, studies such as Backhaus (2006) reveal layers of multiple meanings. As a result, linguistic landscapes offer possibilities of seeing what and how languages (or, more broadly, communicative resources) are present in an environment and what the deployment of these resources means to the various individuals or groups who engage in or with that environment. Given that their place in the public space opens up the possibility of multiple creators being involved, these resources may also “speak” more directly – and possibly more authentically – to adolescent or young learners than some material presented in school contexts. For example, discussions of the meanings and structure of graffiti or of the presence of multiple languages in the advertising for daily items may connect more with the immediate reality and interests of adolescents than some of the more conventional discussion of the geography of “foreign” capital cities that can be a feature of many language textbooks.

Making use of the language‐learning opportunities that are already there

As described in the section “Linguistic Landscapes and Language Awareness,” studies that have investigated approaches to using linguistic landscapes as a pedagogical resource have attempted to bring language displays to the attention of learners and to use these displays for language learning. In the following, we present results from a research project that aimed to explore some of the benefits and challenges in this endeavor. In doing so, we reflect on one pedagogical task that teachers can use to help students develop an awareness of their linguistic landscapes in a classroom context. Our particular focus is on learners who have not been prominent in research into pedagogic activities with linguistic landscapes: child and adolescent classroom learners of English as a foreign language. The data come from two case studies that were carried out in Germany, one with primary school (Roos and Nicholas 2019) and one with secondary school students (Starks et al. 2019). The research studies sought to investigate how these younger learners engaged with their local English landscapes, how they perceived the role and use of English outside the formal experiences in their classrooms and how their perceptions changed with age and duration of prior English as a foreign language (EFL) learning. The overall aim was to investigate how a process of active, learner‐centered discovery can contribute to diverse aspects of the learning of and about English (cf. Cenoz and Gorter 2008). In describing this study in somewhat greater detail, our intention is to provide some evidence to contribute to filling a gap in the current literature. We analyze what occurred in one national context (Germany), mainly in association with the learning of one other language (English). We do not report on other languages that are present in various places in Germany nor in great detail on the nature of the different kinds of learning and critical reflection that can occur. In Roos and Nicholas (2019) we have documented how the learners engage with English in places in Germany, make comparisons between English and German, and reflect on the social positioning of English in their lives and environments. In the examples that we present below, we illustrate some of this potential for diverse kinds of reflections in our discussion of what kinds of awareness can emerge once learners have been scaffolded to attend to the language(s) in their environment.

As has been discussed, activities in which learners find and photograph examples of various aspects of their linguistic landscapes, in particular of the language on signs, have often been used in pedagogical projects. This idea was also adopted in the project presented here. The project involved a total of 253 students between the ages of 8 and 14. They were in intact classes at primary school (Years 3–5) and secondary school (Years 7 and 8). The students were located in a total of 13 classes and 8 different primary and secondary schools in rural and urban areas in the mid‐western part of Germany. As part of their class work, the learners were asked to photograph or draw an example of English that they had found in their local environments. It was up to the learners to decide where to look for examples, and they were not explicitly instructed to look for signs. They were also asked to respond to questions in a worksheet (prepared in German) that their teachers gave to them in class. In their responses, the learners wrote about the object they had photographed, the reasons why they had selected the particular example, and why they thought English had been used (cf. Sayer 2010, Rowland 2013). As can be seen in Table 16.1, these (younger) learners were quite capable of locating diverse examples of English in their environments. Among a total of 198 examples located by the primary school students and 55 located by the lower secondary school students, sources ranged from the more traditional category of signs familiar from the work of Landry and Bourhis (1997) to sources in the more private lives of the children, including toys, clothes, and material that they (or their parents) were reading.

The data in Table 16.1 indicate that the learners are capable of being innovative in where they looked for examples and also in the kinds of examples that they located. The data thus demonstrate that the linguistic landscapes of these younger learners are much wider than Landry and Bourhis's (1997) original definition. Just one example of this creative extension by the children is that a number of the examples of advertisements that they located were in their own homes. For example, one secondary learner selected an advertisement from a magazine for a juice brand called “Innocent,” and analyzed its layers of potential meaning:

I took a photo of a juice advertisement. It was in a magazine. (…) I think that (…) there is a nice wordplay in it. In German innocent means “unschuldig”. Maybe it wants to say that the juice is without any additives.

(C10, grade 8)

Most comments made by the learners were made in German. We have translated them in a colloquial manner to reflect the fluency of the original expression. Where a comment appears in quotation marks, the marks indicate that the original comment was in English, which is mostly the case for the older learners, who have already developed basic writing skills in English. We have not altered any of the features of the learners' comments in English. The following examples illustrate some of the reasons that the learners gave for the selection of their examples and reflect their analyses of the role of English in the environment. Again, the examples were found in the learners' homes, respectively in a newspaper and a book:

I chose this photo because I saw that the job ad contained many English job names “(e.g. Job, Allroundkraft, Account manager)”

(d13, grade 4)

because I find it interesting that a book in German has an English title (“Night school”)

(A2, grade 7)

These comments also indicate that a common thread in what triggers awareness of some aspects of the linguistic landscape is a recognition of some kind of incongruity. Some aspects that others seem to treat as normal (at least we would assume that to be the case in instances such as names for occupations in job advertisements and possibly even book titles) appear to these younger learners to be unusual. Indeed, the secondary school (grade 7) example might even suggest a sense of intrigue. So, having been alerted to look for examples, these learners appear to have made comparisons between what others might consider normal and their own senses of familiar or unremarkable. The observation that they are aware of the “unusual” nature of what they have found, does not have a negative connotation or imply a negative judgment of it, which is further reinforced by the data in Table 16.2. The data exemplify learners' comments on why they thought that English had been used and show that they are aware of the global role of English, its influence on youth culture, its presence in particular areas of everyday life, and its impact on the local language (German).

In Table 16.2 we see that the learners' comments reflect an intriguing tension. They reflect both the “unusualness” of the presence of English while at the same time recognizing that precisely this presence has become an accepted feature of the learners' environment. The data also illustrate the emergence of a different kind of awareness. This awareness builds on the learners' engagement with their perceptions of difference between what might “normally” be expected in their environment and what they actually encountered. They articulate a wider awareness of change about what has come to be seen as “normal.” Some view this new normal positively; others question it (see the examples from A4 and A19 later in this section).

The issue of awareness is particularly important in engaging with language found in the environment since not all examples conform to monolingual norms for the language. This inherent feature of interlingual language borrowing means that learners need to develop the reflective capacity to evaluate what they find. Sometimes the English words have become conventionalized parts of current uses of German, as for example Handy, or shoppen (cf. Starks et al., 2019), that were mentioned by the learners. Handy is by now the established way in German of referring to a mobile/cell phone even though its origins in English are not directly associated with mobile phones. Shoppen¹ has been grammatically integrated into German to refer to the activity of (recreational) shopping, often with a focus on clothing as part of purchasing done for pleasure and exists parallel to the German term einkaufen, which is more often associated with the purchasing of daily necessities. As one of the learners wrote: “it is normally to say in German ‘Ich gehe shoppen’. Many young people use this word in their language.” (B8, grade 7) These examples offer rich opportunities to reflect on how languages change over time, on whether or not boundaries between languages exist, and on how users decide whether and why they are speaking one language or another. Such examples also offer opportunities to reflect on learners' own but also others' attitudes toward not only the language that they are learning but also to their own and others' multilingual repertoire and their first language as part of that repertoire.

As a point of distinction between the younger and the older learners, and probably a result of the older learners' greater life experience and overall linguistic experience, secondary learners also express their critical awareness of English and its linguistic and social relationship(s) with German, as can be seen in the following examples.

In Germany, many products have English names. I find it unnecessary because it would be perfectly possible to use German words.

(A19, grade 7)

Often in sentences German and English words are mixed what I can't understand but I think it is still acceptable. But here we have something even more weird here is an German word mixed with an English one to an new word. “Lauf” (= “run”, authors) and shop together to Laufshop. I think the word “Laufshop” does really not sound cool.

(A4, grade 7)

The learners' comments show that many do not automatically perceive the use of English as something positive. Instead, they seem to show a critical attitude toward the mixing of English and German and even perceive the use of English instead of German as unnecessary. While these kinds of attitudes might potentially be seen as reflecting some form of endorsement of a single, national language, we also find the opposite perspective. This perspective is expressed by another secondary school learner who, contrary to the specifications of the task, has selected an advertisement in German and argues that the example found demonstrates the need to use other languages in addition to German:

The reason of the Advertise is helping people who have cancer to defeat it. The language is German, but I think it would be better when there would be used different languages because then more people from different countries can help!

(C12, grade 8)

Even though there is no direct reference to English that the task asked the learners to locate, the comment reflects on the absence of languages other than German, perhaps even including English. The reference to the need for multilingualism shows an awareness of the limitations of German when a public service announcement is intended to reach a wider audience (in Germany). This comment shows a critically informed engagement with current aspects of the changing population of Germany and its linguistic needs.

Overall, the learners' comments show that both younger and older students notice and reflect on similar elements and aspects of English and its use in their environment. At the same time, when comparing their reflections, it can be seen how they become increasingly abstract and complex with age and duration of prior EFL learning. This increase in complexity is complemented by the older learners' comments becoming more diverse, individualized, and critically nuanced.

After they had completed the task, the students were asked by their teachers to give spontaneous feedback on the activity. This data came to us in the form of teacher notes about what the learners had said:

• Up till now, we didn't notice the English words so easily, but this activity in our English class changed that. (group e, grade 5)
• All in all, different languages are becoming more and more part of our daily life and becoming more obvious. But if you don't pay attention, you don't notice it.

  (A18, grade 7)

Their statements can be read as expressing an increased awareness of English around them that the learners appear to have developed as a result of the activity. They show that these younger learners were not originally aware of the presence of English in their immediate worlds. They had not noticed the presence of English until prompted. The prompt was the very simple one of being given a task in which they were expected to locate and document examples of English. They needed this mediated engagement with those worlds in order to see what was already there. What insights into English or experience with English student learners will have depends on the opportunities they get. So, even though the examples also show that with minimal scaffolding the learners are able to locate and to reflect on examples of English in their environments, the diversity of examples found and attitudes expressed signal a need for these experiences to be analyzed so that the learners gain experience in multidimensional reflections on what they find and the values behind their attitudes. This is part of the dynamic connection across experiences that we identified in this chapter's Introduction as an important dimension of the exploitation of informal (language) learning opportunities.

Implications and future potential

As Gorter and Cenoz (2007) and Chern and Dooley (2014) have noted, learners do not seem to notice the language in the worlds around them. However, they can relatively easily be set up to engage with these informal learning opportunities. When learners are scaffolded to explore the linguistic landscapes around them, language learning in the classroom can be connected with learning in and about real‐world contexts of language use at multiple levels: informal learning activities such as the one presented in this chapter that are carefully scaffolded by teachers allow for the learners' autonomous discovery of a broad range of authentic uses of language in context. The uses of the language that are being learned and that the learners uncover can be presented in the original source language or integrated in various ways into aspects of the language that the learners are already familiar with. The deeper meaning of learners' discoveries about these various layers can be analyzed and discussed in EFL lessons in order to send learners out into the world again with a deepened awareness that may lead them to new discoveries. These processes reveal both relationships at a narrower linguistic level and relationships or options with wider social or cultural meanings. Thus, connecting linguistic landscapes and language learning is more than a process of fostering the acquisition of diverse language competences. It may open doors for personalized learning and can be understood as a process of self‐discovery at both the individual and the social level. This makes it different from but complementary to conventional language learning, that tends to have a greater focus on the language itself rather than on the creative processes and intercultural connections that occur when learners engage with language use for themselves. Using relatively simple means to scaffold learners to pay attention to words in their local environments is a way of developing awareness of the worlds in which they live (Freire and Macedo 1987).

REFERENCES

1. Backhaus, P. (2006). Multilingualism in Tokyo: a look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism 3 (1): 52–66.
2. Barrs, K. (2013). L2 Vocabulary in the L1 environment. Working Papers in Language Education and Research, 1 (1): 3–10.
3. Ben‐Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M., and Trumper‐Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: the case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism 3 (1): 7–30.
4. Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R. et al. (2003). Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal 57 (3): 251–259.
5. Burwell, C. and Lenters, K. (2015). Words on the street: investigating linguistic landscapes with urban Canadian youth. Pedagogies: An International Journal 10 (3): 201–221.
6. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2008). The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 46 (3): 267–287.
7. Chern, C.‐I. and Dooley, K. (2014). Learning English by walking down the street. ELT Journal 68 (2): 113–123.
8. Chesnut, M., Lee, V., and Schulte, J. (2013). The language lessons around us: undergraduate English pedagogy and linguistic landscape research. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 12 (2): 102–120.
9. Colardyn, D. and Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non‐formal and informal learning: policy and practices in EU member states. European Journal of Education 39 (1): 69–89.
10. Dagenais, D., Moore, D., Sabatier, C. et al. (2009). Linguistic landscape and language awareness. In: Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (eds. E. Shohamy and D. Gorter), 253–269. New York, NY, London: Routledge.
11. Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. London: Routledge.
12. Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33: 190–212.
13. Gorter, D. and Cenoz, J. (2007). Knowledge about language and linguistic landscape. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Education (ed. N.H. Hornberger), 1–13. Boston, MA: Springer.
14. Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Huebner, T. and Phoocharoensil, S. (2017). Monument as semiotic landscape. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal 3 (2): 101–112.
16. Kachru, B.B. (1984). World Englishes and the teaching of English to nonnative speakers: contexts, attitudes, and concerns. TESOL Newsletter 18: 25–26.
17. Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F., Aro, M., and Ruohotie‐Lyhty, M. (eds.) (2016). Beliefs, Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16 (1): 23–49.
19. Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., and Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning 15 (7/8): 313–318.
20. Malinowski, D. (2015). Opening spaces of learning in the linguistic landscape. Linguistic Landscape 1 (1–2): 95–113.
21. Peck, A. and Stroud, C. (2015). Skinscapes*. Linguistic Landscape 1 (1/2): 133–151.
22. Pennycook, A. (2008). Linguistic landscapes and the transgressive semiotics of graffiti. In: Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (eds. E. Shohamy and D. Gorter), 302–312. New York: Routledge.
23. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge.
24. Pennycook, A. and Otsuji, E. (2015). Making scents of the landscape. Linguistic Landscape 1 (3): 191–212.
25. Roos, J. and Nicholas, H. (2019). Using young Learners' language environments for EFL learning: ways of working with linguistic landscapes. In: Policy and Practice in Early Language Learning (eds. J. Enever and P. Driscoll). AILA Review.
26. Rowland, L. (2013). The pedagogical benefits of a linguistic landscape project in Japan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16 (4): 494–505.
27. Sayer, P. (2010). Using the linguistic landscape as a pedagogical resource. ELT Journal 64 (2): 143–154.
28. Scarvaglieri, C. (2017). ‘Educational landscaping’: a method for raising awareness about language and communication. Language Awareness 26 (4): 325–342.
29. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 129–158.
30. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.
31. Shohamy, E. and Waksman, S. (2009). Linguistic landscape as an ecological arena: modalities, meanings, negotiations, education. In: Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (eds. E. Shohamy and D. Gorter), 313–331. New York, NY: Routledge.
32. Starks, D., Macdonald, S., Nicholas, H., and Roos, J. (2019). Connecting worlds: linguistic landscapes as transformative curriculum Artefacts in schools and universities. In: The Routledge Handbook of Language Education Curriculum Design (eds. P. Mickan and I. Wallace). New York, NY, London: Routledge.
33. Stickler, U. and Emke, M. (2011). Tandem learning in virtual spaces: supporting non‐formal and informal learning in adults. In: Beyond the Language Classroom (eds. P. Benson and H. Reinders), 146–160. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Svalberg, A. (2009). Engagement with language: interrogating a construct. Language Awareness 18 (3–4): 242–258.
35. Vingron, N., Gullifer, J., Hamill, J. et al. (2018). Using eye tracking to investigate what bilinguals notice about linguistic landscape images. In: Methodology in Linguistic Landscape Research (ed. R. Blackwood), 226–245. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
36. Wienold, G. (1994). Inscriptions in daily life. In: Der Sprachliche Alltag. Linguistik – Rhetorik – Literaturwissenschaft: Festschrift für Wolf Dieter Stempel (eds. A. Sabban and C. Schmitt), 635–652. Tübingen: Niemeyer.