A Study of the Linguistic Landscape of a Hungarian University That Is Going International

Abstract

The study of the linguistic landscape is a key area for mapping the linguistic and cultural characteristics of university campuses. This attention is manifest in the language choice employed in the signage on campus, which serves as a physical indicator of these institutions’ linguistic policies and practices. The following paper will present a multi-faculty study conducted at Széchenyi István University in Hungary. The objective of this research is to address the question of how internationalization is explicitly manifested in the institution. A further aim of this investigation was to determine to what extent foreign languages, especially English and German, are represented in the texts found at the university, and what functions these texts perform. Therefore, mixed-method research was conducted in the university’s central academic buildings and their immediate surroundings, during which photos of the signage were taken, analysed, and systematically categorized. This research yielded a comprehensive understanding of the university’s linguistic landscape and revealed the lack of a coherent foreign language policy at the university. The results can provide relevant information for consciously (re)designing the linguistic landscape of the university studied and can help other universities to plan their language policies.

1. Introduction

The internationalisation of higher education is progressing apace. Wächter and Maiworm (2014) report on the rapid rise in university English language programmes in Europe. The British Council © Studyportals Analytics and Consulting Team (2024), citing data from StudyPortals, takes an international perspective on the presence of English-language programmes in universities around the world. The report shows an average annual increase of 4.8% in the number of young people studying outside their home country. In 2024, there were 40,786 English language programmes in non-Anglophone countries.

Internationalisation is emerging as a top priority for higher education institutions around the world, and Hungary is no exception. In Hungary, 440 English-language programmes were offered in 2024 (British Council © Studyportals Analytics and Consulting Team, 2024), and their number is gradually increasing. Széchenyi István University in Győr, the largest higher education institution in the northwestern region of Hungary with around 15,000 students, is also continuously expanding its English-language courses. In 2024, there were 880 courses taught in English. The university had students from 70 different countries for the academic year 2023/2024, which strongly directed attention to language issues.

In our study, we examine the linguistic landscape of the nine campuses of Széchenyi István University. After having investigated the physical spaces of all the campuses, the focus of this study was narrowed to the central building of the university, the New Knowledge Space, where most of the English language programmes are located, and the immediate surroundings of the central campus. In mapping the signs and information boards, we were looking at the extent to which internationalisation is explicitly present in the institution since the languages of the signs on campus have not only functional but also symbolic significance. We took into account how foreign languages, in particular English and German, were represented inside and outside the university walls and the function of foreign language signage.

2. Linguistic Landscape—Overview

The study of linguistic landscapes has become a focus of increasing attention in the last decade. This phenomenon, which emerged in the twentieth century and has been growing steadily since then, has become an integral part of man-made landscapes. Although Landry, Allard and Henry had already clarified and defined the concept of a linguistic landscape in their 1996 study of the ethnolinguistic vitality of the French community in Louisiana (cf. Landry et al., 1996), the most widely quoted definition was provided by Landry and Bourhis (1997) in their study, ‘Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study’. According to Landry and Bourhis (1997), “the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration” (p. 25). It should be noted, however, that the notion existed before. In 1972, the Japanese geographer Yasuo Masai was one of the first to use the concept of linguistic landscape when he studied the use of language on shop signs in the Shinjuku district of Tokyo (Wang, 2015). In their 1977 study, Rosenbaum, Nadel, Cooper and Fishman examined the language used on signs along Keren Kayemet Street in Jerusalem, counting the proportion of English and Hebrew signs (Rosenbaum et al., 1977). Other researchers (e.g., Spolsky, 2020; Puzey, 2016) have pointed out that the term “linguistic landscape” itself is even older, having appeared in the 1960s and even in an American magazine in 1896 with a different meaning (Gorter & Cenoz, 2024). However, Landry and Bourhis deserve credit for giving the concept a name and a unified scientific framework.

Blommaert and Maly (2014) consider the study of linguistic landscape a new branch of sociolinguistics that attempts to map urban multilingualism in as much detail as possible. They extend the notion of linguistic landscape to include any kind of inscription in public spaces (cf. Gorter, 2013). The presence of written language in public spaces provides a wealth of information on the main features of the sociolinguistic system of a given area and can be used to detect social change (Blommaert & Maly, 2014). Social linguists travel the world with fieldnotes and audio recording devices, as well as digital photo cameras, and capture what is now known as ‘linguistic landscapes’ (Blommaert, 2013). According to Ben-Rafael et al. (2006), the linguistic landscape refers to the linguistic objects that mark public space; it is, in fact, a symbolic construction of public space.

A linguistic landscape has two basic functions: informative and symbolic (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). The informative function conveys knowledge and gives a picture of the inhabitants of the area, and the users of the linguistic landscape. It can also serve as a territorial marker, and the specific composition of the linguistic landscape can provide clues about the ethnic composition of an area. The symbolic function reflects power relations between ethnic groups. The presence or absence of languages on public signage indicates a community’s visibility, vitality and social position. If a local language is not represented in the linguistic landscape, this can hurt the identity of its speakers and their motivation to pass the language on to future generations. The signs that make up the linguistic landscape are classified by their creators into two broad categories as top-down vs. bottom-up (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006), formal vs. informal (Backhaus, 2006), public vs. private (Ben-Rafael et al., 2010), governmental vs. private (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). Although different in name, these categories have a very similar scope. Signs may be issued by public authorities, such as governments, municipalities, or public agencies, or by individuals, associations, or firms operating more or less autonomously within the limits of authorised regulations (Ben-Rafael et al., 2010).

Early studies of linguistic landscapes were quantitative, focusing narrowly on language and seeking to identify geographic areas, units of analysis, and the importance of languages in multilingual landscapes. However, since the 2010s, there has been an increasing shift in emphasis towards qualitative research. In addition to interviews, qualitative methods also include participant observations, attitude surveys, questionnaires and historical analyses (Huebner, 2016). Academic research into linguistic landscapes is a relatively recent development, flourishing at the beginning of the 21st century. Backhaus (2007, p. 56) compiled a chronological table listing 10 publications prior to 1998 and a further 20 between 1998 and 2006. It should be noted that Backhaus’s monograph is the first comprehensive monograph on the topic of linguistic landscape. In his study, Gorter (2017) lists the collections of studies on linguistic landscape that have contributed significantly to the development of this field of research. A Special Issue of the International Journal of Multilingualism was later published as a six-chapter volume (Gorter, 2006b) and contains case studies from, for example, Israel, Bangkok or Tokyo. A 21-chapter volume collection of studies by Shohamy and Gorter (2009) explores the linguistic landscape from various perspectives, addressing different methodological issues and analysing language policy and identity. A 19-chapter collection, edited by Shohamy et al. (2010), focuses on the city. Jaworski and Thurlow (2010) prefer the broader concept of “semiotic landscape” as an alternative to linguistic landscape. Their book is based on earlier studies of the linguistic landscape, and in 14 chapters, different authors explore the boundaries of the field while also engaging with other subjects such as tourism and urban geography. Gorter et al. (2012) focus on minority languages in the linguistic landscape. In the book’s 18 chapters, they primarily discuss European cases. It is also worth mentioning the study published by Bolton et al. (2020), which provides a critical overview of the literature on the linguistic landscape. Gorter and Cenoz’s book ‘A Panorama of Linguistic Landscape Studies’, published in 2024, is of particular importance in the field of linguistic landscape studies. The authors aim to provide an overview of the numerous studies of linguistic landscapes around the world. In addition to books and collections of studies, numerous individual journal articles have been published, which can be found in Troyer’s online bibliography on Zotero. As of October 2025, the LL Bib contains 2151 entries (Troyer, 2025). Despite the somewhat blurred boundaries of the field and the arbitrary nature of the demarcation lines, 25 edited books, 17 monographs and 18 journal Special Issues can be counted. To these, we must add the first eight volumes of the Linguistic Landscape journal (2015–2022), containing 115 articles, 22 book reviews and 2 commentaries (Gorter & Cenoz, 2024, p. 10).

As the number of linguistic signs is particularly high in cities and their shopping areas, and consequently, most studies of linguistic landscapes have been carried out in urban settings, it is appropriate to mention one or two such studies as examples. Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) compare patterns of linguistic landscapes in several Israeli cities and towns and in East Jerusalem; Huebner (2016) examines the linguistic landscape of Bangkok; Backhaus (2006) looks at multilingual signs in Tokyo; Cenoz and Gorter (2006) focus on the linguistic landscapes of two streets in two multilingual cities, one in Friesland (the Netherlands) and one in the Basque Country (Spain). The following recent studies may be of interest: Mishra (2023) analyses public and private signs in the linguistic landscape of the Indian city of Jamshedpur; Jusufi and Sadiku (2024) explore the semiotics of street scenes in Kosovo based on empirically collected photographic material, to name a few. In light of the above, we can agree with Gorter (2006a), who argues that the term ‘cityscape’ or ‘multilingual cityscape’ is more apt than ‘landscape.’

Since the 2000s, linguistic landscape studies have expanded to include research on bilingual education in educational settings, particularly schools, and the linguistic landscape of the school, or “schoolscape”, a term coined by Brown (2005, p. 79). According to Tódor (2014), the schoolscape is defined as a set of inscription types in a particular educational setting, and thus visual linguistic manifestations of local interpretations of official language ideologies. The analysis of the school linguistic landscape also provides an opportunity for self-analysis of a particular educational institution, since it contains the institution’s hidden curriculum and is an explicit reflection of the organisational culture (p. 41).

As examples, here are some studies on schoolscape: Dressler (2015) explores the extent to which signs promote bilingualism in a bilingual Canadian school programme; Tódor (2014) analyses the use of visual language in the school environment and some of its specificities; Brînzan-Antal (2020) investigates the linguistic landscape of secondary schools in Transylvania; Pachné Heltai (2019) uses the example of a German nationality school to show what linguistic ideologies can be present in the linguistic landscape of a school and what impact this can have on learning-teaching processes.

The linguistic landscape of university spaces has been less studied, perhaps because university language policy has only become the subject of interest and debate in recent years. Among the relatively few studies that have examined the linguistic landscape of universities, mention should be made of Helm and Dalziel’s (2017) study, which analyses the linguistic landscape of an Italian public university; a case study of the signs of Kyushu University in Japan by Wang (2015); Soler’s (2019) study analysing how three universities in the Baltic States are dealing with the linguistic tensions and processes associated with their internationalisation, and Povalko et al.’s (2023) article in which the authors present the specific linguistic landscape of the People’s Friendship University campus in Moscow as an integral part of the university’s communicative space.

The above studies are relevant examples of how linguistic landscape research has been applied in various contexts of higher education as well as in different cultural and geographical environments. Each study focuses on a distinct aspect of language in academic settings, ranging from the effects of internationalisation (Soler, 2019) to the challenges of multilingualism and national identity (Helm & Dalziel, 2017; Wang, 2015; Povalko et al., 2023). Together, these studies demonstrate that the linguistic landscape of universities is not neutral, but is instead shaped by broader sociolinguistic forces, such as globalisation, international student mobility and language policy decisions. They also emphasise the shared challenges faced by multilingual universities, such as striking a balance between local and global linguistic identities.

These studies are consistent with the objectives of the present study as they examine related issues, such as institutional language policy, internationalisation and the development of linguistic identity within the linguistic landscape of universities. Through this review, we situate the current study within the broader framework of linguistic landscape research, identifying a significant gap: the linguistic landscape of university spaces remains largely unexplored. This new study contributes to expanding the field.

Our research questions related to the linguistic landscape of our university are the following:

• To what extent is internationalisation explicitly present in the institution?
• How foreign languages, in particular English and German, are represented inside and outside the university walls?
• What are the functions of foreign language signages?

To answer these research questions, we photographed all the signage in foreign languages inside and outside the main campus of the university (see Section 4 on pp. 4–5) and conducted a mixed-methods analysis. As internationalization is a top priority at our university with a growing number of foreign students, the official language policy should facilitate this process. To address the first research question concerning internationalisation, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the signage to determine the amount of information available to foreign students and a qualitative analysis of the official signs to identify where and how the signs in foreign languages are displayed and what kind of signs they are. Our second research question focuses on two particular languages and is answered by a quantitative analysis of the signage in those two languages. We wanted to see if English, as a lingua franca, has gained a significant position, as reflected in the number of English-language signs. Due to geopolitical and historical reasons, as well as the university’s existing partnership with the Audi factory, the presence of the German language on campus was also the target of our investigation. In this case, we also used quantitative and qualitative methods. Finally, to answer the third research question, we did a qualitative analysis of signage types to examine the functions of the signs.

3. Foreign Students at Széchenyi István University

According to the official statistics in the academic year 2023/2024, the university had 780 foreign students enrolled from 70 countries. At the same time, there was a separate large group of 204 students from Slovakia. We can assume that this group includes a large number of Hungarian-speaking students due to historical reasons, they are not included in the foreign students in this research. It should also be noted here that the university had a total of 39 students from the countries neighbouring Hungary, excluding Slovakia; so, the Slovakian group stood out from the group of foreign students.

Table 1. Distribution of foreign students studying at SZE by continent.

Continent	Asia	Africa	Europe	America	Australia
Number	368	100	78	29	1
Percent	63.88%	17.36%	13.54%	5.03%	0.02%

summarizes the distribution of foreign students studying at the university by continent (excluding the Slovakian-Hungarian students).

The largest groups of foreign students were from Pakistan and Syria (55–55 students), Laos (40), and Jordan (32). This figure alone foreshadows the fact that our university receives a large number of foreign students mainly from South-West, South and South East Asia, not counting the above-mentioned Slovak region, populated by bilingual Hungarians. In total, 368 students from Asia represented 63.88% of the foreign students, followed by 100 students from Africa (17.36%), most of them coming from North and Central Africa, while only a negligible number of students studied at our university from South Africa (9). After them, European students were the third largest group with 78 students (13.54%). Here, students from Eastern Europe, excluding again the Slovak students, and students from other regions of Europe were half-and-half.

Finally, from the Americas, we had mainly students from South America and Mexico (29 students, 5.03%) and there was one Australian student. Seventy countries is a high number, but it is also worth noting that only a few students came from the majority of them: from 19 countries only one student per country, from 6 countries two students per country; overall, 51 countries gave fewer than 10 students. As the figures show, we had a large number of culturally, religiously, and linguistically diverse students, with the largest homogeneous community being Arabic-speaking Asian students.

4. Methodology

As a first step in data collection, that was carried out in the 2023–2024 academic year, we visited the areas designated for the present study and photographed all surfaces where we found foreign language text and signs. We first chose the central building, including the New Knowledge Building and Study Buildings A, B, C, and D, as the site of our study because this is where most of the faculties (five out of nine) are located, and because these are the technical faculties, which are the oldest teaching units of the university and currently run most of the English language programmes. In these interiors, we specifically looked for foreign language signages to assess the information that foreign students were receiving. Since we also wanted to see the languages of official naming (faculties, departments, unit names, lecturers’ positions), we documented them regardless of the language. Finally, we also included in the corpus those Hungarian texts that had the same content as their foreign language counterparts, interpreting them as parallel texts.

As an extension of this area, we also photographed all textual signs in the immediate vicinity of the university’s central campus, regardless of the language in which they appeared. Thus, inscriptions only in Hungarian were included in this corpus, too. We considered it necessary to study the external spaces because this would give us a more comprehensive picture of the linguistic environment surrounding the people moving around in these spaces. Buildings with a community and service function are also visited by foreign students; so, it is relevant to examine their linguistic image.

In addition to the central campus, we made a targeted tour of the other academic buildings of the university and found that we could not include these sites in our analysis because both the exteriors and the interiors were almost entirely monolingual, meaning Hungarian.

After collecting the data, mixed-method research was carried out, the first step of which was to count and group the collected texts into the main categories of analysis. Accordingly, it was determined whether the texts in question could be classified as official (top-down) or unofficial (bottom-up) and whether they could be considered permanent or temporary. Within these categories, we also separated them by function, and finally, we identified the languages in which the information appeared on them. As indicated above, the reason why Hungarian texts were sometimes included in each category was to make them complete. In the New Knowledge Space and its associated Buildings, A to D, 112 items were processed, while in the outdoor space, 104 items were processed.

5. Results

In the following section, we analyse the signage documented in two spaces (outdoor and indoor) separately.

5.1. The Linguistic Landscape of the Outdoor Spaces of the Central Campus Subsection

When examining the exterior of the university campus, 104 top-down and bottom-up signs were observed. The 50 official and permanent top-down signs include maps, directional signs, building identification signs, security signs, and vending machines (Figure 1). Of these, 27 are bilingual signs, i.e., English translations of Hungarian names/texts are also available, and in one case a German translation is also available.

Among the building identification signs, there is one bilingual Hungarian-German sign, which recalls the period when the university had a German-language vehicle engineering degree program. The name of one of the cafés is only in English, while the names of the restaurant, the bar, and another café, as well as the doctor’s office, are only in Hungarian. Signs indicating smoking areas are all trilingual (Hungarian–English–German), while signs prohibiting smoking are in five languages: Hungarian, English, French, German, and Russian. The sign [This Area Is Monitored by Video Camera] is in Hungarian only, but these signs have pictograms as an alternative to translation (Figure 2).

There are both parking and ATM machines on the university campus with information in foreign languages; these are translations of Hungarian texts into English and German. The machines also have the option of language selection, which can be helpful. At the same time information such as the payment period or the use of the credit card terminal is only available in Hungarian.

The eight official semi-permanent signs are mostly literal translations from Hungarian, describing the rules of the sports hall. They also include signs calling for the use of a mask over the mouth and nose.

An analysis of the inscriptions shows that Hungarian is the dominant language in all of them, both in terms of font size and font colour. In the case of bilingual inscriptions, Hungarian is followed by English (except for the single German inscription), mostly with smaller font sizes. On trilingual signs, English and German are given equal status. On multilingual signs prohibiting smoking, the order of languages is Hungarian, English, followed by the other three languages (French, German, and Russian) in any order.

The 46 informal, temporary (bottom-up) inscriptions are very diverse. What is striking is the scarcity of foreign language signages. In English, or in Hungarian and English, there are only one or two requests [e.g., Please close the door!], a poster [Development of a unique race engine for Formula Student] and the menu of the Elixir café can be read. All the information on the door of the doctor’s office, the prohibition signs on the pillars in front of the bar, the current information on the door of the restaurant and on the parking machines, the information about the services in the window of the bookshop, or even the student programmes for the faculty days, to name but a few, are all in Hungarian. To sum up, 65% (30) of the bottom-up signs are in Hungarian only.

Table 2. Number and percentage of language combinations by sign categories in outdoor spaces.

Categories	Languages in the Signage	Items	Percentage (%)
Official and permanent top-down signs (50) 48%	Hungarian and English	26	52
	Hungarian and German	1	2
	Hungarian, English and German	7	14
	Hungarian, English, French, German and Russian	4	8
	English only	1	2
	Hungarian only	11	22
Official and semi-permanent top-down signs (8) 8%	Hungarian and English	1	12.5
	German	1	12.5
	English	1	12.5
	Hungarian only	5	62.5
Unofficial and temporary bottom-up signs (46) 44%	Hungarian and English	8	17
	English only	8	17
	Hungarian only	30	65
Total 104

shows the breakdown of the categories identified and the language combination of the signages in outdoor spaces.

5.2. The Linguistic Landscape of the Indoor Spaces: New Knowledge Space and Technical Faculties

For both the New Knowledge Space and the technical faculties’ buildings (Buildings A–D), we use the top-down and bottom-up categories again, and within these categories we also determine the degree of permanence of the inscriptions.

The official signs of the technical faculties are multilingual, with English and German following Hungarian. However, the additional information (rooms, faculty leaders, administrators’ positions, etc.) is not trilingual in any of the faculties; in two faculties they are in Hungarian and English, and in one faculty in Hungarian only. In the 17 departments, the linguistic picture of the official signs is similarly mixed: there are five departments where the name of the department is trilingual, but the additional information is all in Hungarian. There are also departments where the name of the department is written in both Hungarian and English, but the positions of the staff are no longer bilingual in all of them, and in nine departments there are only Hungarian inscriptions (Figure 3). In one department, two detailed introductions are hung on the noticeboard in English only. The other two departments in the building—the Automotive Research Centre and the Career Office—have signage in both Hungarian and English. However, the name of the Alumni Career and Information Centre (AKIK) and the list of services provided to students are only in Hungarian.

The information on the use of the building and its facilities, which are all multilingual and contain the same information, are also included in the group of official and permanent signs. In this category, we identified 49 items, of which 26 (53%) were exclusively Hungarian.

Hygiene notices are semi-permanent bilingual posters, either only in Hungarian or only in English (Figure 4). The notices for the student academic competition at the university were also in the semi-permanent category, where we found only three English and one bilingual texts.

Finally, information on studies and administration was placed in the official but temporary category. Here, we found a total of five items in English in all the buildings.

Overall, more than two-thirds (77%) of the top-down signs are permanent. Of these, the names of the departments are the most likely to reflect the university’s official foreign language policy. The analysis concludes that there is no regulation at these levels, that units can decide for themselves how to use languages, and that bilingualism or multilingualism is not a requirement. This may have an impact on the low level of foreign language texts found in the non-permanent, official category.

Bottom-up, or informal, texts account for 43% of all our examples, with 48 items in total. They were also broken down into several categories, and all were classified as temporary. These include posters addressing students, offering study, research, or career opportunities either with companies and organisations affiliated with the university, or with external companies not affiliated with the university, or possibly with other universities (Figure 5). Also targeted to students are programme offers from external advertisers, which form another category. These advertisements were found at the departments or on community space notice boards and represented 40% of informal texts. Most of them are in English or bilingual, but in the latter case, often only the call words appear in English while the information is in Hungarian.

A separate group of informal texts (23%) is the poster presentations or publications of lecturers at conferences, which are all in English. In terms of topicality, it is worth noting that most of them were outdated at the time of data collection as only a few of them were from the previous 2–3 years.

The next types of posters (25%) are those with minimal informative value, with a simple decorative function (Figure 6). Most of these are product advertisements or maps in English or German.

Finally, the last category of unofficial signs is made up of personal statements, a specific type of which are jokes and gibberish (where Hungarian words are merged to produce distorted pronunciation of foreign language texts, which are still recognisable), also mainly in English, displayed on departmental noticeboards (Figure 7).

As regards informal, temporary signs, it can be stated that the elements (also) containing foreign languages are predominantly in English, and most of them are monolingual. In terms of content, they often give the impression of having been left behind and now purely have a decorative function. There are few foreign-language texts that have not yet lost their topicality, and these are most often advertisements of organisations not or only loosely connected with the university.

Table 3. Number and percentage of language combinations by sign categories in indoor spaces.

Categories	Languages in the Signage	Items	Percentage (%)
Official and permanent top-down signs (49) 44%	Hungarian and English	11	22
	Hungarian, English and German	10	20
	English only	2	4
	Hungarian only	26	53
Official and semi-permanent top-down signs (8) 7%	Hungarian and English	3	37.5
	English only	4	50
	Hungarian only	1	12.5
Official and temporary top-down signs (7) 6%	English only	3	43
	Hungarian and English	2	28.5
	Hungarian only	2	28.5
	Hungarian and English	6	12.5
	Hungarian and Italian	1	2
	Russian, Chinese, English and German	1	2
Unofficial and temporary bottom-up signs (48) 43%	English only	35	73
	German only	4	8
	Hungarian only	1	2
Total 112

shows the breakdown of the categories identified and the language combination of the signage in indoor spaces.

6. Discussion

When examining the linguistic landscape of the physical spaces of the main campus and its outdoor spaces of Széchenyi István University, we looked at the prevalence of foreign languages and the function of each linguistic signage. Next. we will summarize the most important findings according to the spaces examined.

6.1. Outdoor Spaces: Central Campus

A total of 104 signs were documented in the outdoor spaces of the central campus, comprising 50 top-down (official) and 46 bottom-up (informal) inscriptions. The analysis reveals a clear dominance of Hungarian across all signage types, both in terms of frequency and visual prominence (font size and colour).

Among the top-down signs, 27 were bilingual (Hungarian–English), and one was Hungarian–German, reflecting limited institutional multilingualism. Trilingual smoking area signs (Hungarian–English–German) and multilingual no-smoking signs (Hungarian, English, French, German, Russian) represent exceptions, primarily motivated by regulatory or safety communication. English translations generally follow Hungarian and are displayed in smaller fonts, indicating a secondary status.

Certain functional signs (e.g., ATMs, parking machines, vending machines) provide language selection options or partial translations into English and German; however, key operational details remain Hungarian-only, reinforcing the national language’s dominance even in public-facing communication.

The bottom-up signage, representing informal and temporary inscriptions, demonstrates even lower levels of linguistic diversity. Of the 46 items identified, 65% were monolingual Hungarian, while only a small number were bilingual or English-only. English appeared sporadically in practical notices (e.g., “Please close the door”), selected posters, and one café menu. Overall, the outdoor linguistic landscape presents a strongly Hungarian monolingual character, with English serving an auxiliary and symbolic function rather than an integrative communicative role.

6.2. Indoor Spaces: New Knowledge Space and Technical Faculties

The linguistic landscape of indoor spaces was examined across the New Knowledge Space and the buildings of the technical faculties. Signs were classified according to top-down vs. bottom-up categories and the degree of permanence.

The top-down signage of the technical faculties displays a heterogeneous multilingual profile, with Hungarian consistently dominant and English and German appearing primarily in department names or institutional identifiers. Information such as staff names and office designations is rarely bilingual; in most cases, it is exclusively Hungarian. Of the 49 official facility-use signs examined, 53% were monolingual Hungarian, further emphasizing the primacy of the national language. Importantly, there is no university-wide language policy governing official signage, allowing faculties and departments to determine their own practices. Consequently, multilingualism is optional and inconsistently applied.

Semi-permanent official signs, including hygiene notices and competition announcements, were found in both Hungarian and English, though often monolingual in either language. Temporary, official information related to studies and administration appeared in five English-language examples across all buildings.

Bottom-up inscriptions, accounting for 43% of all indoor signage (48 items), were exclusively temporary. These included posters advertising study and career opportunities, academic events, or external programs, typically displayed on noticeboards. While English predominated among these informal texts, bilingual instances often contained minimal English elements (e.g., keywords or slogans) with the main text remaining in Hungarian. Other bottom-up materials included conference posters (mostly English-only), decorative advertisements (English or German), and personal notes or humorous texts (mainly English). Notably, a considerable proportion of these signs were outdated, suggesting a residual rather than functional presence of English in the internal linguistic landscape.

Table 4. Percentage distribution of languages in the outdoor and indoor spaces.

	Monolingual Sings		Bilingual Signs		Trilingual Signs	Multilingual Signs
Outdoor spaces	Hungarian	44%	Hungarian-English	34%	Hungarian-English-German	7%	Hungarian-English-German-French-Russian	4%
	English	10%
	German	1%	Hungarian-German	1%
Indoor spaces	Hungarian	27%	Hungarian-English	20%	Hungarian-English-German	9%	Russian-Chinese-English-German	1%
	English	39%	Hungarian-Italian	1%
	German	4%

summarizes the results of the investigation of the outdoor and indoor spaces.

With regard to the first research question—to what extent internationalization is explicitly present in the institution—the results demonstrate that internationalization is only marginally visible and not systematically embedded in the university’s linguistic landscape. Although the university promotes itself as internationally oriented, this orientation is not consistently reflected in its public signage or communicative practices, which remain predominantly Hungarian and lack a unified language policy or institutional regulation. In response to the second question—how foreign languages, in particular English and German, are represented inside and outside the university walls—the analysis reveals that English and German appear sporadically and unevenly, with English functioning as the primary foreign language in both outdoor and indoor contexts. English is typically used on official bilingual signs, regulatory notices, and academic posters, while German occurs infrequently, largely limited to historical or symbolic references, such as former programs or faculty names. Regarding the third question—what the functions of foreign language signage are—the findings indicate that foreign-language signs serve primarily symbolic and informative functions, signalling institutional prestige, global orientation, and academic credibility rather than fulfilling practical communicative needs. Overall, while elements of internationalization are discernible, they remain peripheral, unregulated, and inconsistently represented, revealing a disparity between the university’s international ambitions and the linguistic realities of its campus environment.

These findings align with Landry and Bourhis’s (1997) conceptual distinction between the informational and symbolic functions of linguistic landscapes. In the present context, the symbolic function predominates: English and, occasionally, German serve as markers of international identity and academic modernity rather than as tools for everyday interaction. The informational function, by contrast, remains underdeveloped, as most signage fails to provide practical linguistic accessibility for international students, staff, or visitors. Moreover, in line with Shohamy and Gorter’s (2009) argument that linguistic landscapes reflect underlying language ideologies and power relations, the observed hierarchy of languages—where Hungarian occupies the dominant visual and spatial position—illustrates the persistence of a monolingual institutional ideology within an ostensibly international academic environment. Consequently, the linguistic landscape of the university operates less as a communicative bridge and more as a symbolic projection of identity, highlighting the need for deliberate policy intervention to align visual multilingualism with the institution’s declared international mission.

In sum, the university’s linguistic landscape embodies a tension between symbolic multilingualism and functional monolingualism, suggesting that meaningful internationalization requires not only policy coherence but also the intentional visual and communicative inclusion of foreign languages within the campus space. The linguistic landscape of the university, while occasionally multilingual, remains overwhelmingly Hungarian-dominant and inconsistently bilingual. The limited and often symbolic presence of English contrasts with the institution’s international orientation. To bridge this gap, a strategic and coordinated approach to multilingual signage—supported by policy, design standards, and community engagement—is essential. Such measures would not only enhance communicative accessibility for international members of the university but also reinforce the institution’s image as an inclusive and globally connected academic environment.

7. Conclusions

Across both outdoor and indoor spaces, the data demonstrate a consistent predominance of Hungarian, both in official and informal signage. English emerges as the most frequent foreign language, yet its use is largely symbolic, supplementary, and non-systematic. German appears sporadically, often linked to historical institutional ties or specific programs. The overall pattern suggests a lack of coherent institutional language policy, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent multilingual practices. Foreign-language elements are more visible indoors, particularly in academic and informational contexts, but their communicative relevance is often limited by monolingual dominance and lack of currency.

Globalization is also affecting language use and, as the lingua franca of today, English must be present at a university that claims it is becoming international. Therefore, it seems necessary to develop and enforce a language policy that better regulates the use of this language. This would lead to a more uniform appearance and wider access to information for speakers of other languages.

Multilingual groups of students, especially at the beginning of their studies, can only integrate into university life through English, and this is currently limited, as can be seen, in physical spaces. The linguistic diversity that characterizes foreign students is also not represented in these spaces, although there are larger groups of students who speak a common language. The representation of these languages could be of symbolic value.

7.1. Institutional and Policy Implications

The current linguistic landscape underscores the need for a comprehensive language policy that explicitly addresses signage and public communication. Such a policy would align linguistic practices with the university’s broader strategic objectives, particularly in relation to internationalization and inclusivity. Establishing clear guidelines on language use, order, and formatting (e.g., Hungarian–English bilingualism as the default configuration) would promote coherence, visibility, and accessibility across all faculties.

Furthermore, integrating linguistic landscape management into the institution’s internationalization strategy would ensure that the campus environment projects a welcoming and globally engaged image. Collaboration between central administration, the international office, and faculty-level management would be essential to implement such policies effectively.

7.2. Design and Communication Practices

Beyond policy, attention should also be given to the design and functionality of multilingual signage. The findings indicate that English translations, when present, are often typographically subordinated. Increasing the visual equivalence of Hungarian and English texts—through parallel layouts, comparable font size, and consistent colour schemes—would enhance the visibility and communicative effectiveness of bilingual signage.

Multilingualism should also be extended to functional and service-oriented signs, such as building maps, ATMs, and administrative instructions, where international users most frequently require guidance. At the same time, a maintenance and renewal system should be established to ensure that semi-permanent and temporary signs (e.g., posters, event notices) remain current and relevant. A digital signage solution could further support up-to-date and accessible communication.

7.3. Community and Educational Engagement

The relatively low level of informal multilingual signage indicates limited participation from the international community in shaping the linguistic environment. Encouraging bottom-up multilingualism—for example, through student-led initiatives, bilingual poster templates, or translation workshops—could foster a more inclusive and dynamic campus culture.

The linguistic landscape could also serve as a pedagogical tool within language, translation, and communication programs. Engaging students in documenting, analysing, or designing campus signage would not only promote multilingual awareness but also create a sense of shared responsibility for the university’s linguistic image.

In addition, expanding multilingual signage to include other languages relevant to the international student population (e.g., German, or the languages of major exchange groups) could signal institutional inclusivity and intercultural openness.

7.4. Monitoring and Future Research

To sustain progress, the university should implement periodic linguistic landscape audits to assess the visibility and effectiveness of multilingual signage. Regular monitoring would allow for data-driven adjustments to policy and practice, ensuring that signage remains aligned with the evolving linguistic profile of the institution. Longitudinal analysis could further contribute to the understanding of how institutional language policy translates into visible multilingual practice over time.

We intend to continue our investigation in two ways. Firstly, we will canvass the opinions of the university students and academic and administrative staff regarding the university’s language policy and practices at. Second, we will extend this research to the university website. We are conducting this research with the understanding that virtual spaces are as important today as physical ones. One of the main goals of Széchenyi István University is to increase the number of foreign students, which implies conscious attention to the university’s language policy. One manifestation of this is a multilingual environment in which students feel comfortable and important. A linguistically homely environment increases a sense of belonging and at the same time reduces a feeling of vulnerability and alienation.

The results of the linguistic landscape survey can help ensure that the multilingual student body of the university is surrounded by an increasingly linguistically diverse environment that serves their communication needs, and, as a further goal, reflects their identities. To guarantee that students of diverse mother tongues and visiting foreign teachers, researchers, and professionals return home with positive impressions, it is essential that the university undertakes the mission of consciously transforming the linguistic environment.