The semiotic ecology of linguistic landscapes in rural Zambia

Abstract

In addressing the dearth in studies on linguistic/semiotic landscapes in orallanguage dominant rural communities, we use the notion of repurposing to show how people from rural areas of Livingstone and Lusaka in Zambia (SouthCentral Africa) extend the repertoire of 'signs' to include faded and unscripted signboards, fauna and flora, mounds, dwellings, abandoned structures, skylines, and village and bush paths (with no written names) in narrations of place. We illustrate how they use the system of signage to transcend the limitations of the material conditions in the rural-scapes by redeploying memory, objects, artifacts and cultural materialities in place to new uses, and for extended meaning potentials. We conclude that focusing on the semiotic ecology in multimodal linguistic/semiotic landscapes helps to accentuate the multisemiotic and diverse processual characteristics of meaning-making, even in areas that do not have scripted place and street names.

Recontextualisation and reappropriation of social and political discourses in toilet graffiti at the University of the Western Cape

“…They further assert that semiotic remediation entails re-presenting, re-contextualisation, re-cognition, re-formulation, and re-use of discourse from prior semiotic resources (Hengst and Prior 2010). It has been noted in the literature that remediation as a conceptual and analytical tool is slippery and one needs to define exactly how the authors are using it (Banda and Jimaima 2015;Irvine 2010;Vandenbussche 2003;). Following Banda and Jimaima (2015) and Bolter and Grusin (2000), we would like to isolate two senses of semiotic remediation: (i) the quoting and recycling of material or content from one medium in another medium, not necessarily for a different purpose, and (ii) the creative reworking of materials and practices as well as the appropriation and transformation of material and techniques for new meanings and purposes.…”

“…It has been noted in the literature that remediation as a conceptual and analytical tool is slippery and one needs to define exactly how the authors are using it (Banda and Jimaima 2015;Irvine 2010;Vandenbussche 2003;). Following Banda and Jimaima (2015) and Bolter and Grusin (2000), we would like to isolate two senses of semiotic remediation: (i) the quoting and recycling of material or content from one medium in another medium, not necessarily for a different purpose, and (ii) the creative reworking of materials and practices as well as the appropriation and transformation of material and techniques for new meanings and purposes. Interdiscursivity and intertextuality are captured in the first sense, while the idea of 'repurposing', that is, accounting for new and extended meanings is captured in the second sense of the notion.…”

Demystifying research methods: everyday experiences as socio-cultural co(n)texts for effective research methods in teaching and learning in institutions of higher learning in Africa

“…Efforts to connect everyday knowledge, defined as knowledge that has been acquired informally through the experiences and practices outside formal teaching and learning, and school-based knowledge, defined as one acquired through formal curricula in an education environment; relates to efforts in literacy research to find ways of bridging home and school-based literacy practices (New London Group 2000; Perry 2012; Barton, Hamilton & Ivanic 2000;Prinsloo & Breir 1996). One question that comes to mind is why there is a binary characterisation between home and school, when the concept of domain boundaries is increasingly seen as a social construct, and at a time when information and media technology developments have made apparent boundary leakages, and have facilitated constant movement of people and semiotic resources across domains and media (Barton & Hamilton 2000;Heller 2007;Banda & Jimaima 2015). In any case, if we take the contemporary notion of literacy as social practice, then its actualisation is in negotiated meaning.…”

Psychological Factors and Mechanism of College Students in the Process of Language Expression

“…College students are at the transitional stage to the society. Their language ability of expression plays a very important role in personal life and development, affecting their personality formation, interpersonal communication and career development (Banda & Jimaima, 2015). In the process of language expression, the people will first form a psychoanalytic process based on their own cognition, current situation and personal status (Nöth, 2014), and then clearly define what they want to express.…”