347
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
received: 2023-05-15                   DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2023.18
MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: 
THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL BILINGUALISM AND TOURISM IN TWO 
CONSERVATION AREAS IN SLOVENIA
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Translation Studies, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: tamara.mikolicjuznic@ff.uni-lj.si
Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Translation Studies, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: agnes.pisanskipeterlin@ff.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT
The ubiquitous presence of cross-cultural contact and multilingualism in the globalised world is reflected in 
a wide range of linguistic landscapes, and linguistic barriers are typically bridged using translation, resulting in 
multilingual signage. The paper explores the role of translation and the interplay of monolingualism, bilingual-
ism and multilingualism in Slovenia, in the linguistic landscape of two conservation areas, one located in an 
officially bilingual area and the other located in the non-bilingual settings of the capital city. Analysing signage 
from the perspective of language use and translation, variation in approaches to bridging cross-cultural gaps is 
investigated.
Keywords: cross-cultural contact, signage, bilingualism, multilingualism, linguistic landscape, translation studies
PAESAGGI MULTILINGUI ATTRAVERSO LA LENTE DELLA TRADUZIONE: 
L’INTERAZIONE TRA BILINGUISMO UFFICIALE E TURISMO IN DUE AREE 
PROTETTE DELLA SLOVENIA
SINTESI
L’onnipresenza dei contatti interculturali e del multilinguismo nel mondo globalizzato è riscontrabile in una 
vasta gamma di paesaggi linguistici; le barriere linguistiche sono tipicamente superate con la traduzione, risultante 
nella presenza di segnali multilingui. L’articolo esplora il ruolo della traduzione e l’interazione tra monolinguismo, 
bilinguismo e multilinguismo in Slovenia, specificamente nel paesaggio linguistico di due aree protette, di cui una 
si trova in una zona ufficialmente bilingue e l’altra è situata nel contesto non bilingue della capitale. Analizzando 
la segnaletica dalla prospettiva dell’uso della lingua e della traduzione, si studia la variazione negli approcci al 
superamento dei divari interculturali.
Parole chiave: contatto interculturale, segnaletica, bilinguismo, multilinguismo, paesaggio linguistico, 
studi sulla traduzione
348
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
INTRODUCTION
The pervasiveness of cross-cultural contact and 
multilingualism in the globalised world is reflected 
in the wide range of different types of linguistic 
landscapes. Within the framework of linguistic 
landscape studies, different aspects contributing 
towards multilingualism, including urbanization, 
immigration flows, official language policy and 
international tourism, business and politics, etc., 
have received considerable research attention (cf. 
Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2015; Edelman, 
2014; Moriarty, 2014: Vandenbroucke, 2015). Al-
most inevitably, cross-linguistic barriers are bridged 
using translation, resulting in multilingual signage, 
and creating translation spaces, in the sense of 
Cronin & Simon (2014).
The aim of this paper is to explore the role of 
translation and the interplay of monolingualism, 
bilingualism and multilingualism in Slovenia, in 
the linguistic landscape of two conservation areas 
recognized for their natural and cultural heritage 
value and associated with tourism. Specifically, we 
focus on the signage of Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, 
a nature park situated in the south-west of Slovenia, 
in an officially bilingual area, with Slovene and 
Italian as the official languages. To shed light on 
the specifics of the translation of signs a bilingual 
setting, the linguistic landscape of Sečovlje Salina 
Nature Park is contrasted with the University of 
Ljubljana Botanical Garden, a cultural, scientific 
and educational institution situated in the capital of 
Slovenia. Both locations are sites of natural heritage 
value, characterized by multilingualism inherent to 
tourism, but as only Sečovlje Salina Nature Park 
is situated in an officially bilingual area, it seems 
likely that the approaches to language use and 
translation differ considerably between the two set-
tings. For the purposes of this study, signage in both 
settings was documented and analysed in terms of 
languages use, multilingual writing strategies and 
translation practices.
In particular, we aim to address the following 
research questions:
1. How is translation used to adapt the signage to a 
bilingual setting?
2. What are the characteristics of translation from 
Slovene into Italian in the linguistic landscape in 
the officially bilingual area?
The present study focuses on three languages, 
Slovene, Italian and English, each with a different 
cultural capital in the sense of Bourdieu (1986). 
Slovene is a language of approximately 2.4 million 
speakers (Bitenc & Kenda-Jež, 2015, 31), and a pe-
ripheral language in the sense of Heilbron (2000). 
Italian is a language with approximately 65 million 
L1 speakers and 3.1 million L2 speakers (Wikipedia, 
2023) and is a semi-peripheral language (Heilbron, 
2000) According to the Ethnologue (2023) webpage, 
English is a language with approximately 373 mil-
lion L1 speakers and 1.08 billion L2 speakers, and 
is the hyper-central language in Heilbron’s (2000) 
model; with its growing global dominance, it is cur-
rently the undisputed world lingua franca.
LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE OF BILINGUAL 
COMMUNITIES
An important area where the potential of the field 
of linguistic landscape has long been recognized is 
bilingual communities, where particular attention 
has been given to public visibility of minority lan-
guages. The term minority language itself is char-
acterized by complexity: as Marten et al. (2012, 
5–6) point out, the term can be applied to different 
types of languages in different situations, with two 
fundamental types of distinctions. The first is the 
distinction between autochthonous or ‘traditional’ 
minority languages and migrant or ‘new’ minority 
languages, and the second distinction is between 
the so-called ‘unique’ minority languages (i.e., lan-
guages which exist only as minority languages) and 
‘local-only’ minority languages, which are majority 
languages in another state. It is not surprising that 
an extensive body of linguistic landscape research 
has focused on unique autochthonous minority 
languages (cf. Amos (2017) for Occitan; Blackwood 
(2015) for France’s regional languages; Cenoz & 
Gorter (2006) for Basque and Frisian; Coupland 
(2012) for Welsh; Salo (2012) for Sámi, to list just a 
few), since, as Gorter et al. (2019, 482–483) high-
light such studies can enhance the understanding 
of minority language communities by providing 
“empirical data on the presence or absence of ‘lan-
guages’ in the public sphere” (Gorter et al., 2019, 
482), as well as address issues such as language 
policies and power relations between languages. 
However, questions of power-relations, language 
policies, language-rights and linguistic vitality have 
also been addressed in studies focusing on local-
only minority languages that are not endangered, 
have a stable status, and do not lack prestige (cf. 
Marten et al., 2012). In fact, a range of linguistic 
landscape studies have investigated different types 
of multilingual communities: see, for instance, 
Koskinen (2012) for the linguistic landscape of 
Hervanta, a suburb of Tampere, Leimgruber (2017) 
for the linguistic landscape of Montreal’s St. Cath-
erine Street, and Vandenbroucke (2015) for the 
linguistic landscape of Brussels. 
A specific situation arises in bilingual com-
munities where tourism plays an important role. 
Tourist settings in themselves are sites of intensive 
349
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
language contact, in which different approaches 
to multilingualism are on display, as international 
languages interact with local majority and minority 
languages (cf. Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2015, 
599). Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau (2009, 386) 
underline the role of the English language in the 
linguistic landscape of tourist destinations, arguing 
that as a lingua franca, English “enjoys a privileged 
position when it comes to addressing a multilin-
gual, heterogeneous readership”. The interplay of 
the international dimension of tourism and the 
national and/or local official policies of bilingual-
ism inevitably affects the linguistic landscape of bi-
lingual communities. Several studies have explored 
the impact of tourism on smaller or peripheral 
minority language use (cf. Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-
Garau, 2009; Kelly-Holmes & Pietikäinen, 2016; 
Lonardi, 2022; Moriarty, 2014), identifying diverse 
issues such as minority language promotion, com-
modification and even endangerment as relevant in 
different contexts. It seems that in officially bilin-
gual communities with bigger, local-only minority 
languages a different set of complexities arises with 
the impact of tourism.
The status of the Italian Language in Slovenia
The Italian language has the status of a minority 
language in Slovenia, with parts of the coastal area 
of the country being officially bilingual. In refer-
ence to Marten et al.’s (2012) typology of minority 
languages outlined above, Italian in Slovenia is an 
autochthonous minority language, but obviously 
also a ‘local-only’ minority language which is a 
majority language in another state. However, Italian 
is also a language with considerable cultural capi-
tal (in the sense of Bourdieu, 1986), with a strong 
historical influence and literary tradition, and is, 
according to the Eurostat (2022) webpage, currently 
one of the five most studied languages in the EU in 
terms of general education.
The coastal area of Slovenia is historically char-
acterized by a mixed Slovene and Italian population; 
the Italian language and culture historically played 
an important role in the area. After the end of World 
War II, Italy and Yugoslavia (of which Slovenia was 
a part) officially recognized each other’s minority, 
and a number of bilateral agreements were signed to 
ensure that the rights of the official minorities are re-
spected. However, while the implementation of such 
documents has been slower in Italy (cf. Tremul et al., 
2015), the territory in which the Italian minority lives 
in Slovenia is fully committed to bilingualism. Ital-
ian is present not only in signage, at public events, 
1 Italian is taught as a second language in Slovene schools, but it is also the language of instruction in Italian minority schools, where 
Slovene is taught as a second language.
on the local TV and radio station etc., but also in 
schools.1 The bilingual community of this area has 
been studied from a range of other perspectives, in-
cluding 20th century history (cf. Orlić, 2015; Ruzicic-
Kessler, 2018), hybridity (cf. Baskar, 2020), economy 
(Novak Lukanovič, 2011), contact linguistics and 
code switching (cf. Umer Kljun, 2015) and ethnic 
identity of the minorities (cf. Sedmak, 2009), as well 
as education, i.e., the teaching of Italian as a first 
or second language in the coastal area of Slovenia 
(cf. Sorgo et al., 2022; Zudič Antonič & Cerkvenik, 
2019; Zorman, 2021; Cavaion, 2020).
Although so far no studies have focused on the 
linguistic landscape of the Slovene-Italian bilingual 
area, there has been research published on the lin-
guistic landscape of neighbouring bilingual areas. 
These include a study on the linguistic landscape of 
Rijeka and Pula in Croatian Istria by Bocale (2021), 
who notes a greater presence of Italian in the signage 
in Pula, an officially bilingual area, as compared to 
Rijeka, although the dominant language, Croatian, 
is clearly prevalent. Tufi’s (2016) study focuses 
on the linguistic landscape of Trieste, located in 
a historically “strongly contested territory” with 
“multilingual and multicultural composition” (Tufi, 
2016, 101). Tufi’s (2016) findings show striking 
differences between the signage in the city centre, 
where speakers of Italian constitute the majority of 
the population, and the signage of peripheral towns, 
where the Slovene language is present not only in 
top down signs, but also in commercial signage and 
other settings.
METHODOLOGY
The present study is part of a larger investigation 
of the role of translation in the linguistic landscapes 
in Slovenia, and the photographic material used in 
this analysis forms part of a larger set of linguistic 
landscape data. The photographic material used 
in the present study comprises photos of all types 
of public signage found in Sečovlje Salina Nature 
Park and the University of Ljubljana Botanical Gar-
den. Both locations are conservation areas, public 
spaces and tourist sights, attracting international 
visitors, where multilingual signage use is expected. 
Comparisons of linguistic landscapes have been 
successfully used in various linguistic landscape 
studies (cf. Cenoz & Gorter, 2006; Edelman, 2014), 
and our study design allows us to gain insight into 
the general characteristics of the linguistic land-
scape of conservation areas in Slovenia as opposed 
to specific characteristics of officially bilingual 
conservation areas in Slovenia.
350
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (Krajinski park 
Sečoveljske soline – Parco Naturale delle Saline di Sic-
ciole) is a nature park, i.e., a type of conservation area, 
in southwestern Slovenia, on the Adriatic coast (KPSS, 
2023). The park is a wildlife sanctuary with active salt-
works, where traditional salt-making methods are used. 
The park is located in an officially bilingual zone, where 
both Slovene and Italian are official languages.
The University of Ljubljana Botanical Garden 
(Botanični vrt Univerze v Ljubljani) is one of the oldest 
educational institutions in Slovenia which has played 
an important historical role and is dedicated to con-
servation of endemic plant species (UBG, 2023). The 
institution is located in the capital of Slovenia, where 
Slovene is the only official language.
In terms of access, the two conservation areas share 
certain similarities: in Sečovlje Salina Nature Park 
there is an entrance fee payable at the gate, although 
access for recreational purposes (e.g., jogging) is free 
of charge. In the University of Ljubljana Botanical Gar-
den, an entrance fee is only required for the tropical 
glasshouse, while no entrance fee is paid for the park.
The collection of linguistic landscape data was 
conducted in between 15 January and 15 March 
of 2023 during a number of visits to both settings, 
Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (henceforth SNP) and the 
University of Ljubljana Botanical Garden (henceforth 
UBG). While the signage at both sites contained verbal 
signs, pictograms and signs with a combination of ver-
bal and pictographic material, only verbal signs and 
verbal parts of combined signs were considered in the 
analysis presented here. Simple plant labels (detailing 
the plant name and biological Latinized name with 
details of its genus), and price tags were excluded from 
the analysis. Damaged signs where the inscription was 
rendered partly or completely illegible (e.g., signs cor-
roded by atmospheric conditions) were also excluded 
from the analysis, as were transitory texts. Multiple 
copies of the same sign were not counted separately. 
Thus, a total of 244 signs (120 in SNP and 124 in UBG) 
were analysed in the present study.
Backhaus’s (2006, 55) broad definition of the sign 
as “any piece of written text within a spatially defin-
able frame” was used in the present study, taking into 
account the fact that this can cover very diverse items, 
ranging from “handwritten stickers to huge commercial 
billboards” (Backhaus, 2006, 55). The signs were pho-
tographed and stored in a database. A particular issue 
arose in the present study in terms of quantification in 
those signs, where the same content was displayed on 
separate signs in different languages. In those cases, 
such signs were counted as a single sign in the present 
study to allow a more accurate juxtaposition of mono-
lingual, bilingual and multilingual signage.
2 In both locations, there were a few signs with poetic function, but as their number was very small number, it did not seem relevant to 
introduce a separate category.
The signs were coded in terms of type, function, 
language(s) displayed, text arrangement and, in the 
case of multilingual signs, type of multilingualism/
translation used. The categories are briefly outlined 
below.
The signs were classified according to type into two 
categories, official and commercial. As Leimgruber 
(2017) points out, linguistic landscape studies rely on 
different methodologies, although some categories 
are commonly used in analysis. In developing the 
coding scheme, the specific character of the present 
study needed to be taken into account: both locations 
analysed are conservation areas and tourist sights 
rather than urban public spaces, which are commonly 
the focus of linguistic landscape research. In urban 
landscapes or cityscapes, authorship is an important 
category in sign classification; see, for instance, Back-
haus (2006, 53–54) for a discussion on the distinction 
between official signs, i.e., those authored by the 
authority, and nonofficial signs, i.e., those authored by 
private citizens. For the two locations used in the pre-
sent study, SNP and UBG, determining the authorship 
of the signs is less informative, as even commercial 
signs are often authored by the institution. Therefore, 
a distinction between two types of signs, official and 
commercial, is more suitable for the purposes of the 
present study.
The categorization of sign function in the present 
study is based on Kelly-Holmes & Pietikäinen’s 
(2016) study of the linguistic landscape of a museum 
of indigenous culture, Siida. In their analysis, Kelly-
Holmes & Pietikäinen (2016, 29) identified three 
separate but overlapping functions of language: 
management of visitors, narrating the content and 
being on display as part of the content. In Kelly-
Holmes & Pietikäinen’s (2016) classification, visitor 
management signage facilitates access to the mu-
seum, as well as directs and manages the visitors; 
commercial signs are included in this category (cf. 
Kelly-Holmes & Pietikäinen, 2016, 32), while narra-
tion signage narrates and explains the content of the 
exhibitions. The third function of language covers 
signage displaying language as part of the exhibit; 
in those signs the Sámi language itself is present as 
artefact or the object of the exhibition (Kelly-Holmes 
& Pietikäinen, 2016, 33). In the present study, the 
signs were classified into two functional categories, 
visitor management and narration, as no signs with 
display function were identified.2
The signs were coded in terms of the languages 
displayed, the number of languages displayed and 
text arrangement, i.e., in this case, the order of 
languages. Multilingual signs were also coded using 
Reh’s (2004) categorization of multilingual writing 
351
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
strategies. In her analysis of multilingual writing in 
Lira Municipality, Uganda, Reh (2004) introduces 
a typology that has been adopted in a number of 
subsequent studies (cf. Backhaus, 2006; Koskinen, 
2012; Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2015; Amos, 
2017, to list just a few). Reh (2004) identifies four 
ways of presenting multilingual information in sta-
tionary signage, duplicating, fragmentary, overlap-
ping and complementary. The first three categories 
cover different types of translation.3 In duplicating 
multilingual writing the same content is presented 
in more than one language, in fragmentary multi-
lingual writing full information is provided in one 
language but only parts are translated into another 
language or other languages, and in overlapping 
multilingual writing parts of the different language 
versions contain the same content, while other parts 
of the content are only given in one of the versions. 
Finally, as Koskinen (2012) points out, complemen-
tary multilingual writing entails code-switching and 
does not constitute translation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results are presented and discussed in terms 
of languages displayed, the impact of the status of 
the language and the relationship between multilin-
gualism and sign category. The results for the SNP 
3 Translation direction was not explicitly specified on most of the signs analyzed here. Yet, even in signs where details on translation 
are not explicitly mentioned (above all in commercial signs and/or visitor management signs), the order of languages, the type of 
translation strategy used and even the context in which the signs appear make it very obvious that Slovene was the source langu-
age for the vast majority of the signs, with a few notable exceptions. A comprehensive analysis of translation direction, however, 
is beyond the scope of the present study.
are compared with those of UBG to gain insight into 
the specifics relating to a bilingual area.
Languages displayed
The first step of the analysis was the identifi-
cation of the languages used in both sites. In the 
linguistic landscape of SNP, ten different languages 
were identified: Slovene, Italian, English, German, 
French, Spanish, Russian, Czech, Slovak and Latin 
(see Chart 1 for the shares of individual languages). 
Some of the signage also displayed a version of the 
text in Braille script. In UBG a total of six languages 
is found in the linguistic landscape: Slovene, Eng-
lish, German, French, Italian and Latin (see Chart 2 
for the shares of individual languages).
While Latin words were used in signs at both 
locations, the function of Latin was clearly dif-
ferent from that of the other languages displayed. 
The function of signage in conservation areas is 
also to provide accurate terminology in terms of 
scientific names of species, which conventionally 
consist of two Latinized words. The terminologi-
cal nature of Latin means that its function is very 
specific and not comparable to the use of other 
languages. Signs containing Latin words were 
therefore not considered multilingual because of 
the use of Latin.
Chart 1: Shares of languages in SNP signs.
352
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
Number of languages displayed on signs
Table 1 classifies the signs according to the num-
ber of languages displayed on them, presenting the 
percentage of monolingual, bilingual and trilingual 
signs, as well as signs with more than three lan-
guages in the two locations.
Three languages, Slovene, Italian and English, 
prevail in the linguistic landscape of SNP. Mono-
lingual signs constitute less than one fifth of all the 
signage; all but one monolingual signs displayed 
Slovene only, the only exception was a poster 
advertising an international convention in English 
only (the text on the sign is Life thrives in wetlands. 
Wetland biodiversity matters, World Wetlands Day, 
1 February 2020, Wetlands and biodiversity, as 
well as some logos). Bilingual signs, which were 
relatively infrequent, displayed either Slovene and 
Italian (8 sings), or Slovene in English (7 signs). 
All the signs with more than two languages dis-
played Slovene and 72% of them were trilingual 
with Slovene, Italian and English. It is particularly 
noteworthy that all signs with more than three 
languages displayed Slovene, Italian and English 
in combination with other languages, most notably 
German.
Other language combinations were less frequent: 
25% of the multilingual sings were Slovene, Italian, 
English and German, and in two instances respec-
tively Slovene, Italian and English were accompa-
nied by French or Spanish (merely for the names 
of sites in France and Spain). Two signs contained 
4 The only exception was a sign containing the logo of a project, with only the English project title, “Life”.
numerous languages, one of them eight (Slovene, 
Italian, English, German, French, Spanish, Russian 
and Czech) and the other one nine (with Slovak as 
the ninth language; see Figure 1).
In comparison, the signage in UBG was far less 
diversified in terms of the number of languages, with a 
clear dominance of two languages, Slovene and Eng-
lish. All but one4 monolingual signs displayed Slovene 
only, all the bilingual signs displayed Slovene and 
English, and all the remaining signs also displayed 
Slovene and English in combination with other lan-
guages (German, Italian, French) (see Figure 2).
Order of languages
The order of languages in signage in both loca-
tions is not random, but follows a well-established 
pattern where Slovene is systematically displayed 
Chart 2: Shares of languages in UBG signs.
Table 1: Percentage of monolingual, bilingual, trilin-
gual and multilingual signs.
SNP UBG
Monolingual 18% 20%
Bilingual 14% 62%
Trilingual 49% 2%
More than three languages 19% 16%
353
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
first. In SNP, the official status of Italian is consist-
ently reflected in its position on the signs: Italian is 
virtually always found immediately after Slovene, 
with English in the third place, and any other lan-
guages following. The only exception where English 
precedes Italian (but follows Slovene) is a sign 
showing the water level in a canal. In UBG, English 
almost always follows Slovene. The few exceptions 
include three signs containing poetry, and a few in-
stances where the Slovene and the English versions 
are displayed on separate signs.
The order of importance of the languages is 
sometimes also shown in the way the sings are type-
set. In SNP, in the exhibition hall, narrative signs 
have a Slovene title at the top with larger, more 
prominent characters, while Italian and English ti-
tles are displayed below in smaller font size (Figure 
3). The display of rest of the text is the same for all 
three languages.
The impact of the status of the language
The presence and prominence of Italian in SNP 
is most likely a direct consequence of official bi-
lingualism and legislation regulating language use 
in the public space of officially bilingual areas. 
However, as SNP is also a tourist sight, the impact 
of tourism on multilingual display should be taken 
into account as well.
The proximity of Italy to SNP suggests that Italian-
speaking tourists would be an important group of 
international visitors to the nature park, and, in fact, 
the official data of the Slovene Tourist Board (2023) 
for 2022 offers strong support for this assumption. 
Italians are the second most numerous group of inter-
national tourists in the municipality of Piran within 
which SNP is located. However, Italians are also the 
second most numerous group of international tourists 
in Slovenia in general, and the third largest group of 
international visitors in the capital city of Ljubljana 
in particular, yet it is noteworthy that only a single 
sign, i.e., a trilingual poster advertising a bilateral 
Italian-Slovene apicultural project, displays Italian 
text (in addition to Slovene and English) in UGB. 
Furthermore, Slovene Tourist Board data shows that 
in all three categories, the municipality of Piran, the 
municipality of Ljubljana and Slovenia in general, 
tourists from German-speaking countries constitute 
the most numerous group of international tourists, 
yet the presence of German in both linguistic land-
scapes is quite limited.
The prominence of English in the linguistic 
landscapes of both SNP and UBG may seem to be 
derived entirely from its status as a global lingua 
franca and its consequent widespread use (cf. Bru-
yèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009), but the situation 
is in fact, more complex. In addition to the global 
dominance of English which obviously plays a role 
in its ubiquitous presence in the signage of both 
SNP and UBG, it should be noted that the presence 
of tourists from English-speaking countries should 
also be considered. Slovene Tourist Board data 
for 2022 shows that tourists from countries where 
English is the first language of the majority of the 
population, such as the UK or the USA, constitute 
an important group of visitors in Slovenia as well. 
There is, however, a pronounced difference be-
tween the areas where SNP and UBG are situated: 
tourists from English-speaking countries constitute 
the sixth largest group of international visitors in 
Figure 1: A multilingual sign in SNP.
354
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
the municipality of Piran, but they are the second 
largest group in the municipality of Ljubljana (more 
numerous than Italian tourists).
Two additional aspects may also play a significant role 
in the linguistic landscape of SNP and UBG. First, SNP is 
located in a wider bilingual context and any Italian visi-
tors to the area will have encountered bilingual signage 
with Italian. Italian tourists visiting the coastal region, 
including SNP, may therefore have expectations of access 
to information in Italian. Italian tourists visiting Ljubljana 
have no such expectations when visiting UBG, as Italian 
is rarely used in public signage in the capital city.
Second, both SNP and UBG are visited by tourists as 
well as locals, but access to most of UBG is free of charge, 
whereas an entrance fee is charged at the gate of SNP, 
unless the nature of the visit is recreational. Furthermore, 
UBG is located in the city centre, in close proximity to 
several schools and residential areas, whereas the loca-
tion of SNP is somewhat more peripheral and less urban. 
This means that locals are probably more frequent visitors 
in UBG than in SNP. As a consequence, some of the signs 
regulating visitor behaviour are specifically intended for 
the local community, and tend to be more pragmatic in 
nature (see next section). Visits to SNP are more deliber-
ate, since an entrance fee needs to be paid. Even when 
most local visitors decide to enter the park, they come for 
the same reasons as tourists.
Multilingualism and sign category
In both locations, all multilingual signs contained 
translations, as there were no instances of complementary 
multilingual writing in the sense of Reh’s (2004) classifi-
cation of translations (cf. Koskinen (2012) for comparable 
findings). With the exception of a few signs, Reh’s (2004) 
duplicating translation strategy was used to consistently 
display the same content in both languages.
SNP
The officially bilingual status of the areas is reflected 
at all levels of signage, from the topmost, even symbolic, 
officially bilingual name of the institution, Krajinski park 
Sečoveljske soline – Parco Naturale delle Saline di Sic-
ciole, to the most trivial marginal management signs.
Most official signs in SNP are either bilingual (Slo-
Figure 2: A double-sided sign in UBG with Slovene, English, German and French text.
355
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
vene and Italian), or, much more frequently, trilingual 
(Slovene, Italian and English). Monolingual and multilin-
gual (more than three languages) official signs are less 
frequent. Monolingual official signs include both visitor 
management signs (for instance, a poster with informa-
tion on avian influenza) and narration signs (for instance, 
some of the exhibit labels in the visitor’s centre). Official 
signs with more than three languages are less frequent, 
although all such signs are official signs. They include 
both visitor management and narration signs (see Figures 
4 and 5).
Official Slovene-Italian bilingualism is present in of-
ficial visitor management signs containing legal informa-
tion such as a passage from legislation regulating alcohol 
consumption displayed in the gift shop next to the wine 
bottles showcased in wooden boxes, or an official sign 
with Covid19 regulations. Both of these signs display re-
cycled, pre-existing Slovene text and its Italian translation 
created in another context, and subsequently displayed in 
SNP to ensure that the official requirements are met. Such 
signs are posted in different types of public spaces across 
the officially bilingual area, whenever applicable.
Trilingual signs with Slovene, Italian and English in-
clude both official visitor management signs (for instance, 
signposts) and narration signs (such as displays, panels, 
labels and similar), although there are also a few instances 
of bilingual Slovene and Italian official narration signs (for 
instance, labels next to 3-D models of the terrain of the 
park).
In a few official visitor management signs (see Figure 
6), different translation approaches are used in the title and 
the body of the sign. While the body of the sign displays 
the same information in three or even four languages, 
the title is only displayed in Slovene and Italian. It seems 
possible that design issues, such as space constraint or a 
pre-existing bilingual template subsequently expanded to 
include additional languages, may have played a role in 
the final layout of the sign. It is, however, notable, when 
different approaches to translation and multilingualism 
are used in different parts of the sign, it is always the Ital-
ian language that is displayed along with Slovene, which 
probably reflects requirements for bilingual signage in the 
officially bilingual area.
The situation in SNP is quite distinct when it comes to 
commercial signs in the gift shop and at the café. Com-
mercial signs are either monolingual (Slovene) or bilin-
gual, but the majority of bilingual signs are Slovene and 
English, with only two signs containing Slovene and Ital-
ian. It thus seems that the commercial signs are intended 
above all for an international audience rather than the 
local Italian-speaking minority. The implementation of 
official bilingualism in commercial establishments, seems 
to be somewhat less rigorous than in institutional settings. 
On the other hand, Slovene and English commercial signs 
include a diverse range of sings, for instance, instruc-
tions on a coin elongation machine (penny-press) or the 
inscription on a bicycle frame. Of the two commercial 
signs with an Italian translation, one is a rather detailed 
commercial description of the beneficial effects of brine 
water, while the other is text on a van belonging to a 
local rowing club with headquarters in SNP. While the 
latter clearly targets the local bilingual population, as it is 
highly unlikely that tourists would enrol in a local sports 
club, it is much less clear why the brine water description 
is translated (only) into Italian, as all other commercial 
sings in the same location are Slovene and English.
UBG
The vast majority of the signs, regardless of their type 
and function, in UBG are bilingual, displaying Slovene 
and English text. This includes most official signs, both 
those with visitor management function and those with 
narration function, as well as most commercial signs in 
the gift shop and the visitors’ centre.
Monolingual Slovene signs are relatively infrequent, 
but also quite diverse. Official narration signs included 
a set of similar Slovene-only signs providing brief 
descriptions of seasonal flowering plants (for instance, 
the snow drop), which are probably stored away at 
Figure 3: A narrative sign with text in three languages.
356
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
the end of the season (Figure 7). While most official 
visitor management signs were bilingual, there were a 
few Slovene-only signs, for instance a sign prohibiting 
cycling along the garden footpaths. It seems possible 
that while effort was invested into regulating the visit 
of both Slovene and international visitors through bi-
lingual signage, a difference between the type of be-
haviour that might be associated with more permanent 
residence (signs regulating cycling which obviously 
entails access to a bicycle) and general behaviour (no 
littering) can be observed. Only a few commercial 
signs (for instance, a sign specifying that a plant is not 
for sale) were monolingual.
All signs but one with more than two languages 
were official signs with narration function, most of 
which were part of the same exhibition (see Figure 2). 
Figure 5: A narration sign with text in four languages.
Figure 4: A visitor management sign with text in four languages.
357
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
The only multilingual commercial sign was a trilingual 
label in Slovene, English and German.
Translation strategies
While a systematic overview of translation strategies is 
beyond the scope of the present study, two issues arising 
in translation nevertheless need to be mentioned. The first 
is adaptation to space constraints. Although duplicating 
(i.e., translating the content in its entirety, see Reh (2004, 
8–10 for a more detailed description) was by far the most 
common translation approach, fragmentary translation (cf. 
Reh, 2004, 10) was occasionally used. It seems, however, 
that this occurred mainly because of space constraints, as 
passages in any of the languages, including Slovene, were 
sometimes shortened and parts of the information were 
omitted or dealt with more briefly.
The second issue concerns shifts involving expressions 
of authorial identity in translation. Authorial identity is a 
complex issue as it involves a number of variables which 
may result in shifts in translation. These include systemic 
cross-linguistic variation, different rhetorical preferences, 
as well as translation-related phenomena, such as explici-
tation, interference, standardization, simplification, etc. 
The impact of these variables on authorial presence in 
translation has been explored in detail in our previous 
work (cf. Pahor, Smodiš & Pisanski Peterlin (2021) for an 
investigation of overt authorial presence and the passive 
voice in Slovene, English and in Slovene-English transla-
tion, and Pisanski Peterlin & Mikolič Južnič (2018) for a 
detailed examination of subject pronoun use in Slovene, 
Italian and English and in translation into Slovene). Due 
to the limited number of shifts in authorial identity in the 
translated signage analysed here, a comprehensive analy-
sis this phenomenon is beyond the scope of the present 
study; nevertheless, it should be outlined as it may be of 
interest in potential future research.
In some of the Slovene text displayed on the signs, 
the first person plural is used to refer to the institution 
as the author of the sign or the people of Slovenia in 
the generic sense. It is not surprising that such first 
person plural expression of authorial identity referring 
to the institution or the local population, are often 
(although not always) replaced in translation by an 
explicit reference to Slovenia, the institution or some 
sort of an impersonal expression. Thus for instance, the 
Slovene expression naš endemit [our endemic species] 
changes into Slovenian endemic species in the English 
part of a sign from UBG.
The example below illustrates how both of these is-
sues are reflected in different translation strategies used 
in the Italian and English translation of a narration sign in 
SNP. The Slovene text on the sign in question is provided 
below with the English gloss in square brackets:
Figure 6: An official sign with text in Slovene, Italian, English and German.
358
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
SLOVENE: Nekdanje delavnice ob upravni stavbi 
KPSS na Leri smo preuredili v center za obisko-
valce. V večjem prostoru je urejena dvorana za 
projekcijo filmov. Na voljo je 90 sedežev. Dvorana 
je primerna tudi za predavanja in predstavitve. 
[We have converted former workshops next to the 
administration building of KPSS into a visitors’ cen-
tre. The larger hall houses a cinema. There are 90 
seats available. The hall is also suitable for lectures 
and presentations.]
The first person plural in Slovene refers to the in-
stitution as the collective author of the text, giving it a 
personal note. In the Italian translation of the passage 
the duplicating approach is used, with all the parts of 
the information from the Slovene original expressed in 
translation. Moreover, the first person plural is retained in 
the Italian translation, possibly highlighting the bilingual 
character of the institution.
ITALIAN: Stiamo ristrutturando un caseggiato 
un tempo falegnameria e officina, che si trova 
presso la sede amministrativa del KPSS, per farne 
un centro per i visitatori. Un’ampia sala è stata 
predisposta per la proiezione di film. È dotata di 
90 posti a sedere ed è adatta anche per le con-
ferenze. [We are renovating a former carpentry 
and workshop building, which is located next to 
the administrative headquarters of KPSS, to make 
a visitors’ centre. A large hall has been prepared 
for the screening of films. It has 90 seats and is also 
suitable for conferences.]
In the English translation, a completely different ap-
proach is used. The English version is noticeably shorter, 
constituting an example of a fragmentary translation. 
Moreover, the first person plural conveying authorial 
identity has been omitted all together.
ENGLISH: A projection hall with 90 seats, also 
suitable for presentations and lectures, has been 
opened in one of the building’s larger rooms.
While it is impossible to determine the reasons for 
such different translation approaches, it seems conceiv-
able that they reflect the different purposes of the Italian 
and English versions: whereas the Italian translation 
caters primarily to the local Italian minority, the English 
translation is intended for an international audience.
If we take into consideration the points raised in 
this section, a range of different factors, including the 
official status of the languages at the two locations, 
the most frequent groups of international visitors and 
even the accessibility of the two locations, plays an 
important role in shaping the final version of the text 
displayed. It seems fairly clear that in SNP Italian is 
Figure 7: Slovene description of the snow drop.
359
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
used very consistently mainly due to the officially bi-
lingual status of Italian in the area, but the fact that Ital-
ian translations also address Italian-speaking tourists 
strengthens its position in SNP signs. In comparison, 
Italian is almost completely absent from the signage 
in UBG, although Italian tourists are among the most 
frequent visitors to the city: with the exception of an 
international exhibition, where four languages are used 
in total, communication in UBG with foreign language 
speaking visitors relies almost exclusively on English 
(cf. Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009). Finally, a 
preliminary analysis of the translation strategies used 
on the signs in SNP and UBG shows that the different 
status of the languages (Italian and English in particu-
lar) is reflected also on the type of strategy used and in 
the way authorial presence is dealt with.
CONCLUSION
The aim of the paper was to address the role of trans-
lation and multilingualism in the linguistic landscape 
of two conservation areas in Slovenia, focusing on the 
potential impact of official bilingualism. Comparing 
linguistic landscape data from two comparable locations, 
one in an officially bilingual area and the other in a non-
bilingual area, allowed us to gain some insight into the 
impact of official bilingualism. Our findings confirm that 
official bilingualism does in fact play a prominent role in 
the linguistic landscape of SNP, with extensive use of Ital-
ian in official signage, while commercial signage at SNP 
is very similar to that in UBG, with Slovene and English 
displayed in bilingual signs. The signage of UBG, not 
located in an officially bilingual area, exhibits a strong 
dominance of Slovene and English.
The first research question guiding the study was how 
translation was used to adapt the signage to a bilingual 
setting. The initial observation that there were no instances 
of multilingual writing in the linguistic landscapes of both 
SNP and UBG means that translation was used in all the 
signs containing more than one language. However, two 
specific characteristics of translations into Italian can be 
observed in SNP. The first is that some of the official visi-
tor management signs with legal information in Slovene 
and Italian recycle pre-existing texts and translations that 
are used wherever applicable in public spaces in the of-
ficially bilingual area. The second is that an orientation 
towards a local target audience of the Italian language 
minority can be found in some of the signs, most notably, 
on the ad for a local rowing club. However, in the case 
of most of the signs displaying Italian, it may be argued 
that they are intended for two audiences, the local Italian 
language minority and tourists from Italy, even though 
international tourists are generally most commonly ad-
dressed through English at both locations. In fact, with 
Italian being a local-only minority language, it may even 
be that its prominent presence is also linked to its pres-
tige, as it facilitates access to information for an important 
group of tourists.
The second research question examined the char-
acteristics of translation from Slovene into Italian in 
the linguistic landscape in the officially bilingual area. 
As a starting point, an overview of the signs reveals a 
strong reliance on duplicating translation strategy (Reh 
2004), where the same content is displayed in different 
languages in both SNP and UBG linguistic landscapes. 
However, a set of official visitor management signs con-
stitutes a notable exception, as the official status of Italian 
is highlighted through their design, where only Slovene 
and Italian appear in the title, while additional languages 
are displayed in the body of the sign.
In considering the findings two limitations of the 
present study need to be taken into account. The first is 
the limited size of the corpus: a small, carefully collected 
corpus of signage means that while the results are rep-
resentative of the two settings studied here, they should 
be interpreted with some consideration and cannot be 
generalized. The second limitation concerns the fact that 
the signage found at both locations is specific to conser-
vation areas which means that it is not always possible 
to draw direct parallels with previous research into the 
linguistic landscapes of urban areas, tourist destinations 
or bilingual communities.
Finally, the findings of the present study raise several 
interesting directions for future research. Further studies 
combining linguistic landscape data with research into 
the process of creating the signage would yield more 
specific information on the reasons for multilingualism 
and translation approaches used the signage. Similarly, 
surveys collecting the opinions of the visitors would help 
shed light on the reception of the signage displayed.
360
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
VEČJEZIČNA KRAJINA SKOZI PERSPEKTIVO PREVODA: SOVPLIVANJE URADNE 
DVOJEZIČNOSTI IN TURIZMA NA DVEH ZAVAROVANIH OBMOČJIH V SLOVENIJI
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ
Univerza v Ljubljani, Oddelek za prevajalstvo, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: tamara.mikolicjuznic@ff.uni-lj.si
Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN
Univerza v Ljubljani, Oddelek za prevajalstvo, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: agnes.pisanskipeterlin@ff.uni-lj.si
POVZETEK
Medkulturni stiki s seboj prinašajo večjezičnost, in ta je dandanes, v času izrazite globalizacije, prisotna v 
vseh vrstah jezikovnih krajin. Študije jezikovnih krajin zelo različnih delov sveta kažejo, da se stik med jeziki ude-
janja zlasti s prevajanjem, na podlagi katerega nastanejo večjezični znaki. V prispevku je razčlenjeno prepletanje 
enojezičnosti, dvojezičnosti in večjezičnosti v slovenskem prostoru, in sicer v jezikovni krajini dveh zavarovanih 
območij, od katerih se eno, Krajinski park Sečoveljske soline – Parco Naturale delle Saline di Sicciole, nahaja na 
uradnem slovensko-italijansko dvojezičnem ozemlju, drugo, Botanični vrt Univerze v Ljubljani, pa ne. Obe za-
varovani območji sta prostora stika več kultur, saj ju obiskujejo tako domači kot tuji turisti. Zavarovano območje 
predstavlja specifično jezikovno krajino, v kateri se prepletajo različne funkcije, od varstva narave in ekosistemov, 
do ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, izobraževanja in turizma. Zasnova študije s primerjavo jezikovnih krajin dveh 
primerljivih lokacij, od katerih je ena uradno dvojezična, druga pa ne, daje vpogled v specifiko uradno dvoje-
zične jezikovne krajine. Analiza znakov obeh zavarovanih območij pokaže, kako in kdaj se na znakih odraža 
uradna dvojezičnost, kateri jeziki se pojavljajo na znakih in kako večjezični znaki nagovarjajo tujejezične turiste. 
Posebna pozornost je namenjena vprašanju prevodnih strategij, ki so uporabljene v prevodih besedila na znakih, 
pri čemer se osredotočava zlasti na vprašanje prevodov v italijanščino in jih primerjava z drugimi prevodi.
Ključne besede: medkulturni stik, znaki, dvojezičnost, večjezičnost, jezikovna krajina, prevodoslovje
361
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
SOURCES AND LITERATURE
Amos, H. William (2017): Regional Language Vital-
ity in the Linguistic Landscape: Hidden Hierarchies on 
Street Signs in Toulouse. International Journal of Multi-
lingualism, 14, 2, 93–108.
Backhaus, Peter (2006): Multilingualism in Tokyo: A 
Look into the Linguistic Landscape. International Journal 
of Multilingualism, 3, 1, 52–66.
Baskar, Bojan (2020): A Mixture without Mixing: 
Fears of Linguistic and Cultural Hybridity in the Slove-
nian-Italian Borderland. Acta Histriae, 28, 4, 605–622.
Bitenc, Maja & Karmen Kenda-Jež (2015): Language 
Variation in Slovene: A Case Study of Two Geographi-
cally Mobile Speakers. In: Torgersen, Eivind, Hårstad, 
Stian, Mæhlum, Brit & Unn Røyneland (eds.): Language 
Variation-European Perspectives V: Selected papers 
from the Seventh International Conference on Language 
Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 7), Trondheim, June 2013. 
Amsterdam – Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 31–42.
Blackwood, Robert (2015): LL Explorations and 
Methodological Challenges: Analysing France’s Re-
gional Languages. Linguistic Landscape, 1, 1–2, 38–53. 
Bocale, Paola (2021): Il Panorama Linguistico Di 
Rijeka (Fiume) e Pula/Pola. In: Bianco, Elisa, Bocale, 
Paola, Brigadoi Cologna, Daniele & Lino Panzeri (ed.): 
Flumen, Fiume, Rijeka crocevia interculturale d’Europa, 
Quaderni del Centro di Ricerca sulle Minoranze 2. 
Milano, Ledizioni, 31–44.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986 [2011]): The Forms of Capi-
tal. In: Sadovnik, Alan R. (ed.): Sociology of Education: A 
Critical Reader, 2nd ed. London – New York, Routledge, 
83–95.
Bruyèl-Olmedo, Antonio & Maria Juan-Garau 
(2009): English as a Lingua Franca in the Linguistic 
Landscape of the Multilingual Resort of S’Arenal in 
Mallorca. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6, 4, 
386–411. 
Bruyèl-Olmedo, Antonio & Maria Juan-Garau 
(2015): Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape 
of Tourism: The Case of Catalan in Mallorca. Journal 
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36, 6, 
598–619. 
Cavaion, Irina M. (2020): Italian in the Mainstream 
Schools of the Bilingual Border Area of the Slovenian 
Coast: Language Policy, Teachers’ Perspectives and a Vi-
sion for the Future. International Multilingual Research 
Journal, 14, 2, 130–45. 
Cenoz, Jasone & Durk Gorter (2006): Linguistic 
Landscape and Minority Languages. International Jour-
nal of Multilingualism, 3, 1, 67–80. 
Coupland, Nikolas (2012): Bilingualism on Display: 
The Framing of Welsh and English in Welsh Public 
Spaces. Language in Society, 41, 1, 1–27. 
Cronin, Michael & Sherry Simon (2014): Introduc-
tion: The City as Translation Zone. Translation Studies, 
7, 2, 119–132.
Edelman, Loulou (2014): The Presence of Minority 
Languages in Linguistic Landscapes in Amsterdam and 
Friesland (the Netherlands). International Journal of the 
Sociology of Language, 228, 7–28.
Ethnologue (2023): Most Spoken Language. https://
www.ethnologue.com/insights/most-spoken-language/ 
(last access: 2023-07-20).
Eurostat (2022): What languages are studied the 
most in the EU?. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/
products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220923-1 (last access: 
2023-07-20).
Gorter, Durk, Marten, Heiko F. & Luk Van Mensel 
(2019): Linguistic Landscapes and Minority Languages. 
In: Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle & Bernadette O’Rourke 
(eds.): The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages 
and Communities. London, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 
481–506.
Heilbron, Johan (2000): Translation as a Cultural 
World System. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 8, 
1, 9–26. 
Kelly-Holmes, Helen & Sari Pietikäinen (2016): 
Language: A Challenging Resource in a Museum of 
Sámi Culture. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and 
tourism, 16, 1, 24–41.
Koskinen, Kaisa (2012): Linguistic Landscape as a 
Translational Space: The Case of Hervanta, Tampere. 
In: Vuolteenaho, Jani, Ameel, Lieven, Newby, Andrew 
& Maggie Scott (eds.): Language, Space and Power: 
Urban Entanglements. Helsinki, Helsinki Collegium for 
Advanced Studies, 73–92.
KPSS (2023): The Park. https://www.kpss.si/en/the-
park (last access: 2023-07-20).
Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. (2017): Global Multilingual-
ism, Local Bilingualism, Official Monolingualism: The 
Linguistic Landscape of Montreal’s St. Catherine Street. 
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilin-
gualism, 23, 6, 708–723. 
Lonardi, Serena (2022): Minority Languages and 
Tourism: A Literature Review. Journal of Heritage Tour-
ism, 17, 3, 342–356. 
Novak Lukanovič, Sonja (2011): Jezik in ekonomija 
na narodno mešanih območjih v Sloveniji. Annales, 
Series Historia et Sociologia, 21, 2, 327–336.
Marten, Heiko F., Van Mensel, Luk & Durk Gorter 
(2012): Studying Minority Languages in the Linguistic 
Landscape. In: Gorter, Durk, Marten, Heiko F. & Luk 
Can Mensel (ed.): Minority Languages in the Linguis-
tic Landscape, Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages 
and Communities. London, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 
1–15.
Moriarty, Máiréad (2014): Contesting Language 
Ideologies in the Linguistic Landscape of an Irish Tour-
ist Town. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18, 5, 
464–477. 
Orlić, Mila (2015): Se la memoria (non) mi inganna 
…: L’italia e il “confine orientale”: riflessioni sulla storia 
e sul suo uso pubblico. Acta Histriae, 23, 3, 475–486.
362
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 33 · 2023 · 2
Tamara MIKOLIČ JUŽNIČ & Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN: MULTILINGUAL LANDSCAPES THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSLATION: THE INTERPLAY OF OFFICIAL ..., 347–362
Pahor, Tadej, Smodiš, Martina & Agnes Pisanski Peter-
lin (2021): Reshaping Authorial Presence in Translations 
of Research Article Abstracts. Elope, 18, 1, 168–186.
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes & Tamara Mikolič Južnič 
(2018): Contrasting Pronominal Subjects: A Cross-
linguistic Corpus Study of English, Italian and Slovene. 
Languages in contrast, 18, 2, 230–251.
Reh, Mechthild (2004): Multilingual Writing: A 
Reader-Oriented Typology — with Examples from Lira 
Municipality (Uganda). International Journal of the 
Sociology of Language, 170, 1–41. 
Ruzicic-Kessler, Karlo (2018): Avvicinamento e 
cooperazione interregionale: La Jugoslavia nei rapporti 
di vicinato con l’Austria e l’Italia (1968–1978). Acta 
Histriae, 26, 3, 787–806.
Salo, Hanni (2012): Using Linguistic Landscape to 
Examine the Visibility of Sámi Languages in the North 
Calotte. In: Gorter, Durk, Marten, Heiko F. & Luk Van 
Mensel (ed.): Minority Languages in the Linguistic Land-
scape, Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Com-
munities. London, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 243–259.
Sedmak, Mateja (2009): Manjšine in skupinske 
(etnične) identitete: primerjalna študija slovenske in 
italijanske manjšine. Annales, Series Historia et Socio-
logia, 19, 1, 205–220. 
Slovene Tourist Board (2023): Turizem v številkah 
https://www.slovenia.info/sl/poslovne-strani/raziskave-
in0-analize/turizem-v-stevilkah/interaktivni-pogled (last 
access: 2023-07-20).
Sorgo, Lara, Novak Lukanović, Sonja & Nives 
Zudič Antonič (2022): Pupils’ and Parents’ Opinions 
on Schools with Italian as the Language of Instruction. 
Razprave in gradivo: Revija za narodnostna vprašanja, 
89, 73–90. 
Tremul, Maurizio, Gregorič, Marko, Pavšič, Rudi & 
Martin Lissiach (eds.) (2015): Analisi, Applicazione e 
Sviluppo Della Tutela Delle Minoranze in Italia e Slove-
nia. Koper, Unione Italiana.
Tufi, Stefania (2016): Constructing the Self in Con-
tested Spaces: The Case of Slovenian- Speaking Minori-
ties in the Area of Trieste. In: Blackwood, Robert, Lanza, 
Elizabeth & Hirut Woldermariam (eds.): Negotiating and 
Contesting Identities in Linguistic Landscapes. London, 
Oxford, New York, New Delhi, Sydney, Bloomsbury, 
101–116.
UBG (2023): University Botanical Gardens. https://
www.botanic-gardens-ljubljana.com/en/ (last access: 
2023-07-20).
Umer Kljun, Jerneja (2015): Dojemanje mešane 
identitete in kodnega preklapljanja med pripadniki 
italijanske narodne skupnosti v slovenski Istri. Annales, 
Series Historia et Sociologia, 25, 1, 223–234. 
Vandenbroucke, Mieke (2015): Language Visibility, 
Functionality and Meaning across Various TimeSpace 
Scales in Brussels’ Multilingual Landscapes. Journal 
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36, 2, 
163–181. 
Wikipedia (2023): Lingua italiana. https://
it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_italiana (last access: 2023-
07-20).
Zorman, Anja (2021): Bilingual Education as an 
Instrument of Ethnic Minority Protection: The Case of 
Italian L2 in the Slovene Littoral. Razprave in gradivo: 
Revija za narodnostna vprašanja, 87, 195–209.
Zudič Antonič, Nives & Mojca Cerkvenik (2019): L’ 
insegnamento dell’italiano e l’educazione interculturale 
in Slovenia. Revista de Italianística, 38, 61–72.