Speaker
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
Multilingual signage accounts for 34.1% of the corpus, indicating that campus communication remains predominantly Japanese. Bear warnings are a small subset (15 tokens; 6.7%) yet are strongly multilingual (73.3%) compared to non-bear signage (31.3%), suggesting risk-linked selection of multilingual resources. Bear warnings also favor whole translation and cluster at campus gateways, where signage addresses heterogeneous and potentially non-local audiences. Directive forms show bear warnings aligning with urgent, action-oriented registers, supporting a mechanism in which hazard salience and spatial audience design drive fuller translation and pragmatic stance shifts (Wogalter, 2006).
Abstract section 3: Content/method
We compiled a corpus of 223 campus signs from cafeterias, libraries, teaching buildings, and campus gates. Each sign token was coded for language regime (Japanese-only/multilingual/symbol-only), translation completeness (whole/partial), warning domain (hazard/safety/security/access/equipment use/hygiene/etiquette/service), and directive form/stance (e.g., 注意, てください, ご〜ください, 〜中/ません). Quantitative analyses map multilingualization across domains and then examine bear warnings as a critical case of risk communication in place (Scollon & Scollon, 2003).
Abstract section 1: Relevance
Linguistic landscape (LL) studies show that signage language choices reflect institutional authority, visibility, and audience orientation rather than simply mirroring local multilingual demographics (Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Gorter, 2013). In Japan, multilingual signage often appears selectively in regulated or high-stakes contexts, raising questions about whether “internationalization” is evenly distributed or risk-driven (Backhaus, 2007). This study uses bear-warning signs—prompted by emergent ecological risk—as a lens to examine how a university campus recalibrates public communication under hazard pressure and where multilingual resources are deployed.
Abstract section 5: References
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Multilingual Matters.
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. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7–30.
Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 190–212.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. Routledge.
Wogalter, M. S. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of warnings. CRC Press.
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
The study contributes a model of risk-triggered multilingualization linking hazard salience, spatial placement, translation completeness, and directive stance. It asks: (1) How does multilingual signage vary across warning domains on campus? (2) Are bear warnings multilingual and more fully translated than other warnings? (3) Do bear warnings cluster at campus gateways, indicating audience design for heterogeneous/non-local readers? (4) Do bear warnings favor specific directive registers?
| Title | Bear Warnings in a Campus Linguistic Landscape |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |