Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Science and Society in Times of War‖ (June 5-7, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Kharkiv, Ukraine, 2026. - 417 p.

182 Introduction. The linguistic landscape of a settlement includes the written signs visible in public space: street names, institutional nameplates, advertisements, shop signs, posters, memorial plaques, graffiti, banners, public notices, and digital or semi- digital displays [6]. According to the classic definition by Landry and Bourhis [8], the linguistic landscape refers to the visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory. It is not merely a neutral reflection of language use; rather, it is also a symbolic field in which power relations, identity, ideology, and social change become visible [2]. In Ukraine, the linguistic landscape has long reflected the country‘s complex historical and sociolinguistic situation. Ukrainian and Russian, as well as minority languages such as Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Crimean Tatar, Bulgarian, and others, have shaped the visual multilingualism of different regions. However, the Russo–Ukrainian War, especially after Russia‘s full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022, has radically altered the meaning of language in public space. Language has become not only a means of communication, but also a marker of political loyalty, national identity, resistance, trauma, and memory. This paper examines how the war has affected the linguistic landscape of Ukrainian settlements. It focuses on the transformation of public signage, the symbolic status of Ukrainian and Russian, the appearance of new wartime signs, the commemorative function of public space, and the role of multilingual signs connected to international support. The central argument is that the war has intensified the symbolic value of the Ukrainian language and has transformed the linguistic landscape into an important visual expression of national resilience. Theoretical background. Linguistic landscape research has shown that public signs are not simply practical tools for orientation. They also communicate social hierarchies, political ideologies, and collective identities [10]. Signs may be produced by state institutions, local authorities, businesses, schools, churches, activists, or ordinary citizens. Therefore, the linguistic landscape is often divided into top-down and bottom-up signs [1]. Top-down signs are created by official actors, such as state