Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 17, 2021

Media debates over the renaming of the cityscape

  • Małgorzata Fabiszak ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Rani Rubdy
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard


This contribution presents two case studies: Poznań in Poland and New Delhi in India, focusing on the media coverage surrounding the re-naming of one street in each location. We apply a uniform method – the Discourse Historical Approach – to analyse newspaper articles, below-the-line comments and Internet forum discussions. As symbolic marking of the territory can be recruited for a political agenda going beyond memory politics, this article not only investigates the public controversy surrounding the (re-)naming of the cityscape, but also addresses the questions of how these debates link inter-discursively with other issues in contemporary politics, such as the independence of the judiciary in Poland and social justice in India.

1 Introduction

Linguistic landscape (LL) research has originally focused on the symbolic and indexical representation of languages in city signage (Backhaus 2007; Scollon and Wong-Scollon 2003), while critical toponymy (CT) has investigated “practices of place-naming that are infused with relations of power” (Berg and Vuolteenaho 2009: 2). In terms of methodology these two perspectives tend to rely, respectively, on quantitative analyses of photographic evidence of urban signage, and on the qualitative analysis of maps and registry documents. Recently, both methods have been supplemented with ethnographic interviews (e.g. Hornsby and Vigers 2012). Our article is informed by these approaches and we expand the scope of LL and CT through a systematic analysis of the media debates sparked by the conflict over the symbolic meaning of place names. In particular, we examine how controversies over who or what should (not) be commemorated intertwine with the question of who has the authority to “de-commemorate” and “re-commemorate” (Azaryahu 2009) names of streets and how these questions serve broader political agendas. In Poznań, Poland, the debate over the renaming of 23rd of February Street led to the dispute over the independence of the judiciary. In New Delhi, India, the renaming of Aurangzeb Road provoked questions about the representation of minorities and social justice. Another innovative aspect of our contribution is to apply the same analytic procedure derived from the Discourse Historical Approach (Reisigl 2017; Reisigl and Wodak 2009) to two case studies in the two different locations.

2 Method and data

The Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) is a branch of Critical Discourse Studies (Fairclough 2015, 2017; van Dijk 2011, 2017), which has been developed specifically for the analysis of media discourses (Reisigl 2017: 48). DHA studies texts within four dimensions of context. First, co-text focuses on language use in a particular text. At this level of analysis we analyse discursive strategies, which are described in more detail in the next paragraph. Second, exploring the interdiscursive and intertextual context gives insights into how a particular discourse links with other texts and discourses, for example how the debate on the renaming of streets connects with issues such as the independence of judiciary or social justice. Third, the socio-pragmatic context focuses on the social actors involved in the production of discourse, their political and ideological orientation etc. This dimension of context is described below in the paragraph devoted to the political positioning of the analysed news outlets. Finally, the broader sociological and historical context provides information on the history of the event (see Section 3: Context).

In DHA, the linguistic analysis of the text consists in identifying and describing discursive strategies. In this paper we will concentrate on argumentation strategies, which are used to persuade the readers to a particular point of view, and on nominalizations, i.e. noun phrases used to identify social agents and processes under debate. Our aim is to compare these strategies across the two locations and identify those which are shared and those which are site-specific.

The data for the analysis come from a number of sources. The newspapers and news fora present the debate between the official social actors involved in the renaming; below-the-line-comments offer an insight into the opinions of the residents. Table 1 below gives an overview of the data.

Table 1:

Data sources for the comparative analysis of renaming in Poznań and New Delhi.

Poznań, Poland New Delhi, India
Gazeta Wyborcza, regional supplement, 02.11.2017–06.12.2018. Mainstream national level newspapers and magazines[1], 31.08.2015–14.11.2018.
22 articles = 13,300 words
101 comments = 2,900 words 22 articles = 15,425 words
Głos Wielkopolski, 02.11.2017–13.11.2018. Below-the-line comments from readers on online news websites
19 articles = 10,500 words 147 comments = 8,026 words
239 comments = 11,200 words
Epoznan.pl9 articles = 1,903 words675 comments = 24,200 words Op-eds and essays from online news fora sponsored by non-profit independent journalism, 29.08.2015–17.11.2018.12 articles = 14,248 words

The Polish data consist of articles from the regional supplement of the national daily Gazeta Wyborcza, which is liberal-leaning and supportive of the Civic Platform, the opposition party in the Parliament which criticizes the Law and Justice government. Głos Wielkopolski is a regional newspaper which maintains local tradition and conservative values. is part of the regional TV station WTK and does not have a clear political position.

The Indian data comprises mainstream news reports from prominent national dailies and weekly news magazines that are mixed in the positions they take – being either neutral or openly critical of the renaming of Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi. Articles from the online fora contain mostly op-eds and essays that are unabashedly liberal and hard hitting in their critique of the government. Unusually, below-the-line comments tilt more towards supporting the top-down name change rather than opposing it.

3 Context

3.1 Poznań, Poland

Following the transformation of 1989, in the early 1990s, spontaneous changes of street names took place. These were usually changes from below, instigated by the residents of the street, or proposed by the local authorities: the streets concerned returned to the interwar period names or names commemorating local personages (Hałas 2004). In Poznań, 49 streets were renamed at this time. On 1st April 2016, a parliamentary bill was passed banning the propagation of communism and other totalitarian systems through the naming of public spaces.[2] This bill gave the local administration 12 months to rename streets. As a result, the Poznań city council, in which the opposition party held the majority at the time, renamed only six streets as the majority had already been renamed before. Should the city council show negligence and not rename all the streets recommended by the Institute of the National Remembrance, the Bill gave the Province Governor the power to rename these streets. As a consequence of this provision, the Poznań Governor (appointed by the ruling party) renamed four more streets. The City council appealed the renaming of one of them: ul. 23 Lutego (the 23rd of February Street).[3] This street has been renamed eight times over the last 100 years.[4] After 1989, the framing of the event in the news media and in the perception of the general public changed from “the liberation of Poznań by the Soviet Army” to “the end of the battle of Poznań, the end of occupation of Poznań by Nazi Germany”. The Regional Administrative Court accepted the appeal and declared the Governor’s supplementary ordinance invalid. The Governor appealed the decision of the Regional Administrative Court (RAC) to the Supreme Administrative Court, which upheld RAC’s decision. This renaming battle between the City Council, the members of which are elected in the local elections, and the Province Governor, who is appointed by the central government in Warsaw, has been interpreted as a debate over the curtailing of powers of the local government and a test of the independence of the judiciary. We analyse the arguments used in the debate over this political issue in Section 4.1. below.

3.2 New Delhi, India

Following independence from British colonial rule in 1947, understandably, de-anglicization of place and street names became critical to regaining national and regional pride. However, since the Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Jananta Party (BJP) swept to power in 2014, street and place renaming has become a powerful tool for reinforcing Hindu nationalist ideologies. Also, acts of renaming have taken on a qualitatively different turn, marked by a growing number of assaults on the historical legacy of the (Muslim) Mughal rulers (Robinson 2007; Schimmel 2004). The Hindutva ideology espoused by the BJP is enshrined in a strong orientation towards cultural nationalism, characterized by critics as perpetrating a politics of polarization and a divisive populist agenda that poses a challenge to the secular, pluralistic and inclusive fabric of Indian society. Put simply, the Hindutva ideology states that India is the homeland of the Hindus, its three essentials being: a common nation (rashtra), a common race (jati) and a common culture or civilization (sanskriti). By this logic, “Muslims and Christians could not belong to the Hindu jati, because their sanskriti and their prophets originated outside of the Hindu civilisation” (The Wire, 4 July 2019). Accordingly, a key strategy has been the symbolic erasure of names of (Muslim) Mughal emperors, painted as ruthless villains not worthy of commemoration, particularly in the nation’s capital, New Delhi.

Of focal interest here is the controversial renaming of the prestigious Aurangzeb Road by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) in August 2015, now christened APJ Abdul Kalam Road in honour of the much-loved late former President of India, at the behest of several BJP members of parliament. The Delhi High Court refused to entertain legal petitions seeking to restrain the NDMC from the renaming. Many historians, however, argued that the former name is a part of Indian history; the name change was an attempt to excise this very part and promote an alternative version of history in the collective memory of India’s citizens. Aurangzeb, the last great, but much maligned Mughal emperor to rule India (1658–1707), is depicted by Hindutva ideologues as a tyrannical ruler and a brutal oppressor of Hindus. In the ensuing debate supporters of the name change argued that a true sense of patriotism entailed “correcting a historical wrong”, while opponents countered that hatred for a 17th century Mughal was being deployed as a political tool for discrediting modern Indian Muslims. Thus, overlaid upon the task of reclaiming India’s local heritage and national identity in a post-colonial setting, is the operation of religious and cultural hegemonic forces triggering communal divisiveness between the majority Hindus (80%) and the Muslim minority (14%) by strategically conflating nationalist sentiments with acts of patriotism. Within this setting, minority initiatives to gain visibility are perceived as threats or at least as acts questioning solidarity towards the state, with implications for homogenization and social justice.

4 Analysis

4.1 Poland: Conflicting meanings of the past and the independence of the judiciary

The analysis of the argumentative strategies in Polish newspapers and the below-the-line-comments shows a predominance of ideologically loaded arguments and a relatively smaller importance given to practical concerns, such as the cost of changing street name plaques and documents (see Light and Young 2018 for an overview of the practical limits to street renaming). The ideological arguments can be divided into five categories: history; individual/family/collective memory; legitimization by the will of the (local) community; the everyday naming practices by the inhabitants and the conflict of power between the ruling party and opposition.

Arguments based on an interpretation of history were present both in the analysed newspapers and the below-the-line-comments (BLC). Their main function was to explain why a historical figure or event was deemed (un-)worthy of commemoration. To achieve this, newspapers used various nominalizations to categorize the event of February 23rd. The supporters of the Governor’s decision to rename the street would see the date as commemorating the arrival to or invasion of Poznań by the Soviet Army, the beginning of the Soviet occupation and the glorification of the Soviet Army. The opponents of change argued that the framing of the event has been re-appropriated and now stands for the end of the battle of Poznań, end of Nazi occupation. The internet users are more creative than the journalists, and in their comments construct alternative historical scenarios to highlight the futility of the attempts of what they see as changing the past. They use the irrealis mood or write short historical fiction as in (1) and (2):

… would the Governor prefer it to be Warthegau[5] or 1000-year Reich? (, comment 1)[6]
… The heroic fight with the communist enemy, which was pushing from the East, ended with the defeat of the army of our Western neighbours. (…) (, comment 2)

In (1), the irrealis mood allows the writer to imply that the Governor would like the Nazi occupation to continue. In (2), where only an excerpt of a longer story is presented, the Nazi army occupying the city is reframed as an army of our Western neighbours. In this phrase the use of our and neighbours to denote the German Army of 1939–1945, in a story written from a Polish perspective, ironically overwrites the role of the occupier with that of a (friendly) neighbour. Another strategy referencing history was a suggestion to re-appropriate the date by assigning it to a different event that happened on the same day, such as ratifying the concordat between Poland and the Holy See or filing for patent for the Diesel engine.

An argumentative strategy that appeals to individual/family/collective memory refers to the civilians who were expelled from Poznań at the beginning of the Nazi occupation and the civilian volunteers who fought on the side of the Soviet Army against the Germans. Collective memory is constructed through the use of such nominalizations as Citadel fighters, [7] inhabitants of the city of Poznań, inhabitants of the Wielkopolska region. Individual and family memory in the internet comments are signalled by the first person stories of the hardships of life in occupied Poznań or by retelling of stories heard from parents and grandparents; in newspapers they take the form of “human-interest” stories or letters to the editor. Such arguments concerning the contested meaning of the event rest on the assumption that lived experience gives the participants of history a specific insight into “the true nature” of the past that learning about it from books and documents does not.

Another form of legitimization of the position for or against the renaming was an appeal to the will of the local, or more generally, Polish, community. This argument was often used in below-the-line-comments. Linguistically it was expressed through such nominalizations as the Polish, the people, the inhabitants, Posnanians and Poznań, used metonymically for its inhabitants. The rhetorical power of this strategy was often questioned, as in (3):

Why are you speaking for all Posnanians? Who gave you the right to do so? … (, comment 3)

Example (3) shows that appealing to the alleged opinions of such large, rather unspecified, groups was less successful as an argumentative strategy than quoting family history. Yet, also the latter sometimes led to insults – a common interaction strategy in below-the-line-comments.

Some of the debaters point to “semantic displacement” (cf. Azaryahu 1996, 2009), that is a bleaching of the historical referent and its subsequent association with a particular landmark (e.g. a street where the Main Post Office is) or to everyday naming practices of the community (cf. also Light and Young 2014, 2018; Palmberger 2018) as a means to subvert the ideological hegemony of state. Some of the internet users also vowed to use the old name to undermine the Governor’s decision, while others sarcastically quoted the Prussian names from before the Great War, which are no longer in use.

The argument referring to the conflict of power between the locally elected City Council and the Regional Governor appointed by the central government, although present in the-below-the-line-comments, was much more prominent in the newspapers, in particular in Gazeta Wyborcza. Both the head of the City Council, Mr. Ganowicz, who appealed the street renaming by the Governor, and the Mayor of Poznań, Mr. Jacek Jaśkowiak, are from Civic Platform (PO), the opposition party in the Parliament. The Governor, Mr. Hoffmann, belongs to Law and Justice (PiS), the governing party. Unlike Głos Wielkopolski, Gazeta Wyborcza devoted much space to questioning the legitimacy of the street renaming by the Governor. Both newspapers reported the reaction of the City Mayor to the ruling of the Regional Administrative Court in much the same wording (here cited after Gazeta Wyborcza):

This verdict shows how important the balance of powers is and how important are independent, auto-nomous courts, which – through relevant judgements and verdicts – can prevent extrajudicial actions of the executive power – comments the Mayor of Poznań, Jacek Jaśkowiak (Gazeta Wyborcza, 23/03/2018).

Here, the very strong statement about extrajudicial actions of the executive power is presented in the form of reported speech, which presents the Mayor of Poznań as a stout opponent of the Law and Justice Government. This excerpt shows that the debate over representation in the semiotic cityscape can be interdiscursively linked to the battle over the independence of the judiciary at a time when the right-wing government is introducing reforms of the judiciary, which are interpreted as curtailing the autonomy of the judges.

4.2 India: Controversy over the symbolic erasure of salient manifestations of India’s Mughal history and social justice

The ideological arguments used in the debate on the renaming of New Delhi’s prestigious Aurangzeb Road can be divided into four main categories: history, moral reprehensibility, appeal to Hindu communal pride, and the “Othering” (Ashcroft et al. 2000: 156–158) of minorities.

Similar to the Poznań case study, a favoured argumentative strategy for justifying why a historical figure or event is deemed (un-)worthy of commemoration is reference to history, both in the mainstream newspapers and articles from the online fora, but less so in the below-the-line comments. Presenting the Middle Ages as a time of constant conflict between the Hindus and the ‘invaders’, proponents of the name change paint Mughal rulers as ‘Muslim outsiders’ who ruled ‘Hindu India’, as ‘aliens’ in the same mould as the British. Questioning this interpretation, opponents of the name change accuse Hindutva ideologues of popularizing a prejudicial narrative that harps on India’s so-called “1,200 years of slavery” by inaccurately lumping together the colonial period with the preceding medieval Muslim era as an undivided period of colonial suffering – a narrative cited by no less than India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in one of his speeches. They argue that unlike the British, the Mughals made India their home and became an integral part of India’s diverse culture, hence they are not outsiders. Noting how the term “invader” functions as a dog whistle to alienate and demonize the entire Muslim community, one commentator intertextually contends that the renaming of Aurangzeb Road itself constitutes an act of “political invasion”, as one has no right to rename that which one has not built oneself (DailyO 14/08/18). The act is further decried as a “deliberate” move to distort history, to erase the record of the past for ideology’s sake in a form of “toponymic cleansing” (Rose-Redwood et al. 2010: 460; Yeoh 1996), very likely sparking a comprehensive purge of the cityscape of the historical legacy of Moghul rule.

Arguments around moral reprehensibility aroused for validating the renaming. They emphatically cite moral grounds. Aurangzeb in particular is depicted as the archetypal villain in the Hindu nationalist imagination, for destroying Hindu cultural institutions, rampaging Hindu temples and slaughtering millions. Supporters of the renaming, predominantly in below-the-line comments, point to this popular perception of Aurangzeb, as “a cruel, dictatorial and despotic ruler” to justify “the need for correcting the mistakes of our past”. By contrast, the renaming of the road after former President Dr APB Abdul Kalam, universally admired for his generosity and kindness, serves to make the point that a “bad” Muslim has been replaced by a “good” Muslim. However, critics question the targeted nature of the renaming, arguing that the widely internalized view of Aurangzeb as a cruel despot is a misrepresentation of a more complex, nuanced reality (Truschke 2016). They maintain that the real agenda behind this ahistorical condemnation of Aurangzeb is to galvanize anti-Muslim sentiments through overt judgments about what sort of Indian Muslim is acceptable (Aeon, 15/4/17).

In appealing to Hindu communal pride – a powerful tool for promoting their particular brand of identity politics – BJP supporters of the renaming heap praise on India’s “glorious” Hindu past, applauding what is predicated as the government’s efforts to safeguard, restore and reclaim India’s cultural heritage, epitomized by the Gupta period (approximately 319–543 CE) and termed the golden period of Indian history – a period believed to have ended with the coming of the Muslims in 1526 (notwithstanding the huge time lag which attests to the level of absurdity of such an allegation). Counter-arguments, expressed through nominalizations, point to the nostalgic glorification/mythologizing of an imagined past, aimed at the Hinduisation” or “Saffronisation”[8] of India (Ahmad 2018; Hansen 1999) in promoting a Hindu nationalist ideology through recourse to discourses of cultural purity and exclusive belonging that seek to deny and delegitimize the manifestations of Mughal contribution to India’s cultural life.

The Mughals had a more than 300-year presence on the subcontinent (1526–1857) and exerted a significant influence on Indian art, architecture and literature. Opponents argue that the imprint of this unprecedented flowering of Indo-Muslim cultural fusion in the public space is viewed as a constant embarrassment to Hindu pride, and short of removal, the next best way to gain popular endorsement of the Hindutva ideology of cultural superiority is to rename these landmarks, as in the case of cities in northern India (e.g., the replacement of Mughalsarai Railway Station, and three airports in 2018 by names with apparent Hindu overtones). Suggesting that for Hindu nationalists, Muslims are a threat to India’s alleged identity as a fundamentally Hindu nation, and interdiscursively referencing the erasure of another emblem of Muslim heritage,[9] a commentator notes:

The replacement of the signs of Muslim presence is an expression of Hindu pride just as the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the Gujarat riots of 2002 were cited as instances of Hindu ‘awakening’ (Gulf News, 17/11/18).

The nominalizations by which the government is repeatedly referred to, such as PM Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP government, India’s right-wing Hindu nationalists, hardcore Hindutva elements, Hindu-centric politicians/spin, the Saffron brigade, political saffronites, hardline Hindu mobs and self-appointed guardians of Indianness, indicate clear disapproval of the present regime’s obsession with renaming.

The analysis reveals how those favouring the renaming often seek to legitimize their position by resorting to the “Othering” of religious minorities and the disenfranchized through Sanskritizing[10] the geography. This privileges the continued hegemony of the upper castes who form the BJP’s powerful voter base, thus enabling the government to firmly consolidate its political power. Critics argue that the erasing of Islamic names in a communally divisive ‘us versus them’ messaging is a way of disempowering India’s Muslims and denying them a stake in the country’s history:

It’s the benign face of officialdom not just rewriting history but also reminding its citizens, especially its Muslim citizens, that there is a new sheriff in town (The Hindu, 24/11/18).

Several reports note how, as elections loom, the renaming spree heats up in a move to appease this voter base, prompting one critic to observe:

We must be clear that the present regime is not interested in culture. It is interested in capturing the nation by making Hindus feel … they have taken [this land] back from “aliens”. A drug is being generated … putting people on high … the drug of victory (Lokayat, 17/11/18).

As (6) suggests, from the perspective of India’s minority groups current renaming practices index unjust control of access to specific discourses in public spheres in the garb of (Hindu) cultural revival: Sites of name change thus represent struggles over unequal representation of naming rights in public space (Alderman and Inwood 2013: 229).

5 Discussion and conclusions

As could be expected, street renaming sparked a debate both in the quality newspapers and on the internet fora. The discussants drew on their (often conflicting) interpretations of history to support their position. As the Polish street name debate invoked more recent history (year 1945) they were able to appeal to individual and family memories of the past, which was not possible in the Indian case (Aurangzeb died in 1707). Another set of arguments characteristic of the Polish case were attempts to claim legitimization of one’s position by referring to the will of the community at large (on various forms of contestation see Buchstaller, this issue). Posnanians felt that their opinion matters. In the Indian case, the moral reprehensibility argument, references to Hindu pride, and conversely the othering of the minorities seemed to have much more official overtones. This difference might stem from the fact that New Delhi is the capital of India, and has thus a much stronger symbolic appeal.

Overall, the case studies presented here show that (debates about) street renaming can become a testing ground for political changes that go beyond symbolic politics. In the Polish case, commemorative renaming is not just an exercise in active forgetting (Assmann 2010) or repressive erasure (Connerton 2008), but rather a pretext for examining how far the central government can infringe on the prerogatives of the local administration. Will such incursions go unnoticed, or will they spark a public debate? Vuolteenaho and Puzey (2018: 90–91) mention a similar conflict between local district administration and metropolitan administration in East Berlin, as a result of which “…most GDR-era street names have survived unchanged … [as they belong to] the “popular” rather than “elite” side of the preceding regime’s odonymic pantheon”. In the Indian case, street renaming is framed as an erasure of symbols of the “alien” Mughal history. Othering has also been used in renaming streets in post-communist communities such as Budapest (Palonen 2018) and Mostar (Palmberger 2018). Šakaja and Stanić (2018) write about the erasure of Serbian names in Zagreb and Azaryahu (2018) of (partial) erasure of Arabic names in Haifa. Thus, changes based on the strategy of othering are not only a “barometer” of political turnover, but a “tool” for creating social identity (Kaltenberg-Kwiatkowska 2011: 165). Indeed, as commemorative street renaming contributes to the construction of a “natural order of things” (Fairclough 2003: 2), it continues to be important for the governments to control the values inscribed into the public space.

Corresponding author: Małgorzata Fabiszak, Department of Cognitive Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland, E-mail:

Award Identifier / Grant number: Flexible Grants for Small Groups 2019

Funding source: Tha National Science Centre

Award Identifier / Grant number: UMO-2016/23/G/HS2/00827


The comparative research presented here was partly supported by Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF) Flexible Grant for Small Groups 2019. The Polish case study was also funded by the German Research Foundation (Grant number BU2902/3-1) and Polish National Science Centre (Grant number UMO-2016/23/G/HS2/00827), project title: “Memory and Ideology in the Linguistic Landscape”.

Appendix 1 Indian data sources

Newspapers: The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, Free Press Journal

These are well-established mainstream newspapers that generally adopt a neutral position in their news reporting, but also include editorials and opinion pieces wherein the writers take a definite stand on issues and offer critical analysis. In recent times the mainstream media has come under some pressure from the government and is thought to be not entirely free of its control.

Magazines: India Today, The Week, Outlook

These are news magazines of general interest dealing with a wide range of topics, politics being given a prime place, allowing for some debate and critique.

Online news fora: The Wire, The Quint, The Conversation, Scroll-in, DailyO, NDTV, Al Jazeera, Gulf News, Lokayat

These are non-profit news media outlets published as independent journalism that offer informed commentary, analysis and debate on topics such as politics, foreign policy, political economy, science and development. Many of them, like The Conversation, publish news stories by academics and researchers and claim that their non-corporate structure frees them from the commercial and political pressures that supposedly afflict mainstream Indian news outlets. The viewpoints they offer and the positions they take up are therefore often those of individual contributors, who do not shy away from taking a strong stand or questioning the government’s actions.

Appendix 2 The original language version of the Polish examples and their translation into English

… wojewoda wolałby żeby tu był nadal Kraj Warty a może tysiącletnia Rzesza?
… would the Governor prefer it to be Warthegau or 1,000-year Reich? (, comment 1)
…Heroiczna walka z komunistycznym wrogiem, który nacierał od wschodu niestety zakończyła się klęską wojsk naszych niemieckich sąsiadów. (…)
… The heroic fight with the communist enemy, who was pushing from the East, ended with the defeat of the army of our Western neighbours. (…) (, comment 2)
Dlaczego wypowiadasz się za wszystkich Poznaniaków? Kto ci dał takie prawo?
Why are you speaking for all Posnanians? Who gave you the right to do so? … (, comment 3)
– Ten wyrok pokazuje, jak ważny jest trójpodział władzy i jak ważne są niezależne, niezawisłe sądy, które – przez stosowne orzeczenia i wyroki – są w stanie uniemożliwić pozaprawne działania władzy wykonawczej – komentował prezydent Poznania Jacek Jaśkowiak.
– This verdict shows how important the balance of powers is and how important are independent, autonomous courts, which – through relevant judgements and verdicts – can prevent extrajudicial actions of the executive power – comments the Mayor of Poznań, Jacek Jaśkowiak. (Gazeta Wyborcza, 23/03/2018)


Ahmad, Rizwan. 2018. Renaming India: Saffronisation of public spaces. Al Jazeera, dated 12 October 2018. (accessed 1 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Alderman, Derek & Joshua F. J. Inwood. 2013. Landscapes of memory and socially just futures. In Richard Schein, Jamie Winders & Nuala Johnson (eds.), A new companion to cultural geography, 186–197. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118384466.ch18Search in Google Scholar

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths & Helen Tiffin. 2000. Post-colonial studies: Key concepts, 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Assmann, Aleida. 2010. Canon and archive. In Astrid Erll & Ansgar Nünning (eds.), A companion to cultural memory studies, 97–108. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Azaryahu, Maoz. 1996. The power of commemorative street names. Environment and Planning B: Society and Space 14. 311–330. in Google Scholar

Azaryahu, Maoz. 2009. Naming the past: The significance of commemorative street names. In Lawrence D. Berg & Jani Vuolteenaho (eds.), Critical toponymies: The contested politics of place naming, 63–70. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Azaryahu, Maoz. 2018. Revisiting East Berlin and Haifa: A comparative perspective on renaming the past. In Reuben Rose-Redwood, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu (eds.), The political life of urban streetscapes: Naming politics and place, 56–73. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315554464-4Search in Google Scholar

Backhaus, Peter. 2007. Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599484Search in Google Scholar

Berg, Lawrence D. & Jani Vuolteenaho (eds.). 2009. Critical toponymies: The contested politics of place naming. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Connerton, Paul. 2008. Seven types of forgetting. Memory Studies 1(1). 59–71. in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203697078Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2015. Language and power, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2017. CDA as dialectical reasoning. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 13–25. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739342-2Search in Google Scholar

Hałas, Elżbieta. 2004. Polityka symboliczna i pamięć zbiorowa. Zmiany nazw po komunizmie [Symbolical politics and collective memory: Renaming after communism]. In Mirosława Maroda (ed.), Zmiana czy stagnacja [Change or stagnation], 128–151. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Thomas B. 1999. The saffron wave: Democracy and Hindu nationalism in modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400823055Search in Google Scholar

Hornsby, Michael & Dick Vigers. 2012. Minority semiotic landscapes – An ideological minefield? In Durk Gorter, Heiko F. Marten & Luk van Mensel (eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape, 57–73. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230360235_4Search in Google Scholar

Kaltenberg-Kwiatkowska, Ewa. 2011. O oznaczaniu i naznaczaniu przestrzeni miasta [About signing and marking the cityspace]. Przeglad Socjologiczny 60. 135–165.Search in Google Scholar

Light, Duncan & Craig Young. 2014. Habit, memory and the persistence of socialist-era street names in post-socialist Bucharest, Romania. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(3). 668–685. in Google Scholar

Light, Duncan & Craig Young. 2018. The politics of toponymic continuity: The limits of change and the ongoing lives of street names. In Reuben Rose-Redwood, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu (eds.), The political life of urban streetscapes: Naming politics and place, 185–201. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315554464-11Search in Google Scholar

Palmberger, Monica. 2018. Nationalizing the streetscape: The case of street renaming in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Rose-Redwood Reuben, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu (eds.), The political life of urban streetscapes: Naming politics and place, 168–184. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315554464-10Search in Google Scholar

Palonen, Emilia. 2018. Building a new city through a new discourse: Street naming revolutions in Budapest. In Reuben Rose-Redwood, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu (eds.), The political life of urban streetscapes: Naming politics and place, 98–113. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315554464-6Search in Google Scholar

Reisigl, Martin. 2017. The discourse-historical approach. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 44–59. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739342-4Search in Google Scholar

Reisigl, Martin & Wodak Ruth. 2009. The discourse-historical approach. In Wodak Ruth & Martin Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2nd edn., 87–121. London: Sage.10.4324/9781315739342-4Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Francis. 2007. The Mughal emperors. London: Thames & Hudson.Search in Google Scholar

Rose-Redwood, Reuben, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu. 2010. Geographies of toponymic inscription: New directions in critical place-name studies. Progress in Human Geography 34(4). 453–470. in Google Scholar

Šakaja, Laura & Jelena Stanić. 2018. The spatial codification of values in Zagreb’s city-text. In Reuben Rose-Redwood, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu (eds.), The political life of urban streetscapes. Naming politics and place, 150–167. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315554464-9Search in Google Scholar

Schimmel, Annemarie. 2004. The empire of the great Mughals: History, art and culture. London: Reaktion Books.Search in Google Scholar

Scollon, Ron & Suzie Wong-Scollon. 2003. Discourses in place. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203422724Search in Google Scholar

Truschke, Audrey. 2016. Aurangzeb: The man and the myth. India: Penguin Random House.10.1515/9781503602595Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun A. 2011. Discourse and ideology. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 379–407. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446289068.n18Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun A. 2017. Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In John Flowerdew & John Richardson (eds.), The Routledge handbook to critical discourse studies, 26–43. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739342-3Search in Google Scholar

Vuolteenaho, Jani & Guy Puzey. 2018. “Armed with an encyclopaedia and an axe”: The socialist and post-socialist street toponymy of East Berlin revisited through Gramsci. In Reuben Rose-Redwood, Derek Alderman & Maoz Azaryahu (eds.), The political life of urban streetscapes: Naming politics and place, 74–97. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315554464-5Search in Google Scholar

Yeoh, Brenda. 1996. Street-naming and nation-building: Toponymic inscriptions of nationhood in Singapore. Area 28(3). 298–307.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-09-24
Accepted: 2020-10-23
Published Online: 2021-08-17

© 2021 Małgorzata Fabiszak and Rani Rubdy, published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 28.3.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow