The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual in Outdoor Interpretive Panels

Authors

  • Šarolta Godnič Vičič University of Primorska
  • Nina Lovec University of Primorska
  • Ljudmila Sinkovič University of Primorska

Abstract

Outdoor interpretive panels inform visitors about the features of a heritage site and the events and objects they encounter during their visit with the aim of improving their awareness and understanding of the site. In addition to having this educational role, interpretive panels are also regarded as ameans of enhancing visitor experience and the quality of natural or cultural heritage sites – especially since the information on these signs is available at all hours and can be accessed by large numbers of visitors. Various disciplines have treated outdoor interpretive panels as communication and a formof product development, highlighting topics such as visitors’ use of interpretive panels, strategies for capturing and holding visitors’ attention, the effective conceptual design of interpretive panels, their efficiency in educating visitors and enhancing  visitor experience, and others. This study will focus on outdoor interpretive panels in natural sites. To deliver their message, interpretive panels combine verbal and visual information. The analysis of the intersemiotic logical relations between themaims to reveal the ways in which the two modes interplay in interpretive panels and create cohesive messages through logical relations. 

Keywords: heritage interpretation, outdoor interpretive panels, textual-visual intersemiosis, intersemiotic cohesion, intersemiotic logical relations

 

References

Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. London, England: Fontana Press.

Brochu, L., & Merriman, T. (2002). Personal interpretation: Connecting your audience to heritage resources. Fort Collins, TX: National Association for Interpretation.

Clarke, A., & Waterton, E. (2015). A journey to the heart. Landscape Research, 40(8), 971–992.

Francesconi, S. (2014). Reading tourism texts: A multimodal analysis. Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications.

Francesconi, S. (2018). Heritage discourse in digital travel video diaries. Trento, Italy: Tangram Edizioni Scientifiche.

Fritsch, J. (Ed.) (2011). Routledge research in museum studies (Vol. 2) New York, NY: Routledge.

Hall, T. E., Ham, S.H., & Lackey, B. K. (2010). Comparative evaluation of the attention capture and holding power of novel signs aimed at park visitors. Journal of Interpretation Research, 15(1), 15–36.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (English Language Series 29). Abingdon, NY: Longman.

Ham, S.H. (2013). Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Hillier, B., & Tzortzi, K. (2006). Space syntax. In S. Macdonald (Ed.), A companion tomuseum studies (Blackwell Companions in Cultural Studies 12, pp. 282–301). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hose, T. A. (2006).Geotourism and Interpretation. In R. K. Dowling & D. Newsome (Eds.), Geotourism (pp. 221–241). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

ICIP (2008). ICOMOS charter for the interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage sites. Retrieved from http://icip. icomos.org/downloads/ICOMOS_Interpretation_Charter_ENG_04_10_08.pdf

Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd). London, England: Routledge.

Light, D. (1995).Visitors’ use of interpretive media at heritage sites. Leisure Studies, 14(2), 132–149.

Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2009). Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388.

Ludwig, T. (2015). The interpretive guide: Sharing heritage with people. Werleshausen, Germany: Bildungswerk Interpretation.

Maci, S. M. (2007). Virtual touring: The web-language of tourism. Linguistica e Filologia, 25, 41–65.

Martinec, R., & Salway, A. (2005). A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication, 4(3), 337–371.

Moscardo, G., Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2007). Designing interpretive signs: Principles in practice. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Moser, S. (2010). The devil is in the detail:Museum displays and the creation of knowledge. Museum Anthropology, 33(1), 22–32.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (sf-mda): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475.

Pravilnik o označevanju zavarovanih območij naravnih vrednot. (2002). Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 117.

Psarra, S. (2005). Spatial culture, way-finding and the educational message: The impact of layout on the spatial, social and educational experiences of visitors to museums and galleries. In S. MacLeod (Ed.), Reshaping Museum Space (pp. 92–108). London, England: Routledge.

Silberman, N. A. (2013). Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies. In M.-T. Albert, R. Bernecker, & B. Rudolff (Eds.), Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies (pp. 21-33). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Silverman,H., & Ruggles, F. D. (2007). Cultural heritage and human rights. In H. Silverman & D. F. Ruggles (Eds.), Cultural heritage in a globalized world: Cultural heritage and human rights (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Springer.

Smaldone, D. (2013). Planning interpretive and education programs for wetlands. In J. T. Anderson & C. A. Davis (Eds.), Wetland Techniques (Vol. 3, pp. 229–255). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Staiff, R. (2014). Re-imagining heritage interpretation: Enchanting the past-future. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

Stöckl, H. (2004). In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam, The Netherland: John Benjamins.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

Tussyadiah, I. (2014). Toward a theoretical foundation for experience design in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), 543–564.

Uzzell, D. (1998). Interpreting our heritage: A theoretical interpretation. In D. Uzzell & R. Ballantyne (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 11–25).Norwich, England: Stationery Office.

Ward, C. W., & Wilkinson, A. E. (2006). Conducting meaningful interpretation: A field guide for success. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Downloads

Published

2019-01-11

How to Cite

Godnič Vičič, Šarolta, Lovec, N., & Sinkovič, L. (2019). The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual in Outdoor Interpretive Panels. Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal, 11(2). Retrieved from https://academica.turistica.si/index.php/AT-TIJ/article/view/146

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2018)

Section

Articles

License

1. Copyright

Copyright for all articles published in Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal is held by individual authors. Authors are themselves responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.

Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete the Publication Agreement and Copyright Licence, based on the Open Access Model Publishing Agreement.

Articles are published under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License.

Under the terms of this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright of their articles. They can archive the pre-print and post-print or publisher's version of their work. They will, however, assign to Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal (AT–TIJ) the permanent right to electronically distribute their manuscript and, after it has appeared in AT–TIJ, they may republish their text as long as they clearly acknowledge AT–TIJ as the place of the original publication.


2. Author Fees

Article submission, processing and/or publishing fees are not charged.