This study looks at the language, translation, and visual mistakes that can be found on protest signs from movements around the world, such as the Arab Spring, Black Lives Matter, and climate activism. A lot of people think that protest signs are a good way to show their political views, but mistakes in grammar, translations, and design can make them less effective at getting their point across, especially when they are used in places where people speak more than one language or come from different countries. The study uses a qualitative, multimodal discourse analysis framework to look at 125 protest signs that were written in Arabic and English. There were three main kinds of mistakes: (1) language mistakes, like misspellings and syntax that didn't match; (2) translation mistakes, like translating literally and machines making mistakes; and (3) visual mistakes, like bad typography, layout, and bidirectionality in bilingual signs. The results show that these kinds of mistakes, which people often think are bad, actually have complex semiotic roles. They often show sociolinguistic weakness, emotional urgency, and genuine grassroots support. But in transnational media, these same mistakes could change the political message and cause people to make fun of it, not understand it, or not stand up for it.
The study says that mistakes made during protests shouldn't just be seen as language mistakes; they should also be seen as signs of resistance in their context. It suggests that teachers, activists, and scholars should change how they think about protest language by seeing it as a place where people can negotiate power, identity, and expression.