Special Issue XII, July 2025 89-105

The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL):

examining English linguistic imperialism and [de]
colonisation
Abdul Awal
University of Lodz, Poland

Received: 2025-03-21 / Accepted: 2025-05-11

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.viXII.33181
ISSN paper edition: 1697-7467, ISSN digital edition: 2695-8244

ABSTRACT: Classroom linguistic landscapes (CLL), the dynamics of linguistic imperial-

ism, and (de) colonisation in educational spaces, and how they are reflected in (post)coloni-
al linguistic ideologies were examined in this study. The quantitative content analysis was
conducted using visual data and a linguistic landscape (LL) framework. The data were col-
lected through the photographic documentation of classroom materials, signage, artefacts,
and many other resources. The analysis revealed a significant discrepancy between Bengali
medium (BM) and Qawmi madrasa education (ME) in Bangladesh, where BM reinforces the
dominance of English signage as a linguistic and cultural tool. By contrast, ME has a more
balanced multilingual representation within CLLs, as English, Bengali, Arabic, Urdu, and
Farsi are all included, thereby resisting English hegemony and actively promoting a more
equitable multilingual environment.
Keywords: Classroom linguistic landscape, decolonisation, English linguistic imperialism,
general secondary education, multilingualism, Qawmi madrasa education

Paisaje lingüístico en el aula (PLA): Examinando el imperialismo lingüístico del inglés

y la (des)colonización

RESUMEN: Este estudio examina los paisajes lingüísticos en el aula (PLA), las dinámicas
del imperialismo lingüístico y la (des)colonización en los espacios educativos, y cómo se re-
flejan en las ideologías lingüísticas (post)coloniales. El análisis de contenido cuantitativo se
realizó utilizando datos visuales y un marco de paisajismo lingüístico. Los datos se recolec-
taron mediante la documentación fotográfica de materiales de aula, señalización, artefactos,
entre otros. El análisis revela una discrepancia significativa entre el Medio Bengalí (MB) y
la Educación de las Madrasas Qawmi (EM) en Bangladesh, donde el MB refuerza el dominio
de la señalización en inglés como herramienta lingüística y cultural. En contraste, la EM
presenta una representación multilingüe más equilibrada dentro del PLA, incluyendo inglés,
bengalí, árabe, urdu y farsi, lo que le permite resistir la hegemonía del inglés y promover
activamente un entorno multilingüe más equitativo.
Palabras clave: Paisaje lingüístico en el aula, Descolonización, Imperialismo lingüístico del
inglés, Educación secundaria general, Multilingüismo, Educación de las madrasas Qawmi

89
Special Issue XII July 2025

1. Introduction
In recent years, the study of linguistic landscapes (LLs) has become important for in-
vestigating language dynamics in social, cultural, and ideological practices (cf. Abongdia &
Foncha, 2014; Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009). The LLs in classrooms
are tangible reflections of institutional policies, historical legacies, academic ideologies,
identity development, and pedagogical practices. The focus in this study is on two different
streams of education in Bangladesh, namely general Bengali medium (BM) education and
Qawmi madrasa education (ME), to examine how LLs are constructed, maintained, and
interpreted in classrooms.
In general education schools (also called mainstream schools), students study a cur-
riculum that emphasises Bengali as the national language and English as a compulsory
language. This system of education is “more or less a colonial legacy” of the British (Ali,
1986). This mainstream education started in the colonial past and was implemented during
British colonialism (Rahman et al., 2010); the ideology in these schools has been shaped
by the “complex mix of colonial heritage” (Thornton 2006). Macaulay’s (1835) Minute in-
stitutionalised Western knowledge through the use of English (Ghosh, 1993/2012; Mukerji,
1957). The rapid expansion of English schools and the establishment of Zila and collegiate
schools in the 19th century entrenched the dominance of English (Seal, 1968; Ali, 1986);
at present, this legacy reinforces the colonial framework that privileges Western linguistic
and cultural capital (Nurullah & Naik, 1962).
By contrast, MEs were conceptualised and established as a “rejection to the British
education policy” without receiving funding from the state; an example is the Darul-Uloom
Deoband, which was established by the Muslim community in India in 1866 (Hussain, 2018:
vii; see also Al-Hasani et al., 2017, p. 3). Similarly, due to British colonisation, the educa-
tion, culture, and social condition of the Muslim society in East Bengal (now Bangladesh)
has been demoralised to the point of destroying the local beliefs and national-racial identity.
To decolonise the nation from Western (i.e., British) cultural aggression, a group of Muslim
communities in Bangladesh decided to establish a madrasa called Darul Uloom Hathazari
at Hathazari in Chittagong, Bangladesh, in 1901 following the model of the Darul-Uloom
Deoband in India (AlHasani, 2020). Moreover, the teaching method and ideology were
developed in accordance with the Dars-i-Nizami curriculum, which originated in Baghdad
in the 11th century (Al-Hasani, 2017). Qawmi madrasas are managed by 19 independent
private boards (Asadullah & Chaudhury, 2016). In April 2017, the Bangladesh government
recognised the highest Qawmi madrasa degree as being equivalent to a university master’s
degree (Hussain, 2018).
In 2020, the total enrolment in Bangladesh’s secondary schools was approximately
9,016,773 students; by 2022, this figure had decreased to around 8,930,245, a net reduction of
86,524 learners over two years. These students were distributed across approximately 18,874
government and nongovernment secondary institutions, highlighting the extensive reach of
the country’s formal education system. By contrast, the Qawmi madrasas have experienced
exponential expansion: There are currently 39,612 registered Qawmi madrasas nationwide;
when unregistered institutions are included, the total rises to an estimated 64,000–70,000
madrasas. Over the past four decades, the number of Qawmi madrasas has increased sev-

90
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

enty‑fold (an average annual increase of approximately 1,750 new establishments); these
institutions currently educate around 5,247,660 students (54% of their enrolment), with 85%
being situated in rural areas and 85% of students residing in boarding facilities (see Hakim,
2021, amongst many others).

2. Literature review

2.1. Defining an LL

An LL is broadly defined as the language “displayed and exposed in public spaces”

(Shohamy & Gorter, 2009, p. 1). LLs have been examined across multiple disciplines since
Landry and Bourhis (1997) first described LLs as “the visibility and salience of languages on
public and commercial signs in a given territory or region”. Studies have also characterised an
LL as the study of writing on display in the public sphere (Coulmas, 2009) or as “language
that is visible to all in a specified area” (Gorter, 2006, p. 2). Brito (2016) provided an over-
view of various definitions and methodological approaches, while Mensel, Vandenbroucke,
and Blackwood (2016) emphasised the breadth and focus of linguistic landscape research.
They defined the field as one concerned with the representation of language(s) in public
spaces, where the objects of study include any visible display of written language—referred
to as ‘‘signs’’—as well as the ways in which individuals interact with these signs (p. 423).
Signs may range from road signs to names of streets, shops, and schools (Shohamy et
al., 2010) and texts on billboards or other public media (Torkington, 2009). Regarding LLs,
Gorter (2006) differentiated between “the literal study of the languages as they are used in
the signs” and “the representation of the languages”, while Jaworski and Thurlow (2010, p.
3) presented LLs as a “way of seeing the external world”, including everyday activities such
as conversations and shopping. Kallen (2010) also highlighted portals — spaces in which
mobility and technology converge — as a lens through which to view the dynamic nature
of signage. Of note, Landry and Bourhis (1997, p. 25) focused on “the language of public
road signs, boards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs
on government buildings”, while Bourhis and Landry (2002) clarified that an LL “refers
to language that is visible in a specified area”, and Sciriha (2004) and Sciriha & Vassallo
(2001) adopted the concept to analyse multilingual realities in larger regions. An LL has
both informational and symbolic functions, as it indicates where services or locations are
situated while also signalling the ethnic or linguistic communities that claim these spaces
(Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Lou, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). The LL framework reveals broader
power and identity issues (cf. Blommaert, 1999); for example, Grishaeva (2015) viewed LLs
as a crossroads of professional and social interests of a region.
Similarly, Perono Cacciafoco and Cavallaro (2023) identified four components - nature,
culture, society, and economy - through which LLs illustrate how people’s social identities
are formed in context. Kallen (2023) observed that displayed language contained “pragmatic
principles”, thus revealing its power as a socially conventional system that often manifests
in indexical or symbolic meanings (Eragamreddy, 2024). In particular, commercial signage
may emphasise modernity or tradition, in addition to marking status (Gorter & Cenoz, 2023;
Shohamy & Gorter, 2009).

91
Special Issue XII July 2025

2.2. LL: Scopes and Utility

The scope of LLs has been extended in sociolinguistic studies due to the era of glo-
balisation, the “techno-feudal society” (Varoufakis, 2024), and the emergence of the post-
colonial voice. As can be seen, multilingual signs, symbols, and makers in bottom-up and/
or top-down situations are regarded as having cultural power, where multilingualism arises
as a consequence of the local district’s confrontation with globalization (Lee, 2019). For
example, Ahmad and Hillman (2021) argued that, in multilingual or multicultural regions,
government messages alone were insufficient when literacy rates were low and emphasised
the crucial role of public figures and community involvement in disseminating vital infor-
mation. However, it is essential to differentiate LL studies from studies of signed languages,
which focus on the visually perceived communicative systems of Deaf communities (Brentari,
2010; McBurney, 2006; Sutton-Spence, 2005). While signed languages rely on gestures and
on visual-spatial modalities (Sutton-Spence, 2005), LL studies mainly examine written forms
in public spaces (Torkington, 2009).
Studies have approached LLs from both macrolevel perspectives, analysing entire regions
or nations (Sciriha & Vassallo, 2001; Sciriha, 2004), and microlevel approaches that focus on
specific urban signage (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). In both cases, LLs function as a “social
reproduction system” (Blommaert, 1999, pp. 10-11) that disseminates dominant linguistic
ideologies and values. The research ranges from Landry and Bourhis’ (1997) foundational
definitions to broader explorations of how “language in the environment, words and images
displayed and exposed in public spaces” (Shohamy & Gorter, 2009) and shapes social iden-
tities and ideologies. An LL’s informational and symbolic functions are evident in various
contexts, ranging from commercial signage, which signals modernity or prestige (Lee, 2019;
Tan & Tan, 2015), to educational environments in which power dynamics are navigated (cf.
Dressler, 2015; Im, 2020). The LL also adapts to convey urgent public health messages during
crises (Ahmad & Hillman, 2021; Alhazmi, 2024; Marshall, 2021). Collectively, these studies
illustrate how public displays of written language reflect and reshape cultural, economic, and
social transformations, thus establishing LLs as a powerful lens for understanding multilingual
management, collective identity, and meaning negotiation in shared spaces.
Existing frameworks such as “schoolscapes” mainly address the physical manifestations
of signage in educational settings (Gorter, 2018) and the influence of sign content on lan-
guage ideologies (Alsaif & Starks, 2018). However, the term classroom linguistic landscape
(CLL; see Section 2.3) has been introduced to capture a broader, more nuanced reality.
Unlike schoolscapes, which mainly focus on external, top-down signage, CLL encompasses
the entire classroom as a dynamic semiotic environment in which heterogeneous textual
and visual artefacts (e.g., textbooks, motivational quotations, digital interfaces, and official
documents) collaboratively construct and negotiate linguistic meaning. This expanded concept
acknowledges not only the informational role of signage, but also the active and interactive
processes that shape communicative practices, identity formation, and power relations within
the classroom. CLL provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding the internal
microlevel dynamics of language in education, thus necessitating its distinction from the
somewhat limited notion of schoolscapes.

92
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

2.3. CLL

In developing a theoretical framework for CLL, the proposition in this study is that the
classroom constitutes a complex semiotic environment in which heterogeneous textual and
visual artefacts collaboratively construct and negotiate linguistic meaning. The framework
posits that traditional textual resources (i.e., written texts, motivational quotations, textbooks,
workbooks, and official documents) operate in conjunction with visual representations,
including posters, charts, maps, timelines, and digital interfaces, thereby engendering a
multifaceted LL. This landscape not only reflects existing sociocultural and pedagogical
dynamics, but also actively shapes communicative practices, identity formation, and power
relations within the educational setting. Consequently, the CLL framework provides a robust
analytical paradigm for examining the intricate interplay amongst language, symbolism, and
institutional norms in the classroom. Therefore, a CLL is defined as a dynamic semiotic
environment within educational settings in which heterogeneous textual and visual artefacts
collaboratively mediate linguistic meaning, identity, and power relations.
CLL is a key pedagogical tool for enhancing learning through (inter)cultural awareness
in the classroom. This involves the visible language in a given environment, including signs,
posters, and other texts. Studies have shown that integrated educational settings improve
language learning by providing real-world scenarios for language applications (e.g., Wiśniews-
ka, 2024; Zhu & Fu, 2023). One of the main benefits of using CLLs in the classroom or
in teaching materials is their ability to promote translanguaging practices, intercultural ac-
ceptance, and the development of linguistic ideologies that allow students to draw on their
entire linguistic repertoire. For example, they can create spaces in which students’ diverse
linguistic backgrounds are acknowledged and valued, thereby enriching their learning ex-
periences (e.g., Straszer et al., 2020; Wedin et al., 2021). CLLs enhance language learning
and foster a sense of belonging and identity (e.g., Guarda & Mayr, 2023).
High-quality visual materials assist in language acquisition (Yildiz, 2020). Similarly,
English signage in the classroom helps learners to engage with the language and to under-
stand its cultural nuances (Dumanig & David, 2019). Moreover, CLL may help to develop
language skills while encouraging students to think critically about linguistic diversity and
power in multilingual contexts; for example, signage in the classroom can stimulate discus-
sions about linguistic power relations and the importance of different languages in society
(e.g., Brinkmann et al., 2022). This engagement is essential for intercultural competence,
as it helps learners to navigate and appreciate diverse language uses (Ahmed, 2024). Thus,
CLL in language classes aligns with experiential pedagogies (e.g., Victoria, 2018; Zhou,
2023), thereby enhancing relevance through authentic engagement and translanguaging while
fostering inclusive environments that increase linguistic proficiency and cultural awareness.

2.4. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in CLLs: Multilingualism

Linguistic imperialism may remain evident in CLLs. For example, the use of English
signage has become dominant globally as a symbol of prosperity and status and for deco-
rative functions (Tan & Tan, 2015: 66). Dressler (2014) used nexus analysis to show how
teachers’ sign-making is shaped by their social roles, interactional practices and bilingual

93
Special Issue XII July 2025

ideologies, while state and school agencies may often use CLLs to convey hidden agendas
and implicit messages (cf. Przymus & Kohler, 2017).
English linguistic imperialism is rooted in historical (neo)colonisation, which may create
inequalities between English and other languages in different forms and manners (Brown,
2022; Phillipson, 1992). For example, in Ireland, the control of language policies in educa-
tion by authorities outside of the Deaf community resulted in a lack of representation and
support for minority languages such as Irish Sign Language (Rose & Conama, 2017). Sim-
ilarly, in the Philippines, the spread of English has undermined local languages and cultural
identities (Zeng & Tian, 2022). Thus, the spread of English worldwide has been referred to
as the “McDonaldization” of public signage, and English often eclipses local languages (see
Vandenbroucke, 2016). These inequalities privilege English speakers (Roth, 2018). Moreover,
the visual dominance of English on commercial signage is often associated with modernity
and elitism (Hasanova, 2010).
As described above, the hegemony of English in a CLL affects culture and ideology.
For example, Saba (2023) showed that stereotypes and cultural hierarchies were embedded
in teaching materials such as English textbooks, which may result in homogeneous cultural
expressions and identities (cf. El-Qassaby, 2015; Fitriyantisyam & Munandar, 2021). By
contrast, a multilingual CLL can provide a balance of voices and resist linguistic imperial-
ism in the classroom.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study used a qualitative case study design based on the principles of visual eth-
nography and situated within the framework of linguistic landscape (LL) research. This
approach enabled a context-sensitive investigation of classroom-level linguistic landscapes
(CLLs) in different secondary educational institutions in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The aim of
the study was to investigate how visual and textual artifacts such as textbooks, posters and
digital interfaces reflect linguistic hierarchies and ideologies in the classroom.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Photographic documentation (Özkalıpçı & Volpellier, 2010; Tahir & Bidin, 2019) was
used in this study as an instrument to systematically collect CLLs within classroom spaces,
including textbooks, posters, noticeboards, and other educational artefacts. The data were
collected from January 2025 to March 2025.
Data were analysed using a semiotic approach, focusing on the symbolic meanings,
compositional structures, and linguistic features of the artefacts. This qualitative analysis was
complemented by descriptive and inferential quantitative techniques, including frequency counts
and percentage distributions across language types and artefact categories. Table 2 presents
the distribution of linguistic representations across English, Bengali, Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi
within multiple artefact types (e.g., motivational quotes, textbooks, digital content). This
mixed-method approach allowed for both contextual interpretation and pattern identification.

94
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

Figure 1. Area of the study

The CLL data were captured using a high-resolution digital camera (12 megapixels)
from a standardised distance (1.5 m) to minimise distortion and to document accurate sizes
and placements. Every visible sign (virtual and material), defined as any publicly displayed
textual or combined text‑image artefact, was photographed. The metadata that were recorded
for each image included the institution type, classroom identity, the date and time of capture,
and the physical (or virtual) location (e.g., left wall, top centre). All the photographs were
saved in JPEG format with filenames coded according to the institution, the classroom, and
the sign’s ID (e.g., BM01_CR02_SIGN15.jpg). With regard to personal information, iden-
tifiable information was blurred during postprocessing to ensure anonymity. The data were
analysed using a semiotic analysis with descriptive and inferential quantitative statistics to
reveal symbols, patterns, and hierarchical structures.

3.3. Sampling

This study was conducted in secondary level classrooms (grades 6-10, BM and ME) in
Dhaka, Bangladesh. Simple random sampling was used to select 20 institutions in the study
area. Three classrooms were purposely selected from each institution based on the relevance
of the study. The purposive sampling strategy was used to ensure diverse representation. A
total of 876 photographic data from 60 classrooms with 2139 students. The selected class-
rooms included a range of linguistic backgrounds and CLLs. As can be seen in Table 1 and
Figure 1, the settings were categorised by type. A total of 20 equally staffed institutions
were selected, comprising 876 samples.

95
Special Issue XII July 2025

Table 1. Sampling Framework

Students
Number of Classrooms per Number of Total number
Type of institution Level of study
institutions institution photos of students in
classrooms
General Bengali 5 15 226 531
Medium (BM) 5 15 196 546
Secondary
Qwami Madrasas 5 15 263 509
school
Education (ME) 5 15 191 553
Total 20 60 876 2139

4. Results

4.1. CLLs in BM and ME Classrooms

Table 2 shows the linguistic composition within the CLLs of BM and ME classrooms
in Bangladesh and the significant differences in the language use in these educational con-
texts. As can be seen, English was the dominant language in BM institutions, accounting
for 36.97% of linguistic artefacts compared to 20.85% in Bengali. This disparity was evi-
dent across several key categories. For example, in official documents and notices, English
accounted for 9.00% of the artefacts, whereas Bengali accounted for just 6.61%. In the
combined text-images category, English comprised 13.03% of the linguistic elements, while
Bengali accounted for only 2.84%. English was also represented in 9.72% of the technological
interfaces, while Bengali only accounted for 0.71%. These findings indicate a marked insti-
tutional preference for English, which probably reflects the on-going influence of linguistic
imperialism in shaping educational practices and reinforcing dominant-language ideologies.
Conversely, the CLLs in the ME institutions showed a pronounced multilingual ori-
entation. Arabic predominated (27.31%) in the categories of written texts and textual arte-
facts, followed by Bengali (12.33%), Urdu (11.01%), Farsi (5.29%), and English (5.51%).
The focus was also on Arabic (5.29%) in official documents and communications, while
Bengali (1.98%), English (1.76%), and Urdu (1.10%) constituted smaller proportions and
Farsi did not appear. In the combined category of text-images, English (7.92%) and Arabic
(6.61%) were represented most frequently, whereas Bengali accounted for only 1.76%, and
Urdu and Farsi were not represented. Technological interfaces also illustrated multilingual
characteristics, with English accounting for 7.05%, Arabic for 2.86%, Bengali for 1.10%,
Urdu for 0.44%, and Farsi for 0.66%. Overall, these findings highlight the dynamic and
diverse nature of the LLs in MEs and illustrate how the integration of multiple languages
can foster a rich communicative environment and strengthen the cultural and educational
identities within these institutions.

96
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

4.2. Spatial Distribution and Typographic Characteristics of CLLs

Table 3 shows the spatial and typographic characteristics of CLLs across the BM and
ME institutions. As can be seen, 876 signs were analysed, of which 492 (56.2%) were
bilingual or multilingual. In BM settings (n = 164), Bengali signage was predominantly
displayed horizontally (9.96%) and was frequently positioned on the left (15.44%) or at
the top (15.04%). By contrast, English signage in BM contexts appeared less frequently in
a horizontal orientation (4.87%) and more often vertically (9.95%), with 15.44% of signs
exhibiting variations in font size. Conversely, the CLLs in ME institutions (n = 328) were
notably more diverse. Bengali signage in these settings was observed at 6.91% horizontally
and 5.48% vertically, while English signage was displayed at 4.26% horizontally and 11.17%
vertically, with 6.91% showing different font sizes. Of note, Arabic signage, which was min-
imally present in BM environments, accounted for 9.14% of the vertical signs and 27.23%
of signs that had varied font sizes in ME institutions, suggesting a strong visual emphasis.
In addition, Urdu and Farsi signage in ME settings were present less frequently (e.g., Urdu:
2.43% horizontal, 6.30% vertical; Farsi: 1.21% horizontal, 0.40% vertical) with variations
in the placement. These findings indicate significant and different uses of language(s) in the
CLLs in BM and ME institutions.
The spatial and typographic patterns of classroom signage revealed competing semi-
otic hierarchies and identities within the BM and ME institutions. In BM classrooms, the
left‑aligned, horizontally oriented Bengali signs occupied “prime real estate”, reflecting a
default orientation towards the national language as being both normative and pedagogically
central. By contrast, English appeared in smaller fonts and in vertical formats, signifying its
instrumental value for global capital rather than as a locus of everyday cultural belonging.
This layout mirrors a postcolonial bifurcation in which English functions as a secondary
aspirational code that is visible but is spatially subordinated to Bengali.
Conversely, the ME CLLs inverted these hierarchies through the pronounced visual
prominence of Arabic signage — large fonts, vertical placement, and frequent positioning at
the top — to assert religious authority and cultural continuity. The more peripheral placement
of Bengali, English, Urdu, and Farsi indicated a deliberate multilingual collection: Arabic
was not only visible, but was also visually prioritised, thus reinforcing its symbolic central-
ity in religious studies. This spatial ordering enacted a form of resistance to monolingual
nationalist and anglophone ideologies and valorised the scriptural language as the primary
semiotic resource and materials for learning at the MEs.

97
 July 2025

English Bengali Arabic Urdu Farsi

Total
Category Type of representation n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
BM ME BM ME BM ME BM ME BM ME -
27 8 19 11 0 22 0 5 0 0

Note: BM = Bengali medium; ME = Madrasa education.

Motivational quotes 92
Table 2. Visual and Textual Representations in CLLs

(3.08) (0.91 (2.16) (1.25) (0) (2.51) (0) (0.57) (0) (0)
22 12 38 24 2 40 0 29 0 18
Textbook covers 185
(2.51) (1.36) (4.33 (2.73) (0.22) (4.56) (0) (3.31) (0) (2.05)
Written
32 2 17 9 0 25 0 12 0 5
texts / textu- Workbooks and handouts 102
(3.65) (0.22) (1.94) (1.02) (0) (2.85) (0) (1.36) (0) (0.57)
al artefacts
Posters and charts (e.g., 36 3 9 5 0 12 0 4 0 1
70
grammar rules) (4.10) (0.34) (1.02) (0.57) (0) (1.36) (0) (0.45) (0) (0.11)
Nameplates, diaries, note- 39 0 5 7 0 25 0 0 0 0
76
books (4.45) (0) (0.57) (0.79) (0) (2.85) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Announcements (e.g., event 26 3 11 6 0 9 0 5 0 0
Official doc- 60
or examination notices) (2.96) (0.34) (1.25) (0.68) (0) (1.02) (0) (0.57) (0) (0)
uments and
notices 12 5 15 3 0 15 0 0 0 0
Policy guidelines (micro) 50
(1.36) (0.57) (1.71) (0.34) (0) (1.71) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Maps /instruments/ time- 17 16 7 2 0 11 0 0 0 0
53
lines/charts (1.94) (1.82) (0.79) (0.22) (0) (1.25) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Combined
Flags and other national or 23 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
(text-im- 37
international symbols (2.62) (0.79) (0.57) (0.22) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
ages)
15 13 0 4 0 19 0 0 0 0
Calendars 51
(1.71) (1.48) (0) (0.45) (0) (2.16) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Screens and digital content 12 7 3 5 1 13 0 2 0 3
46
Technolog- (e.g., presentations) (1.36) (0.79) (0.34) (0.57) (0.11) (1.48) (0) (0.22) (0) (0.34)
ical inter- Devices (e.g., default lan-
Special Issue XII

faces 29 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
guage settings on computers 54
(3.31) (2.85) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
or tablets)
Total 290 101 129 78 3 191 0 57 0 27 876

98
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

Table 3. Size and Emplacement of CLLs

Bilingual Horizontal signs Vertical signs Different font sizes
Medium of n (%) n (%) n (%)
& multilin-
instruction
gual signs Left Right Top Down Large Small
49 24 15 76 18 74
Bengali
BM (9.96) (4.88) (3.04) (15.44) (3.65) (15.04)
(n = 164) 24 49 76 15 94 12
English
(4.87) (9.95) (15.44) (3.04) (19.10) (2.43)
34 27 14 20 19 23
Bengali
(6.91) (5.48) (2.84) (4.06) (3.86) (4.67)
21 55 34 17 41 19
English
(4.26) (11.17) (6.91) (3.45) (8.33) (3.86)
ME 0 45 134 13 142 13
Arabic
(n = 328) (0%) (9.14) (27.23) (2.64) (28.86) (2.64)
12 31 4 23 6 26
Urdu
(2.43) (6.30) (0.81) (4.67) (1.21) (5.28)
6 2 3 16 3 19
Farsi
(1.21) (0.40) (0.60) (3.25) (0.60) (3.86)
Note: BM = Bengali medium; ME = Madrasa education.

4.3. The Language(s) Difference(s) in CLLs in BM and ME

Figure 2. Boxplot Visualisation of Signs in BM

Figure 1 provides boxplot visualisations comparing the distribution of bilingual signage

in BM classrooms across four categories: written texts/textual artefacts, official documents
and notices, combined text-images, and technological interfaces for English (M = 72.50)
versus Bengali (M = 32.25) signs. As can be seen, English signage showed a substantially
wider interquartile range and overall range compared to Bengali signage, indicating greater
variability in its presence across BM classrooms. The median value for English signs was
markedly higher than it was for Bengali signs, and the dispersion of English data points
extended further towards both extremes, whereas the Bengali dataset remained tightly clus-
tered around its median with a comparatively small interquartile range. These descriptive
patterns demonstrate that English signage was both more abundant and more variably de-

99
Special Issue XII July 2025

ployed across classroom settings, whereas Bengali signage was more uniformly present, but
at lower frequencies (see Figure 2).

Figure 3. Use of Languages by CLL Actors

The bar chart illustrates the distribution of five languages across two mediums of in-
struction. In the BM English emerges as the dominant language with (n = 290), followed
by Bengali (n = 129), with minimal promotion of Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi. In contrast, the
ME exhibits a more diversified linguistic distribution, with substantial promotion of Arabic
(n = 191), moderate use of Urdu (n = 57) and Farsi (n = 27), and notable inclusion of
English (n = 101) and Bengali (n = 78). These patterns, supported by the statistically chi-
square results in table 4.

Table 4. Chi-Square Results of Language Usage across two mediums

BM ME
Language χ²
n % n %
English 290 68.72 101 22.25
Bengali 129 30.57 78 17.18
Arabic 3 0.71 191 42.07
χ²(4) = 369.43 p < .001
Urdu 0 0 57 12.56
Farsi 0 0 27 5.95
Total 422 100 454 100

As can be seen, an analysis of language distribution across two educational mediums,

BM and ME revealed distinct linguistic orientations. In the BM context, language promotion
was overwhelmingly concentrated on English (68.72%) and Bengali (30.57%), with minimal
representation of Arabic (0.71%) and no inclusion of Urdu or Farsi (0%). In contrast, the ME
context demonstrated a more multilingual profile. Arabic constituted the highest proportion
of language promotion (42.07%), followed by English (22.25%), Bengali (17.18%), Urdu
(12.56%), and Farsi (5.95%). A chi-square test of independence confirmed that these differ-
ences were statistically significant, χ²(4, N = 876) = 369.43, p < .001, indicating that the

100
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

association between medium of instruction and language distribution is not due to chance. The
result supports the conclusion that BM and ME represent fundamentally different approaches
to multilingualism, shaped by their sociolinguistic, cultural, and ideological frameworks.

5. Discussion
CLLs can play a role in resisting or promoting the linguistic hegemony of colonial
legacies, and a range of textual and visual artefacts can promote or challenge the traditional
language hierarchies of dominant colonial norms. Thus, multilingual CLL practices may further
support decolonisation by using local languages in classroom materials. Moreover, pluralistic
linguistic repertoires in CLLs (regional and continental) resist symbols of colonialism. They
may also enable learners to develop a positive multilingual ideology via cultural engagement.
In Bangladesh, general BM schools prioritise English either overtly or covertly, whereas
English is somewhat equal and less prioritised in ME institutions due to the use of multilin-
gual (e.g., Urdu, Arabic, Bengali, English, and Farsi) practices (macrolevel and microlevel)
as local and/or continental languages and culturally specific knowledge. ME education’s
deliberate challenge to the hegemony of the sole use of English reinforces the local linguistic
and cultural identity and resources. The CLLs divide the use of language skills in BMs and
MEs. For example, BM students can only belong to English and Bengali academic domains,
whereas ME students are capable of using a number of continental languages, together with
Bengali and English (see Figure 3). The distinct CLLs in these two streams originated in
and impacted on sociocultural ideologies. For example, ME institutions deliberately adopt
diverse texts from multilingual resources and focus on orientalism. However, BM institutions
have adopted the colonial language (i.e., English) due to its socioeconomic benefits. As a
result, the ME students show less linguistic bias towards any language, rather belonging to
multilingualism.
The spatial configurations and the typographic variations in the CLLs differed markedly
between the BM and ME classrooms, and suggest different linguistic ideologies, institutional
policies, and individual practices. For example, the dominance of English was visible in BM
classrooms due to the bilingual signage in Bengali and English, with English mainly being
placed on the right of horizontal signs or at the top of a vertical sign in a larger font size
than Bengali, reflecting a conventional layout that reinforces established linguistic hierarchies.
This pattern suggests that BM institutions may promote English as a symbol of modernity
and perpetuate the perception of English superiority. By contrast, ME institutions have a more
complex and diverse linguistic composition. In particular, the substantial presence of Arabic
signage, particularly with high percentages at the top in a vertical orientation and mainly in a
larger font size, indicates a deliberate effort to demonstrate linguistic and cultural ideologies.
In addition, the moderate inclusion of Urdu and Farsi signage in ME classrooms indicates
multilingual CLLs to reflect cultural identities. The varied placement and sizes of the signage
across languages may suggest that ME institutions engage in nuanced spatial arrangements
to symbolise the relative prominence and ideological position of the languages. Therefore,
CLLs are a crucial area for the negotiation of language, power, and cultural identity.

101
Special Issue XII July 2025

6. Conclusion
This study examined CLLs in BMs and MEs in Bangladesh. Despite the political rhet-
oric of multilingual inclusion, general (mainstream) academies reinforce the dominance of
English in their signage and textual artefacts, reflecting the continuing influence of colonial
language hierarchies. By contrast, ME classrooms exhibit a more balanced multilingual
CLL, thus actively resisting the linguistic hegemony. These differences in CLLs represent
linguistic belongings and ideologies that shape and reinforce institutional priorities and so-
ciocultural identities. This study may contribute to understanding linguistic power structures
in education by showing how different streams manage language hierarchies. The privileged
status of English in BMs is a response to global economic demands, while the multilingual
focus in MEs reinforces multilingualism for oriental cultural and religious identities. Future
research should investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions of CLLs and their impact on
language ideology and identity formation.

7. References
Abongdia, J.-F. A., & Foncha, J. W. (2014). Language ideologies in the linguistic landscape of
one university in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(7), 623–630.
Ahmad, R., & Hillman, S. (2021). Laboring to communicate: Use of migrant languages in CO-
VID-19 awareness campaign in Qatar. Multilingua, 40(3), 303–337.
Ahmed, M. (2024). Promoting intercultural pluralism: Linguistic diversity in Saudi EFL education.
World Journal of English Language, 14(5), 313.
Ali, M. A. (1986). Shikhar songkhipto itihash [in Bangla]. Dhaka: Bangla Academy.
Alhazmi, A. (2024). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic linguistic landscapes on lifestyle, health
awareness and behavior. World Journal of English Language, 14(3), 359.
Al Hasani, S., Ismail, A., Bakare, K. K., & Daud, E. (2017). Creating a practicing Muslim: A
study of Qawmi Madrasah in Bangladesh. British Journal of Education, Society & Be-
havioural Science, 20, 1–9.
Al-Hasani, S. M. A. (2020). Madrasah education in Bangladesh: A comparative study between
Aliya and Qawmi. Journal of Creative Writing, 4(2). DISC International.
Asadullah, M. N., & Chaudhury, N. (2016). To madrasas or not to madrasas: The question and
correlates of enrolment in Islamic schools in Bangladesh. International Journal of Edu-
cational Development, 49, 55–69.
Blommaert, J. (1999). Language ideological debates: Introduction and postscript. In J. Blommaert
(Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 1–38). Mouton de Gruyter.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical
study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Bourhis, R.Y. & Landry, R. (2002). La loi 101 et l’aménagement du paysage linguistique au
Québec. Revue d’aménagement linguistique, Fall, 107-132.
Brentari, D. (Ed.). (2010). Sign Languages. Cambridge University Press.
Brinkmann, L., Duarte, J., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2022). Promoting plurilingualism through linguistic
landscapes: A multi-method and multisite study in Germany and the Netherlands. TESL
Canada Journal, 38(2), 88–112.

102
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

Brito A. 2016, Multilingualism and Mobility: A Linguistic Landscape Analysis of Three Neigh-
bourhoods in Malmö, Sweden, MA Thesis, Lund University, Lund.
Brown, J. M. (2022). Unspoken indigenous history on the stage: The postcolonial plays of Jack
Davis. New Theatre Quarterly, 38(4), 333–345.
Coulmas, F. (2009). Linguistic landscaping and the seed of the public sphere. In E. Shohamy &
D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 13–24). Routledge.
Dressler, R. (2014). Signgeist: promoting bilingualism through the linguistic landscape of school
signage. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(1), 128–145.
Dressler, R. (2015). Exploring Linguistic Identity in Young Multilingual Learners. TESL Canada
Journal, 32 (1), 42-52.
Dumanig, F. P., & David, M. K. (2019). Linguistic landscape as a pedagogical tool in teaching
and learning English in Oman. Modern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching
and Literature, 1, 1–13.
El-Qassaby, H. (2015). Linguistic imperialism and reshaping the world’s new identity: A research
paper in linguistics. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 61.
Eragamreddy, N. (2024). Semiotic functions of indexicality. International Journal of Current
Science Research and Review, 7(5), 2453–2467.
Fitriyantisyam, H., & Munandar, A. (2021). Postcolonial translation studies: Foreignization and
domestication of culture-specific items in Of Mice and Men’s Indonesian translated ver-
sions. Rubikon Journal of Transnational American Studies, 8(1), 1-14.
Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach to mul-
tilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 1–6.
Gorter, D. (2017). Linguistic landscapes and trends in the study of schoolscapes. Linguistics and
Education, 44, 80–85.
Gorter, D. (2018). Schoolscapes and their sociolinguistic significance. In M. Martin-Jones & D.
Martin (Eds.), Researching multilingualism: Critical and ethnographic perspectives (pp.
81–96). Routledge.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Translanguaging and linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape,
1(1–2), 54–74.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2023). Symbolic meanings in commercial signage. Semiotic Studies,
22(2), 150–164.
Ghosh, S. C. (1993). ‘English in taste, in opinions, in words and intellect’: Indoctrinating the
Indian through textbook, curriculum and education. In J. A. Mangan (Ed.), The imperial
curriculum: Racial images and education in the British colonial experience (pp. 175–193).
Routledge. (Reprinted 2012)
Grishaeva, E. B. (2015). Linguistic landscape of the city of Krasnoyarsk. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 200, 210–214.
Guarda, M., & Mayr, G. (2023). Responding inclusively to linguistic diversity in the classroom:
Preliminary findings from the COMPASS initiative with primary school teachers in South
Tyrol (Italy). In M. Tesar (Ed.), The future of teacher education: Innovations across pe-
dagogies, technologies and societies (Vol. 7, pp. 255–285). Brill.
Hakim, A. (2021, January 15). Increasing student enrollment in Qawmi madrasas [Komi madrasae
kramabardhman chatrosongshok itibachke]. Bangla Tribune. https://www.banglatribune.com/
columns/839530/komi-madrasay-kromabardhman-chatrosongshok-itibachke

103
Special Issue XII July 2025

Hasanova, D. (2010). English as a trademark of modernity and elitism. English Today, 26(1), 3–8.
Hussain, A. A. (2018). State, Qawmi madrasas, and children in Bangladesh: From a social pro-
tection perspective (Master’s thesis). International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague,
The Netherlands.
Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. (2010). Introducing semiotic landscapes. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow
(Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 1-40). London: Continuum.
Kreslins, J. (2003). Multilingual realities in Baltic regions. Baltic Linguistic Review, 9(2), 34–48.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Lee, J. S. (2019). Multilingual advertising in the linguistic landscape of Seoul. In T. Bhatia &
S. S. Kathpalia (Eds.), World Englishes and cross-cultural advertising [Special issue],
World Englishes, 38(3), 500–518.
Lou, J. J. (2016a). The linguistic landscape of Chinatown: A sociolinguistic ethnography. Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Lou, J. J. (2016b, April 10). Ways of walking, ways of seeing: Doing mobile video ethnography
in linguistic landscape research. Presentation in the colloquium “Linguistic landscape
analysis and the representation of visual data,” American Association for Applied Lin-
guistics (AAAL), Orlando, FL.
Lou, J. J. (2016c). Shop sign as monument: The discursive recontextualization of a neon sign.
Linguistic Landscape, 2(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.2.3.01lou
Mensel, L., Vandenbroucke, M., & Blackwood, R. (1997). Interactions with visible displays of
written language. Linguistic Landscape Studies, 7(2), 101–118.
Mensel, L. V., Vandenbroucke, M., & Blackwood, R. (2016). Linguistic landscapes. In O. Gar-
cia, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp.
423–449). Oxford University Press.
Mukerji, S. N. (1957). History of education in India: Modern period. Acharya Book Depot.
Nurullah, S., & Naik, J. P. (1962). A student history of education in India (1860–1965). Mac-
millan & Co Ltd.
Özkalıpçı, O., & Volpellier, M. (2010). Photographic documentation: A practical guide for non-
professional forensic photography. Torture: Quarterly Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture
Victims and Prevention of Torture, 20(1), 45–52.
Perono Cacciafoco, F., and Cavallaro, F. (2023). Place names: Approaches and perspectives in
toponymy and toponomastics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Przymus, S., & Kohler, A. (2017). SIGNS: Uncovering the mechanisms by which messages in
the linguistic landscape influence language/race ideologies and educational opportunities.
Linguistics and Education, 44, 58–68.
Rahman, M. M., Hamzah, A. I. M., & Meerah, S. M. (2010). Historical development of secon-
dary education in Bangladesh: Colonial period to 21st century. International Education
Studies, 3(1), 114–125.
Rose, H., & Conama, J. (2017). Linguistic Imperialism: Still a valid construct in relation to
language policy for Irish Sign Language. Language Policy, 17(3), 385–404.
Saba, T., & Siddiqui, B. (2023). Portrayal of the ‘Other’: Tracing the linguistic imperialism in
English textbooks of matric and intermediate. Journal of Development and Social Scien-
ces, 4(2), 95–109.

104
Abdul Awal The Classroom Linguistic Landscape (CLL): examining English...

Sciriha, L. (2004) Keeping in Touch. The Sociolinguistics of Mobile Telephony in Malta. Malta:
Agenda.
Sciriha, L. & Vassallo, M. (2001) Malta – A Linguistic Landscape. Malta: Caxton.
Seal, A. (1968). The emergence of Indian nationalism: Competition and collaboration in the later
nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press.
Shohamy, E. & Gorter D. (eds.) (2009) Linguistic Landscape. Expanding the Scenery. New-York,
London: Routledge
Shohamy, E., Ben-Rafael, M., & Barni, M. (2010). Linguistic landscapes in the city: Language,
society and culture. Routledge.
Straszer, B., Rosén, J., & Wedin, Å. (2020). Spaces for translanguaging in mother tongue tuition.
Education Inquiry, 13(1), 37–55.
Sutton-Spence, R. (2005). Analysing Sign Language Poetry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tan, S. X. W., & Tan, Y. Y. (2015). Examining the functions and identities associated with English
and Korean in South Korea: A linguistic landscape study. Asian Englishes, 17(1), 59–79.
Tahir, S., & Bidin, S. J. (2019). Photographic documentation as a mode of data collection in
qualitative research: A case of pilot testing in linguistic landscape. Pakistan Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(3), 266–280.
Thornton, H. (2006). Teachers talking: The role of collaboration in secondary schools in Bangla-
desh. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(2), 181–196.
Torkington, K. (2009). Exploring the linguistic landscape: The case of the ‘Golden Triangle’ in
the Algarve, Portugal. In S. Disney, B. Forchtner, W. Ibrahim, & N. Miller (Eds.), Pa-
pers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language
Teaching (Vol. 3). Lancaster University.
Vandenbroucke, M. (2016). Socio-economic stratification of English in globalized landscapes: A
market-oriented perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(1), 86–108.
Victoria, M. (2018). The verbal and the visual in language learning and teaching: Insights from
the ‘selfie project’. Language Learning Journal, 49(1), 93–104.
Wedin, Å., Rosén, J., & Straszer, B. (2021). Multi-layered language policy and translanguaging
space: A mother tongue classroom in primary school in Sweden. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education, 13(5), 699–711.
Wiśniewska, D. (2024). Mixed-type literature review of research on L2 learning in and through
the linguistic landscape. Neofilolog, 62(2), 379–395.
Varoufakis, Y. (2024). Technofeudalism: What killed capitalism. Melville House.
Yildiz, C. D. (2020). Ideal Classroom Setting for English Language Teaching through the Views
of English Language Teachers (A Sample from Turkey). English Language Teaching,
13(3), 31–44.
Zeng, J., & Tian, N. (2022). English in the Philippines from the perspective of linguistic impe-
rialism. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 14(1)1-12.
Zhou, Y. (2023). The role of linguistic landscape in teaching Chinese as a foreign language: Taking
the linguistic landscape in Lanzhou subway station as an example. JSSHL, 6(4), 201–212.
Zhu, Y., & Fu, X. (2023). Research on strategies for integrating linguistic landscape into interna-
tional Chinese language education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities
Research, Proceedings of the 2023 3rd International Conference on Modern Educational
Technology and Social Sciences (ICMETSS 2023), 387–393. Available online 15 October 2023.

105