eleftheria deltsou maria...

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

linguistic cityscape , inscriptions , tags , sociolinguistics , semiosis , indexicality

AbstractThis paper presents an ongoing sociolinguistic project focusing on the linguistic land-scape of Volos, the port city of Central Greece. The project is run since 2011 by the Greek Language Lab of the University of Thessaly, with the participation of dozens of graduate students under the authors’ supervision and coordination. The fieldwork has already provided a corpus which consists of more than 2,000 photographed signs and messages. The paper discusses methodological matters such as sampling, definition of the unit of analysis, categorization and quantification, showcases some first results on indexicality, iconicity and symbolism, and fosters a less public, ‘official’ and more inclusive approach, reserving research interest for graffiti, slogans, and all other kinds of personal or interpersonal messages. Finally, this paper problematizes some still open questions, methodologically and scientifically speaking, and points out the challenges to face in future stages of our research project.


George Androulakis University of Thessaly [email protected] Roula Kitsiou University of Thessaly [email protected] Carolina Rakitzi University of Thessaly [email protected] Emmanuel Zerai University of Thessaly [email protected]

LAN

GU

AG

E, T

EXTS

AN

D T

EXTU

ALI

TIES

Linguistic cityscape revisited:inscriptions and other signs in the streets of Volos

Introduction

This paper constitutes the first public presentation of an ongoing research project, un-dertaken by members of the Greek Language Lab (www.greeklanglab.pre.uth.gr) of the University of Thessaly in Volos, Greece. It is a collective project, as data collection and initial elaboration come from students attending courses of linguistics and applied lin-guistics in the Department of Primary Education of the University of Thessaly. The four authors of this paper coordinate a vast research network since the assignments for the students participating in the project are organized, processed and evaluated in several stages. Starting point of the project is the assumption that public signs are valuable in-dicators of language change, linguistic representations, language contact and bi-/mul-ti-lingualism, power relations, cultural, social and ethical values, trends, conflicts and negotiations. Thus, understanding and interpreting the written signs on public display is a fascinating challenge for socio-linguistic and socio-semiotic research.

The main purposes of this paper are to discuss methodological issues such as sam-pling, definition of the unit of analysis, quantification and categorization, to explain the related decisions taken, to clarify the adopted typologies, to showcase some first re-sults on indexicality, iconicity and symbolism, and to foster a less public, ‘official’ and more inclusive approach, reserving research interest for graffiti, slogans and all other kinds of personal or interpersonal messages.

Theoretical background and previous research

This paper draws upon works published in the late 2000s on ‘linguistic landscape’ as a field of semiotic and sociolinguistic research (Gorter, 2006; Backhaus, 2007; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009). These publications follow the definition given earlier by the social psycholo-gists Landry and Bourhis, according to which the linguistic landscape of a given territory or urban agglomeration is formed by “the language of public road signs, advertising bill-boards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on govern-ment buildings” (Landry & Bourhis, 1997, p. 25). More precisely, as we have to do with written signs in the framework of a city, we adopt here the term ‘cityscape’, following the remarks of Gorter (2006, p. 83) and Spolsky (in: Shohamy & Gorter, 2009, p. 25).

Aligning with Peircean theory, we stress the need for an interpretation of the written signs encountered in the city streets with a combination of the three semiotic functions: indexical, iconic and symbolic. Furthermore, we conceive this ‘semiosis’ as a cooperation of a sign, its object, and its interpretant (Buchler, 1955, p. 99). An integrated part of Peirce’s ‘stechiology’ is the interest in how signs can signify and what kinds of signs, objects, and interpretants there are, how signs combine, and how some signs embody others.

Despite its obvious interest from a sociolinguistic point of view, linguistic cityscape re-mains a relatively underexplored research field. Rather belatedly, investigation of the field of language on signs emerged in bilingual contexts and, first of all, in officially bilingual


cities and towns: Montréal and the use of French and English (Monnier, 1989); Brussels and the balance between French and Flemish (Wenzel, 1996); Jerusalem and the frictions between Hebrew and Arabic (Ben-Rafael et al., 2004, 2006); then, two towns where a minority language coexists with the official, national language: Frisian with Dutch in the town of Ljouwert in the Netherlands, and Basque with Spanish in the town of Donostia, situated in the Spanish side of the Basque Country (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006).

This research trend got enhanced in multilingual contexts: Paris and Dakar, the offi-cially French-speaking capital of Senegal (Calvet, 1990, 1994), Lira in Uganda (Reh, 2004), and 5 cityscapes around the world (Beijing, Hong Kong, Paris, Vienna, Washington DC) as ‘semiotic aggregates’ (Scollon & Scollon, 2003). More recently, studies in traditionally considered as monolingual cities appeared: Rome (Bagna & Barni, 2006; Griffin, 2004); Bangkok (Huebner, 2006); Tokyo (Someya, 2002; Backhaus, 2007). Regarding Greek city-scape, there is some recent interest in slogans on city walls, but no comprehensive re-search and analysis of the linguistic cityscape of a given city has occurred so far.

The common characteristics of previous research in the field of linguistic cityscape may be summarized as follows:

1. Predominantly quantitative orientation (with the exception of the works of Calvet, Scollon & Scollon, Reh)

2. Studies on linguistic signs exclusively3. Consideration of written messages attached to immovable carriers in pub-

lic space4. Focus on shop signs and advertisement billboards5. Interest in globalization and its impact on local linguistic ecologies (spread

of English; bi-/multi-lingualism)6. Limited extent of the corpora.

In other words, research was often content with the approach of what Wienold called ‘inscriptions’: “written uses of language which do not a have a recognizable emitter and are not meant for specific receivers. They can be read / received by anyone coming into appropriate distance. They do not arise out of or establish or promote personal relation-ships and are not interpreted that way” (Wienold, 1994, p. 640).

Methodology

The main research questions of our project are the following:Which are the intersections between public and personal domains?What is the impact of economic and social crisis on sociolinguistic ecology and, more generally, on language?Is there evidence of change and dynamics in the field of written language in public space and, if so, how is it shaped within the context of a specific city in a certain period of time?


Our research project is based on fieldwork undertaken by undergraduate students of the Department of Primary Education (University of Thessaly) as part of an optional as-signment in courses taught by George Androulakis. More specifically, the four courses are a) Modern Greek Language, b) Teaching of Modern Greek Language, c) Sociolinguis-tics and d) Literacy and design of the Modern Greek Language subject, expanding in a timespan of four academic semesters. As a result, 189 assignments were gathered, 180 of which are both in printed and digital form and 9 only in printed form.

As far as sampling and corpus construction are concerned, our research project is characterized by several points of differentiation compared to the aforementioned trends of previous research:

1. Construction of a large corpus2. Longitudinal approach of the corpus with return to the surveyed places and

comparisons of change3. Limited interest in quantitative indicators4. Inclusion of non-linguistic or extra-linguistic signs in the corpus5. Inclusion of signs attached to movable carriers in the corpus.

Project phase A: data collection

As mentioned above, 189 undergraduate students aged 19-20 (167 females, 22 males) participated in this project as collectors of the data, undertaking a specific task in the form of a course assignment. The subject of the students’ assignment was to photo-graph signs of the streets of Volos in order to identify interesting linguistic elements of the cityscape, i.e. discernible written elements in different parts of the surrounding en-vironment, and critically comment on the linguistic, graphic, stylistic and semantic con-tent of the photographed signs. Each student was assigned with a specific zone of the city (e.g. a commercial or building block) of his/her choice, located mainly in the center of Volos and was instructed to photograph approximately 20 signs. The assignment should include these photographs and comments on the integration of the signs in their space and on language(s) use. Furthermore, the signs should be displayed in the same order as they were located, without making changes to their arrangement and without omitting any sign observed in their zone. The data presented in this paper were collected from December 2011 until June 2013, but this network research is still ongoing.

A total of 189 assignments were submitted after the completion of the courses and a sum of 3.777 photographs were archived during the second phase of the project by a group of coders. Ιt was noticed that there were differentiations among the students in the management and description of the photographs taken; such discrepancies are related to the influence of the course attended by each student and the language awareness level of each researcher. We assume that factors such as the student researchers’ personal preferences, linguistic experiences, gender, and age are those with the most impact on the


emergent differentiations in the conduct of the research assignment. In any event, this ap-proach is not part of the aim of this specific paper and will be discussed in other contexts.

Project phase B: data management and coding

The second phase of the project refers to the management and coding of the data gath-ered during a period of three years. As this was the first attempt to organize and analyze our corpus, we had some critical decisions to make prior to the analysis. The first ob-stacle to overcome was the organization of the corpus with a use of a coherent coding system. Three coders (and co-authors of this paper) were responsible for organizing and coding the data. After the initial random distribution of the assignments to the cod-ers, the photographs were renamed according to the semester of their production and the coded identity of the data collector. More specifically, as the assignments were con-ducted during four semesters, our team matched a capital letter of the Greek alphabet with each semester, the letter “A” for autumn semester 2011, “B” for spring 2012, “Γ” (=C) for autumn 2012, and “Δ” (=D) for spring semester 2013. In the next step, a number was given to each assignment, according to the respective semester and following an alphabetical order. Seeking to optimize the organization of our corpus, each photograph was serially numbered. Hence, the described system resulted in unique codes of the collected items; for example, “Γ32.13”refers to the item-photograph No13 of the 32nd assignment (related to the coded identity of the data collector) which was fulfilled during the autumn semester 2012.

Consequently, the coding system took into consideration the parameters a) type of sign, b) means of transmission, c) semiotic codes, and d) font and style. The three coders worked independently on the same data (60 items/photos were coded) in order to pilot the coding system and increase the reliability of the data. Upon completion and approval of the coding system, each coder worked independently on his/her data of about 1,250 items each, for a period of three months.

Project phase C: data analysis and interpretation

The scope of the analysis included the following issues: a) unit of analysis; b) basic cate-gorization; c) language(s) used; d) comments on each language relevant to punctuation, the use of capital and small letters, the existence of language borrowings, abbrevia-tions, spelling variation, etc.; e) general comments regarding qualitative elements of the sign as a whole, such as function and purpose of the sign or effectiveness of the message content and relations of the linguistic code with other semiotic codes; and f) other comments that refer to the sign repetitiveness in the corpus and its relationship with the place where it was traced, or to indicators of the data collectors’ intervention on the photographed items due to ethical issues. The present paper concentrates on the first two issues, Unit of analysis and Basic Categorization.


Unit of analysis

The definition of the “Unit of analysis” was an important methodological issue. We de-cided to work with semantic rather than physical entities. Therefore, we define the se-miotic sign (our unit of analysis) according to semantic criteria (cf. Lemke, 1999). In this sense, we propose four values:

• Unit; a semantic entity either identical with physical entity or not• Sub-unit; part of an entity with relevant content• Super-unit; entity comprising more than one units with irrelevant content• Fragment of unit; incomplete unit.

Basic Categorization

As far as the first step of the analysis process is concerned, we decided to distribute and categorize all the signs of the corpus in three categories on the basis of the emitter of the sign. This analysis step is called “Basic Categorization”.

After thorough observation of the corpus, a decision has been made, adopting the following three values:


Figure 3. Instances of super-units (2 or more unrelated units): D5.11 3 distinct signposts, B13.16 Many graffitis not always identifiable, over-lapping units, B13.9 Many unrelated units on an institutional fixed object (placards, graffitis), C8.10 Many unrelated units (signposts, placards, graffitis).

Figure 4. Instances of fragments: C19.03 Poster, B25.14 Shop Sign, C36.14 Graffiti, C40.16 Placard.

Figure 1. Instances of units: A13.23 Shop sign, A6.18 Placard, B18.8 Graffiti.

Figure 2. Instances of sub-units (2 or 3 related sub-units): A48.10 Professional signs, B11.17 Signposts, B12.27 Doorbells.

a) Institutional inscriptions; inscriptions issued and placed by public authori-ties that are protected by a legal framework and serve as indexes of regu-lations or instructions that must be followed and respected by individuals;

b) Private inscriptions; inscriptions created by individuals or groups of indi-viduals with advertising, informative, instructional or ideological content, serving or addressing certain social groups or individuals with common needs in specific contexts;

c) Personal tags; “personified”, mostly locally bound impressions that express feelings or beliefs containing elements of personal identity either of a) the message transmitter/creator, b) the target-person, or c) as a means of transmitting part of the message itself.

Institutional inscriptions

This category contains signs originating from public authorities. The above three pho-tographs are separate units of our corpus depicted. The shared trait among these items is their common institutional background. Local or state authorities are responsible for their production, and a specific legal framework regulates their use and abuse. The first photograph (item D23.4) shows a number in graffiti form corresponding to the respec-tive spot of a licensed salesperson (costermonger), who has the right to use this space in order to sell his products in the local market in certain periods and time zones. Item Β19.5 is a signpost located outside a school, using a combination of traffic signs that serve as an index of the presence of a certain building and indicates attentive driving at-titude. Item C4.7 is a license plate, which -in contrast with the previous items- is placed on a mobile carrier, and represents a formal, institutional obligation of a vehicle’s owner. Many ‘mobile’ signs were photographed as part of the surrounding written environment by the project’s data collectors and constitute, therefore, a specific category, character-ized by some regularity.

Private inscriptions


Figure 5. Instances of institutional inscriptions: D 23.4, B19.5, C4.7.

Figure 6. Instances of private inscriptions: A22.19, D31.13, C14.6, B8.6, B20.23.

Item Α22.19 is a placard used as a signpost for instructions and is context-dependent as it constitutes an index of access to this specific place for certain social groups. It uses the form of signposts in order to be directly noticed and understood by the interpretant of the sign. Regarding item D31.13, it constitutes a poster produced for advertising pur-poses and the content of its various sub-units is highly interrelated. The next three items depict different (in terms of content and/or style/form) types of graffiti. More specifically, C14.6 is a graffiti of stencil technique used for advertising private services, while Β8.6 and Β20.23 are graffiti of political content expressing the same ideological stance in a different style (handwriting and standardized letters, respectively) but without emitting any personal marks and therefore they are categorized as private inscriptions.

Personal tags

The four pictures above are items of our corpus presenting instances of the category of personal tags, which are characterized by personal features introducing a more private sphere of the message; they convey a “personified” message. Specifically, the item D35.11 is a unit of a typical poster of political content expressing the ideology of a certain social group, which could have led us to classify it as a private inscription. However the fact that a specific person is depicted in the poster, who belongs to the city’s community and is recognizable by the coder and perhaps by other citizens and is recognizable by the coder and perhaps by other citizens, leads us to the decision to consider it as a personal tag. Concerning items Β23.4 and A10.2, they are units of graffiti containing personal infor-mation such as a mobile number, age, name of the intended receiver of the message or personal feelings towards a specific person indicated by a certain name. Item Β34.13 is a specific type of poster; it is a funeral template referring to a death ceremony and with personal data of the deceased, such as face picture, family name and names of relatives. It is important to comment on the fact that when the data collector of this item submitted his assignment, intentionally erased the personal data; this is a decision that seems to be also taken by other data collectors only regarding this specific genre and not, for example, in cases such as the full names in the etiquettes of the doorbells.

Grey zones


Figure 7. MInstances of personal tags: D35.11, Β23.4, Α10.2, Β34.13.

Figure 8. Some cases of “grey zones”: Β18.7, Β42.21, D32.14, C29.5.

Some items which data collectors chose to include in their projects were quite idiosyn-cratic and for that confusing. More specifically, the categories that we created seemed to be inadequate for a share of the sample, so the data processing team unanimously decided to label them as “Grey zones”. The four pictures above are items of our cor-pus depicting instances of this special category. Particularly, the item Β18.7 at first glance represents a graffiti, but, after a more careful investigation, we realized that it is a jammed graffiti. The most plausible scenario seems to be that there are two creators, the first writing «ΠΑΟΚ» (a Greek football team), with the second adding the letter «M» and the element «VOLOS 1». Such sports statements are initially categorized as private inscriptions. The peculiar style, though, of the newly formed word “ΜΠΑΟΚ”, drives us to waver between inscriptions and personal tags. Item Β42.21 is a unique specimen in our corpus. It is noteworthy the fact that we faced twice this item. As it is used both for institutional and private purposes, it is impossible to make a clear-cut categorization, without assessing its context. Surely, the preference of the collector’s data to add this item in a linguistic project deserves a deeper discussion.

Additionally, the item D32.14 seems to be similar with the item C4.7 which has al-ready been categorized as an institutional inscription, but the appearance of the man-ufacturing brand affects our decision, discouraging a unanimous final insertion in one of aforementioned categories. The last item reflects another dilemma between private inscriptions and personal tags. Taking into consideration the content itself, it should be a case of the first category. However, the message of graffiti is consistent with the defi-nition of personal tags due to the word «ΣΟΥ» (“your” singular in Greek), possibly being a private reference to a specific person thus directing our attention to the sign’s context. Unfortunately, no more information is provided.

Initial results and implications – Discussion

Our project constitutes an ambitious, maybe slippery, extension of the field of linguistic cityscape, in order to face, among others, cases of a) spatially determined meaning making (e.g. private: NOT IN FRONT OF THE ENTRANCE THANKS -picture 1, but also personal: WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE BEWARE!!! -picture 2), b) culturally-bound rela-tions between signs and their emplacement (e.g. Do NOT SMOKE! -picture 3),and c) lin-guistic instability and change (e.g.VOLOS – ΜΠΑΟΚ –picture 4). We think that the times of crisis may signal a turning point towards a more personal linguistic cityscape, and the dynamics of this shift is worth exploring.


Picture 1, 2, 3, 4.

Limitations of the coding and the management phases of the project

During the phases of data management, both methodological and ethical issues arose. Such issues have led our team to take decisions about what kinds of strategies will be followed for the processing of data. The lack of a common and established terminol-ogy about definitions (e.g. units, sub-unit, posters, placards, billboards, signs, etc.), in both Greek and English, on the one hand, revealed various translatability issues and, on the other, made the identification categorization a more complex and difficult process than we expected.

With regard to the personal data reflected in the corpus (e.g. names in bells, cell phones, license plates for cars) our team encountered some ethical issues about how to intervene without biasing the data. This possibly relies on the fact that there were no strict guidelines regarding this issue during data collection, or subsequently that they were loosely interpreted. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the collectors’ personal preferences was always helpful in data problem solving. Otherwise, our team had to intervene when we needed to examine the entire photo when we wanted to ex-amine the entire photo without cropping or focusing on certain characteristics as many students had done. So after we extracted the photographs from the students’ projects and stored them as original files, the photographs were analyzed in their original form.

Finally, it is worth noting again the sheer volume of data that had to be processed. Although in a relatively small city like Volos, it was expected that the same units would be photographed multiple times, as they are located in various spots around the city, the amount of data remains still quite extended.

Conclusion - Perspectives

This presentation of theoretical, methodological and typological issues related with the project of the linguistic cityscape of Volos gave the authors the opportunity to discuss the social and semiotic meaning of inscriptions and other signs and messages on a new basis.

Regarding the data collection and coding process we conclude that personal perspec-tives should always be discussed or at least taken into consideration as far as network research is concerned; it might be challenging to combine the researcher’s personal perspective with the (inter)personal character glimpsed in many signs in the streets of Volos (or, at least, in more signs that what was initially expected). During the first stages of data processing, we realized that a coherent coding system should be agreed beforehand, but also that grey zones may intervene, regardless of the coding system.

In brief, the perspectives of our project could be based on the emergent challenges: a) a brand new, interdisciplinary (linguistic, sociolinguistic, social and semiotic) inves-tigation of the variation of messages and scripts encountered in the streets of Volos, b) the interplay between public inscriptions and personal tags, c) the extensive use of Eng-lish language and the limited presence of other languages, d) the multimodality (lan-


guage, image, symbols, numbers) of the signs in Volos’ public space, e) questions about the agency and identity of the creators of the written signs on public display.

ReferencesBackhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: a comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Bagna, C., & Barni, M. (2006). Per una mappatura dei repertori linguistici urbani: nuovi strumenti e

metodologie. In N. De Blasi, & D. Marcato, (Eds.). La città e le sue lingue. Repertori linguistici urbani (pp. 1-43). Napoli: Liguori.

Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2004). Linguistic landscape and multiculturalism: a Jewish–Arab comparative study. Tel Aviv: Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research.

Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: the case of Israel. In D. Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic landscape: a new approach to multilingualism (pp.7-31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Buchler, J. (Ed.) (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Calvet, L.-J. (1990). Des mots sur les murs: Une comparaison entre Paris et Dakar. In R.

Chaudenson (Ed.). Des langues et des villes (Actes du colloque international à Dakar, décembre 1990) (pp. 73-83). Paris: Agence de coopération culturelle et technique.

Calvet, L.-J. (1994). Les voix de la ville: introduction à la sociolinguistique urbaine. Paris: Payot et Rivages. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of

Multilingualism, 3(1): 67–80.Gorter, D. (Ed.) (2006). Linguistic landscape: a new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.Griffin, J. L. (2004). The presence of written English on the streets of Rome. English Today, 20 (2): 3–7.Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: environmental print, codemixing and language

change. In D. Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic landscape: a new approach to multilingualism (pp.31-51). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16 (1): 23–49.

Lemke, J. (1999). Typological and topological meaning in diagnostic discourse. Discourse Processes, 27(2): 173–185.

Monnier, D. (1989). Langue d’accueil et langue de service dans les commerces à Montréal. Montréal: Service des communications du Conseil de la Langue Française.

Reh, M. (2004). Multilingual writing: a reader-oriented typology – with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170 (1): 1–41.

Scollon, R.,& Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: language in the material world. London-New York: Routledge.

Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.) (2009). Linguistic landscape. Expanding the scenery. New York-London: Routledge.

Someya, H. (2002). Writing on signs. In H. Yoshifumi, & S. Takeyoshi (Eds.) Modern Japanese course, vol. VI: Letters and orthography (pp. 221-243). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin..

Wenzel, V. (1996). Reklame en tweetaligheid in Brussel: Een empirisch onderzoek naar de spreiding van Nederlandstalige en Franstalige affiches. In Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Ed.), Brusselse themas 3 (pp. 45-74). Brussels: Vrije Universiteit.

Wienold, G. (1994). Inscriptions in daily life. In A. Sabban, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Der sprachliche Alltag. Linguistik – Rhetorik – Literaturwissenschaft: Festschrift für Wolf Dieter Stempel (pp. 635-652). Tübingen: Niemeyer.


eleftheria deltsou maria...

Documents