El Paisaje Lingüístico más allá de la Vitalidad Etnolingüísticadesde el punto de vista del signo de Peirce

Ethnolinguistic Vitality (EV), defined as the capacity of a linguistic group to function as a distinct and active collective entity in intergroup contexts (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977, p. 308), is closely related to the concept of the Linguistic Landscape (LL). Indeed, in the seminal work of Landry and Bourhis (1997), the Linguistic Landscape is conceptualized as a factor, indicator, reflection, and even a promoter of ethnolinguistic vitality. However, the direct relationship between EV and LL has subsequently been questioned, giving rise to a debate that is reviewed in this article. To clarify the relationship between Ethnolinguistic Vitality and the Linguistic Landscape, and to shed further light on the sign as the fundamental unit of analysis, this paper proposes a reexamination of the Linguistic Landscape through the lens of Peirce’s (1931–1935) theory of the sign, understood as icon, index, and symbol. The theoretical framework developed here is then applied to several case studies discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this special issue by different contributors.