(2016) Does pointing in the museum make a point? A social semiotic approach to the museum experience

editors Eleftheria Deltsou Maria Papadopoulou

Selected Proceedings from the 10th International Conference of the Hellenic Semiotics Society

e-book (pdf)Changing Worlds & Signs of the Times /Selected Proceedings from the 10th International Conference of the Hellenic Semiotics Society

editors:Eleftheria DeltsouMaria Papadopoulou

design:Yorgos Rimenidis

publisher:

The Hellenic Semiotics SocietyΕλληνική Σημειωτική Εταιρία

© volos, 2016for the editionthe publisherfor the proceedingsthe authors

isbn 978-618-82184-0-6

Selected Proceedings from the 10th International Conference of the Hellenic Semiotics Society

Changing Worlds & Signs of the Times

6 Changing Worlds & Signs of the Times

11 12

16

30

52

68

88

102

112

122

134

144

152

160

170

186

196

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PLENARY SPEECHES Jean-Marie Klinkenberg Thinking the Novelty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos Continuities, discontinuities and ruptures in the history and theory of semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farouk Y. Seif Resilience and Chrysalis Reality: Navigating Through Diaphanous Space and Polychronic Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Göran Sonesson The Eternal Return of the New. From Cultural Semiotics to Evolutionary Theory and Back Again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Κάριν Μπόκλουντ-Λαγοπούλου Γιατί η Σημειωτική; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOCIO-POLITICAL ISSUES Mari-Liis Madisson, Andreas Ventsel Analysis of Self-descriptions of Estonian Far Right in Hypermedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joseph Michael Gratale The ‘War on Terror’ and the re-codification of war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Emile Tsekenis ‘African modernity’: Witchcraft, ‘Autochthony’, and transformations in the conceptualizations of ‘individual’ and ‘collective identity’ in Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sofia Kefalidou, Periklis Politis Identity Construction in Greek TV News Real-Time Narratives on Greek Financial Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Anthony Smyrnaios Discerning the Signs of the Times: The role of history in conspiracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Όλγα Παντούλη Ο ‘αριστερός’ και ο ‘ανατολίτης’ σύζυγος στις αφηγήσεις γυναικών επιστημόνων: διαδικασίες επιτέλεσης του φύλου τους . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Μαριάννα Ψύλλα, Δημήτριος Σεραφής H ανάλυση ενός γεγονότος μέσα από τον πολυσημικό λόγο των εφημερίδων: Μία μεθοδολογική και πολιτική προσέγγιση του Δεκέμβρη του 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Αλεξία Καπραβέλου Ο ρατσισμός σήμερα μέσα από τη σημειωτική ανάλυση ρεπορτάζ εφημερίδων . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPACE AND/IN SOCIETY Eleftheria Deltsou Salonica Other Ways – Otherwise’: A Mirror-λ letter and heterotopias of an urban experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fotini Tsibiridou, Nikitas Palantzas Becoming Istanbul: a dictionary of the problematics of a changing city; inside critique of significant cultural meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7Selected Proceedings from the 10th International Conference of the Hellenic Semiotics Society

206

216

226

236

248

260

270

284

294

308

318

332

346

360

374

386

398

408

420

430

440

454

Kώστας Γιαννακόπουλος Αναφομοίωτες διαφορές, «εξευγενισμός» και πόλη . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ιορδάνης Στυλίδης Η Βιτρίνα ως ελκυστής σημασίας . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Δήμητρα Χατζησάββα Αναδυόμενες έννοιες για τον χωρικό σχεδιασμό . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Θεοδώρα Παπίδου Μεταγραφές ψηφιακού υλικού στον αρχιτεκτονικό σχεδιασμό . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Κωνσταντίνος Μωραΐτης Τοπία σημαίνοντα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Νεφέλη Κυρκίτσου Η ολίσθηση των σημασιών στην τοπική θεωρία του Jacques Lacan . .

Ανθία Βερυκίου Τόποι απουσίας και Τοπολογικά τοπία . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VISUAL CUTLURES George Damaskinidis Are University Students Followers of the World’s Semiotic Turn to the Visual? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dimitrios Koutsogiannis, Vassiliki Adampa, Stavroula Antonopoulou, Ioanna Hatzikyriakou, Maria Pavlidou (Re)constructing Greek classroom space in changing times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polyxeni Manoli A multimodal approach to using comics in EFL classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Αικατερίνη Τάτση, Μαρία Μακαρού Πολυτροπικά πολιτισμικά παλίμψηστα: η περίπτωση ενός κόμικ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Αναστασία Φακίδου, Απόστολος Μαγουλιώτης Σημεία και κώδικες: Πώς αντιλαμβάνονται τα παιδιά τη γλώσσα εικόνων που αναπαριστούν την παιδική ηλικία; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Έφη Παπαδημητρίου, Δήμητρα Μακρή Πολυτροπική κοινωνική σημειωτική προσέγγιση στη δημιουργία νοημάτων-σημείων από μαθητές/τριες της πρωτοβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης . . . . . . .

Θεοφάνης Ζάγουρας Ο σχεδιασμός πολυτροπικών κειμένων για το γλωσσικό μάθημα στο Δημοτικό Σχολείο . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dimitra Christidou Does pointing in the museum make a point? A social semiotic approach to the museum experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Παρασκευή Κερτεμελίδου Οι μετασχηματισμοί του μουσείου τέχνης στην εποχή της κατανάλωσης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ART Eirini Danai Vlachou The Beatles Paradigm. Transcending a collection of ‘ropey’, scrappy, multi-cultural breadcrumbs into a whole new semiosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Μαίη Κοκκίδου, Χριστίνα Τσίγκα Η κουλτούρα των βιντεοκλίπ: η περίπτωση των μουσικών βιντεοκλίπ δια-τροπικής ακρόασης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Angeliki Avgitidou Art imitating protest imitating art: performative practices in art and protest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spiros Polimeris, Christine Calfoglou Some thoughts on the semiotics of digital art . .

Χρύσανθος Βούτουνος, Ανδρέας Λανίτης Η Σημειο-αισθητική προσέγγιση της Βυζαντινής τέχνης ως Εικονική Κληρονομιά . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Άννα Μαρία Παράσχου Τοπογραφία διάρρηξης: Φωτογραφικές απεικονίσεις πολέμου από τον Simon Norfolk, ως μια αφήγηση ανατροπής . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


466

478

488

498

508

524

536

544

560

572

588

600

612

622

634

642

652

664

676

686

Pirjo Kukkonen Signs of times and places in Aki Kaurismäki’s films. The existential subject and the semiotic modalities of being and doing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Christina Adamou Swarming with cops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yvonne Kosma Picturing ‘Otherness’: Cinematic Representations of ‘Greekness’ in “My Big Greek Fat Wedding” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Χρήστος Δερμεντζόπουλος, Θανάσης Βασιλείου Προσεγγίζοντας μια αφαιρετική κινηματογραφική μορφή: “Το Δέντρο της Ζωής”, του Terrence Malick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Νίκος Τερζής Η σημειωτική μέθοδος ανάλυσης μιας ταινίας . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ηρώ Λάσκαρη Σύστημα γενεσιουργής οπτικοακουστικής αφήγησης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ADVERTISEMENT Luiz Carlos Migliozzi Ferreira de Mello Viagra: New Social Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nikos Barkas, Maria Papadopoulou ‘The house of our dreams’: A decade of advertisements in building magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stamatia Koutsoulelou Advertising strategies in times of crisis: A semiotic analysis . . . . . .

Περικλής Πολίτης, Ευάγγελος Κουρδής Κοινωνιόλεκτοι σε ελληνικές τηλεοπτικές διαφημίσεις. Η περίπτωση της «γλώσσας των νέων» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ευριπίδης Ζαντίδης Αναδυόμενες ταυτότητες και εθνικότητα σ’ ένα φλιτζάνι κυπριακού καφέ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ελένη Συκιώτη, Γενοβέφα Ζαφειρίδου Σημειωτικές παρατηρήσεις στη σύγχρονη διαφήμιση: Η περίπτωση της εμπορικής και της κοινωνικής διαφήμισης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Βασιλική Κέλλα Η διαφήμιση ως λεκτική πράξη . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LANGUAGE, TEXTS AND TEXTUALITIES George Androulakis, Roula Kitsiou, Carolina Rakitzi, Emmanuel Zerai Linguistic cityscape revisited: inscriptions and other signs in the streets of Volos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

María José Naranjo, Mercedes Rico, Gemma Delicado, Noelia Plaza Constructing new identities around Languages and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ιωάννα Μωραΐτου, Ελευθερία Τσέλιου Ανάλυση Λόγου και μεταμοντέρνες προσεγγίσεις στη συμβουλευτική / ψυχοθεραπεία: η «στροφή στο λόγο» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Φίλιππος Τεντολούρης, Σωφρόνης Χατζησαββίδης «Κατασκευάζοντας» το κείμενο και τον συγγραφέα: οριοθετημένα και μη-οριοθετημένα σημειωτικά πλαίσια της σχολικής γλωσσικής δημιουργίας . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Βάσια Τσάμη, Δημήτρης Παπαζαχαρίου, Άννα Φτερνιάτη, Αργύρης Αρχάκης H πρόσληψη της γλωσσικής ποικιλότητας σε κείμενα μαζικής κουλτούρας από μαθητές της Ε’ και ΣΤ’ Δημοτικού . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Αναστασία Χριστοδούλου, Ιφιγένεια Βαμβακίδου, Αργύρης Κυρίδης ‘Lego-Legends of CHIMA’. Κοινωνιοσημειωτική ανάλυση της συναρμολόγησης του θρύλου . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Μαρίνα Σούνογλου, Αικατερίνη Μιχαλοπούλου Η Σημειωτική στη διαμόρφωση της έννοιας του πολίτη στο νηπιαγωγείο . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


700

708

720

730

738

756

766

778

790

798

808

818

826

834

844

856

868

BODIES & MINDS Fotini Bonoti, Plousia Misailidi Graphic signs of jealousy in children’s human figure drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eirini Papadaki The Semiotics of Children Drawings, A Comparative Study of Art, Science and Children Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Myrto Chronaki Changing practices and representations of birth and birth-spaces in maternity clinics and at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Athanasios Sakellariadis Metaphor as a Hermeneutical Design of the Mental Phenomena: The role of narrative speech in the cognitive field of the Philosophy of Mind . . . . . . . . .Anita Kasabova A semiotic attempt to analyze delusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE Miltos Frangopoulos The Task of the Translator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fitnat Cimşit Kos, Melahat Küçükarslan Emiroğlu Reality as a Manner of Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Angela Yannicopoulou, Elita Fokiali Transmedia Narratives for Children and Young Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ioanna Boura The expression of worldviews through narratives and chronotopes of liquid times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evgenia Sifaki The “Poetic Subject” as “Subject of Semiosis” in C. P. Cavafy’s “Going back Home from Greece” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Αγγελική Γιαννικοπούλου Το εικονογραφημένο βιβλίο χωρίς λόγια . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Μαρίνα Γρηγοροπούλου Κόσμοι που συγκρούονται και σημεία των τεχνών: οι «Σκοτεινές Τέχνες» του Νίκου Κουνενή . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Σοφία Ιακωβίδου Εις τα περίχωρα της δυστοπίας: αφηγήσεις της κρίσης στη λογοτεχνία για νέους . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Πέγκυ Καρπούζου Το παιχνίδι και η ηθική της μετανεωτερικής συμβίωσης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Αγλαΐα Μπλιούμη Ρευστοί καιροί και μεταφορές – Σημειωτικές προσεγγίσεις στη λογοτεχνία της ενωμένης Γερμανίας . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Παναγιώτης Ξουπλίδης Ένας οικείος δαίμονας: προς μια προσέγγιση του σημείου της λογοτεχνικής γάτας σε 7 κείμενα παιδικής λογοτεχνίας του Χρήστου Μπουλώτη . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conference Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Keywords

pointing , reference , museum , sociocultural , visitors , meaning-making

AbstractPrevious research has explored mainly visitors’ meaning-making and experiences through their conversations in the museum. This paper acknowledges the multimo-dality of communication by drawing upon multimodal social semiotics and discusses the use of pointing gestures as a sociocultural means of visitors’ meaning-making. It frames the discussion with two examples from the audio-visual data collected for the author’s doctoral research that explored the sociocultural means visitors used when experiencing seven exhibits across three museums in London, UK. Visitors’ encoun-ters were audio and video recorded, capturing their verbal and non-verbal interac-tions and the contextual aspects upon which visitors drew during their interactions. The analysis suggests that, apart from using pointing gestures to negotiate and identi-fy their foci of attention, visitors also use them to reinforce and validate their meaning by pointing towards the institutional, selected by the museum, modes of meaning.


Dimitra Christidou Researcher [email protected]

VISU

AL

CULT

UR

ES

Does pointing in the museum make a point? A social semiotic approach to the museum experience

Although museum researchers have long explored visitors’ learning, there has been little research to describe the social interaction that arises in settings of informal learn-ing (Christidou, in press; 2012; Davies & Heath, 2013). Despite the growing recognition that communication and learning are multimodal processes, previous research mainly analysed visitors’ conversations while in the museum, setting aside the manifold modes of their meaning-making that arise in and through social interaction. This paper takes a multimodal social semiotic approach which acknowledges, focuses on, analyses, and describes all the modes that collaboratively lead to meaning-making, affirming the plu-rality and the social and contextual nature of these modes (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010; Van Leeuwen, 2005). A multimodal social semiotic perspective draws attention to the process, as well as the products of this process and looks at how multiple modes are all orchestrated and choreographed.

This paper discusses the museum encounter as a multimodal process through which visitors’ common ground shapes and is reshaped by their ongoing social inter-action. Previous research has pointed out the recurrence and subsequently, the impor-tance of the process of identification for the museum experience and visitors’ meaning making (Allen, 2002; Fienberg & Leinhardt, 2002). This paper expands on this branch of research and microanalyses the process of identification by examining the sociocultural means through which visitors carry out the anchoring of their attention on an object, or one of its aspects. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss specifically the use of pointing gestures in the museum. Additionally, this paper aims to bring to the fore the possibilities that arise when thinking about the museum experience multimodally.

The process of identification

There has been an ongoing interest in exploring visitors’ learning through their dis-course in the museum, leading to a categorisation of visitors’ talk based on the com-municative function that it carries out (Allen, 2002; Fienberg & Leinhardt, 2002). Among these categories, identification -the kind of talk visitors use to identify their attention foci while in the museum, regularly by naming the exhibit or referring to one of its as-pects- has been established as the first stage of visitors’ joint meaning-making, as it precedes both interpretation and evaluation of the exhibits.

As museum visitors tend to arrive in their majority as part of a group (Davies & Heath, 2013), social interaction, especially the management of attention and its nego-tiation, becomes an essential part of the museum visit, as visitors constantly monitor each other, the context, and the content of their ongoing encounters. In this social con-text, referring to objects is a collaborative process that may be carried out through nam-ing or, alternatively, using verbal reference, shifts in gaze and posture, and pointing ges-tures. For the verbal reference, the spatial deixis (e.g. “here”, “there”) will be explored, as the focus of analysis is to describe the ways through which visitors connect and


share aspects of the exhibition’s content and context with each other. It can be argued that spatial deixis has a twofold communicative function: it encourages the collocated participants to search for and look at a specific locus in their co-located context, while, at the same time, it indicates the moment when the participants in interaction are aware of each other’s orientation and direction towards an object in their relevant environment (Hanks, 1992; Hindmarsh & Heath, 2000). This category includes also verbs of motion such as “come”, “go”, “check”, “look” as they provide verbal vectors to the context in which the interaction takes place. Additionally, these verbs hold a sociocultural function, as they can function as an invitation to someone’s experience of “seeing” something (Christidou, 2012; Katz, 1996).

The indicative gestures (pointing gestures) can be seen as an alternative means to the verbal identification. Pointing gestures seem to speed up the pivotal process of the identification at the face of the exhibits, while they also function as an alternative to naming (Moore, 2008). Pointing can be seen as real-time annotation; this implies both an ability and a desire to draw the other’s attention to something and modify the inter-locutor’s knowledge or understanding of the world; it implies a sense of importance and a sense of others as potentially intentional agents. However, pointing’s own nature poses a few problematic issues for research, such as the limited temporal duration of the actual gesture, as well as the more limited span of mutual accessibility to the ges-ture for the interactants. This shortcoming had been addressed and minimised with the implementation of video-based research for the collection of my data.

Both pointing gestures and referential expressions allow participants to indicate something in one’s surroundings, anchor joint attention and mutual orientation, while establishing a connection between the performer, the indicated point of attention and addressee. Specifically, by drawing visual and verbal links in the form of vectors among the participants in interaction as well as to aspects of the context, the performer invites his/her co-visitor to “enter into some kind of [...] relation with him or her (the perform-er)” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 118) and thus, these visual and verbal vectors are strong indicators of active participation and interaction as they express “a dynamic, ‘do-ing’ or ‘happening’ kind of relation” (Jewitt & Oyama, 2001, p. 141) between the partici-pants in interaction. For their embedded social function, both verbal deixis and pointing gestures are not treated as simple actions. Instead, by studying these seemingly subtle exchanges, one can investigate a range of semiotic modes in a single interactive act, such as the visible body performing the act of pointing, the talk emerging before, along, or after the act of pointing, the context or the properties of the reference, the joint ori-entation of the participants, and the larger activity within which the act of pointing is situated (Goodwin, 2000; 2003).


Method

To explore the social dynamics of the moment-by-moment visitors’ interactions, I adopted a qualitative research approach, audio and videotaping data, so as to empha-size the importance of ‘context’ and preserve the sequential and indexical character of participants’ conduct. Data had been collected for over a year (March 2010 until August 2011), totalling more than 300 hours of filming (Christidou, 2012). Data was examined repeatedly and transposed into detailed multimodal transcripts that facilitated the mi-croanalysis of interaction emerging in front of the exhibits. The systematic analysis of each incident highlighted specific visitor performances, while it also drew attention onto the differences in interactional patterns among the participant museums and within the same exhibition. The combination of the systematic analysis and microanalysis of the data facilitated the researcher in “zooming in” and “zooming out” of the analysed data and, additionally, helped to contextualise what took place at the face of the exhibits. Through the systematic analysis of the strips of interaction, an understanding of how typical or atypical each event is, compared to the larger corpus of collected data, be-came possible.

Results

Close analysis of the video data collected revealed the complexities of visitors’ interac-tions and highlighted, among others, the heavy use of pointing gestures throughout their process of meaning-making (Christidou, 2013). Two critical communication functions of pointing gestures emerged during the initiation, as well as the elaboration of visitors’ interaction: (a) negotiating and identifying visitors’ foci of attention, and (b) using these to reinforce and validate their discourse by pointing towards the interpretive text.

Figures 1 and 2 describe two representative examples of visitors using pointing ges-tures and verbal deixis to negotiate and anchor their co-visitors’ attention on the same exhibit or one of its aspects, as well as pointing towards the interpretive text as a means of validating their own interpretation. Both incidents took place in front of Seurat’s Woman Powdering Herself painting at the Courtauld Gallery, referred to throughout this paper as Seurat. The conventions used for the transcripts can be seen in the Appendix.

Specifically, Figure 1 shows an example of two adults (W1 &W2) with W1 being the “designated reader” (Hirschi & Screven, 1988) -that is, the person who reads the inter-pretive text to the members of his/her group. When W2 leans towards the label, W1 says “it’s another of his”, introducing the painting to W2 by linking it to the one they had just looked at. W1 positions herself closer to the label, followed by W2. Immediately, W1 starts reading the second paragraph of the label aloud, performing what McManus (1989) called ‘text-echo’. Text-echo is a specific museum-visitor-related behaviour with visitors reading the interpretive text aloud as it is, or rephrasing and/or quoting parts of it. Through this specific type of behaviour, visitors bridge their institutional goals and


personal agendas (Mayr, 2008). By bringing aspects of the institution’s language into their own discourse, visitors not only discover the exhibit in the light of their co-visitor’s performance, but also in the light of the institutions’ authoritative voice. As seen in this specific incident, the encounter with the painting is characterised by the heavy use of text-echo and thus, informed by the authoritative resources provided by the museum.

In addition, the interpretive text is not only a means of providing information on the exhibits, but also a means of indicating how to look at them. Choosing to refer to spe-cific aspects of the exhibit -here the painting- can be seen as an indicator of how to look at it. She animates the text through pointing and iconic gestures in an attempt to draw relevance and attention to what she is quoting. W1 uses her right hand and points at the label text to demarcate that she is reading it. As she is quoting from the text, she gives out an iconic gesture of doing dots while reading aloud the “small dots of colour” part of the text. Then, she points at the painting’s frame and rephrases the text (“he painted far, creating more like a frame”) moving her hand up and down, right and left to make the frame more salient. Her gesture is noticed by M, who happens to share the same space. He attends her gesture and then he moves away.

As W1 keeps reading, she once again animates the text when she comes across the phrase “robust figure”: she points with her right hand towards the painting. Upon reading “delicate” aloud, she immediately gives an iconic gesture by extending her hand, holding her three fingers together while sliding it slightly towards the floor. She contin-ues reading the last paragraph when, upon reading the phrase “frivolity of her actions” before the end of the text’s paragraph, she performs another pointing gesture towards the painting. This example illustrates the ways in which the main performer designs her performance in specific ways by using specific means which allow the audience to encounter the exhibit in very specific ways. It can be argued that all performances some-how animate the exhibit momentarily, as visitors, through their social sharing, appear in a sense to “bring it to life” by personally and socially infusing the exhibit.

Figure 2 describes an incident during which the use of the interpretive text as a val-idation means becomes more evident. S turns to his right and notices Seurat, which he decides to approach. While turning his gaze and posture towards the painting, he points at it while giving out an evaluative comment (“the same as that”). The pointing gesture works in tandem with the deictic term “that” while the adjective “same” hints at the sim-ilarity observed between the two paintings. Despite his given shift in attention, M and W can still be seen interacting with another painting. Upon reaching the painting, S turns to his left and faces M and W; he uses the deictic adjective “this” but again, his performance falls unnoticed. S immediately uses person reference (“dad”), a category that carries out the identification of the person being summoned (Schegloff, 2007) - in this case M.

M turns towards S, followed by W, a shift in posture acknowledged by S, who extends his performance by using spatial verbal deixis (“this”) along with a pointing ges-


ture. Again, his pointing gesture works in tandem with the deictic term “this”, elaborat-ing his indication and hence the process of identification. This performance manages to attract their attention as we can see both M and W moving towards S, with M saying “big one” while giving out an iconic gesture by opening his hands wide as he approaches S. The gesture and the verbal description work in tandem.


M extends his first account of the painting’s attributes by verbally describing the unique technique used for the painting (“you got lots of dots in there, haven’t you?”) which he couples with the iconic gesture of “doing dots” while positioning himself next to S.1 The use of a tag question (“haven’t you?”), according to Goodwin (1980), is a verbal request for the co-participant to perform the next turn-taking. Even though S issues no response, both of M and S stay in front of Seurat, looking at the painting.

The next turn-taking is performed by W who, after having approached the painting and reading its interpretive text, points at it while uttering “must have taken him a year, oh no, two!” Her index finger points at the dates provided in the title of the label (“1888-90”), a performance that expands those previously given by S and M concerning the existence of “lot of dots”. Once W suggests that the time required for making all these dots was one year (“must have taken him a year”), she immediately repairs herself by suggesting two years instead (“oh no, two!”). While contradicting her initial estimation on the time required producing all these dots, she points at the label, indicating the


Figure 1. Using text-echo in front of Seurat, Courtauld Gallery, London, UK.

specific line where the date of the painting is displayed. Her pointing towards the inter-pretive text, which is considered part of the authoritative voice of the museum, is seen as a confirmation of her repair and stresses the validation of the information provided.

W approaches S and M and, while standing next to M, she utters “two years to make it” as a way to summarize her preceding interpretation. Even though the information pro-vided in the text refers to the year of creation and not the duration of the actual process, this example brings together at the same time four of the contexts in which the museum encounter is situated: (a) the physical, (b) the institutional context through the use of the interpretive text, (c) the personal context reflected through the visitor’s own interpreta-tion, and (d) the social context which is momentarily negotiated by visitors themselves.


Discussion

The objective of this paper was to explore the use and social dynamics of pointing gestures in the museum. Although the importance of the ubiquitous mode of gesture for people’s communication has been explored in numerous settings such as the London Underground control room (Hindmarsh & Heath, 2000), archaeological sites (Goodwin, 2003), class-rooms (Goldin-Meadow, 2007) and shop counters (Clark, 2003), there has been little re-search exploring their communicational and social function in a museum setting.

Among the range of resources available such as the interpretive text, leaflets, audio and visual applications, visitors draw also upon other people’s actions, conversations and gestures, in order to make meaning. Pointing gestures direct attention to specific exhibits, or bring out aspects of these exhibits, and thus, can be seen as an alternative mode to verbally naming or describing these. Pointing gestures, like language, allow the participants in interaction to negotiate and secure anchoring their attention on the same exhibit. Additionally, as the analysis of the aforementioned incidents showed, pointing gestures may be used to elaborate and validate visitors’ verbal exchanges as they very often point to the exhibits and the interpretive text, and vice versa, in order to link what they say to the actual exhibit and/or the interpretive text. By elaborating


Figure 2. Negotiating attention in front of Seurat, Courtauld Gallery, London, UK.

their “text-echo” (McManus, 1989) with pointing gestures towards the interpretive text, visitors bring into their own meaning making the authorative voice of the museum, hav-ing simultaneously asynchronous conversations with the curators and the institution (Stainton, 2002), while having synchronous conversations with their co-visitors.

Although the framing of the exhibits is an institutional choice, their on-going ‘con-sumption’ is negotiated by the visitors who use the interpretive text as a “mental handle” (Silverman, 1990, p. 97), an entrance point, as well as a validation point to frame their own interpretation. Analysis also brought to the fore the fact that visitors used pointing gestures as a means for revealing the exhibit to their co-visitors, animating it in very specific ways and inviting others to look at it in very particular ways. For example, one’s choice to select specific passages from the text, or even quote all of it as in the second incident (Figure 2), allows the exhibit to be seen in the light of the authoritative voice combined with the visitors’ personal point of view.

In summary, a social multimodal approach to the museum experience, even when applied to the shortest in duration interactions, reveals so much about what people say and do in situ, which “lies at the very heart of the visit and people’s experience of muse-ums and galleries” (Davies & Heath, 2013, p. 18). Given the current need to address so-cial interaction in order to reach a better understanding of visitors’ experience (Davies & Heath, 2013), this paper hopes to inform and advance this body of work as it illuminates the ways in which visitors draw upon multiple modes, especially pointing gestures, as they attempt to reach a shared meaning-making.

Endnote1. The prevalence of this iconic gesture prompted the researcher to coin this animating performance

as ‘doing dots’ as the hand imitated the making of dots.

ReferencesAllen, S. (2002). Looking for Learning in Visitor Talk: A Methodological Exploration. In G.

Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning Conversations in Museums (pp. 259-303). Mahwah, N.J.; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bezemer, J., & Jewitt, C. (2010) Multimodal Analysis: Key issues. In: L. Litosseliti (Ed), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 180-197). London: Continuum.

Christidou, D. (in press). Social interaction in the art museum: Performing etiquette while connecting to each other and the exhibits. The Arts in Society.

Christidou, D. (2013). Bringing Meaning into Making: How Do Visitors Tag an Exhibit as Social when Visiting a Museum. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 6(1), 73-85.

Christidou, D. (2012). Does “pointing at” in museum exhibitions make a point? A study of visitors’ performances in three museums for the use of reference as a means of initiating and prompting meaning-making. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University College of London.

Clark, H. (2003). Pointing and Placing. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where Language, culture, and Cognition meet (pp. 243-268). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.


Davies, M., & Heath, C. (2013). Evaluating evaluation: Increasing the impact of summative evaluation in museums and galleries. Retrieved from http://www.visitors.org.uk

Fienberg, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Looking through the glass: Reflections of identity in conversations as a history museum. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning Conversations in Museums (pp. 167-212). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Pointing Sets the Stage for Learning Language-and Creating Language. Child Development, 78(3), 741-745.

Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as Situated Practice. In: S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet (pp. 217-241). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Pointing and the Collaborative Construction of Meaning in Aphasia. Texas Linguistic Forum 43, 67-76. Retrieved on 15 March 2009 from World Wide Web: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/COGS200/Goodwin2.pdf.

Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 272-302.

Hanks, W. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In: A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 43-76). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hindmarsh, J. & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied Reference: a Study of Deixis in Workplace Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1855-1878.

Hirschi, K. D. & Screven, C. G. (1988). Effects of questions on visitor reading behavior. ILVS Review, 1(1), 50-61.

Jewitt, C. & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual Meaning: a Social Semiotic Approach. In T.van Leewen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 134-156). SAGE.

Katz, J. (1996). Families and Funny Mirrors: A Study of the Social Construction and Personal Embodiment of Humor. The American Journal of Sociology, 101(5), 1194-1237.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London: UK: Routledge.

McManus, P. (1989). Oh, yes, they do: How museum visitors read labels and interact with exhibit texts. Curator, 32(3), 174-189.

Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power: an Introduction to Institutional Discourse. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Moore, R. (2008). When names fail: Referential practice in face-to-face service encounters. Language in Society 37, 385-413.

Schegloff, E. (2007). Categories in action: person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 433-461.

Silverman, L., 1990. Of us and other “things”: The content and functions of talk by adult visitor pairs in an art and a history museum. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania.

Stainton, C. (2002). Voices and Images: Making Connections between Identity and Art. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning Conversations in Museums (pp. 213-257). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.


Appendix

– Capital letters to indicate raised intonation.– Bold letters to indicate verbal exchanges. – (laughs) to indicate laughing.– (.) to indicate a pause less than a second, less than taking a breath.– (0.5) to indicate a pause of 5 seconds. Numbers in parentheses indicate elapsed time in silence in seconds.– (=) when utterances are one after the other with no interval in-between them.– (-) to indicate inaudible words.– ( ) to place nonverbal behaviours simultaneously occurring.– M for a male participant.– W for a female participant.– D for a female child (up to 18 years old).– S for a male child (up to 18 years old).


(2016) Does pointing in the museum make a point? A social semiotic approach to the museum experience

Documents

Transcript of (2016) Does pointing in the museum make a point? A social semiotic approach to the museum experience