Docweb: análise do documentário on-line HayMotivo.com

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

As cartas de Chico Xavier: uma análise semiótica

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Formas de vida da mulher brasileira no discurso jurídico

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Taboo Language and Illness Online: The Use of Specific Emoticons and Graphic Signs to Talk about HIV/AIDS in South Africa

South Africa is one of the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS: According to 2014 UNAIDS data 6.8 million South Africans live with HIV/AIDS, which means a 18.9% prevalence rate among adults (15-49 years old). Despite this strong presence of HIV/AIDS in South African society it remains relatively stigmatized and is not openly talked about. The silence about HIV/AIDS maintained in everyday conversations and the superstitions associated with this illness have led to the creation of a taboo language. This study aims at shedding light on how South African users resort to specific emoticons and graphic signs to talk about HIV/AIDS online. For this purpose 368 Facebook status updates and comments concerning HIV/AIDS and its side effects were analysed. All participants, aged 14-48, lived at the moment of data collection in Cape Town, in the Cape Flats area. The online conversations investigated are mainly in English mixed with Afrikaans and/or Xhosa. The emoticons and graphic signs in most cases display a graphic depiction of the physical (and mental) effects of the illness. These linguistic and semiotic practices employed on Facebook provide insight into how Capetonian users, on the one hand, express solidarity and sympathy with people suffering from HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, the emoticons and graphic signs are used to label and position people affected by HIV/AIDS. Thus, in the South African context social network sites have become an important space and means for communicating HIV/AIDS issues.

Think small. The construction of imagined tradition in German "Land"-magazines

This article is the first linguistic analysis of a new category of lifestyle magazines in the German speaking countries, based on methods of corpus linguistics and multimodal discourse analysis. Since the launch of the magazine LandLust in Germany in 2005, more than twenty publications of so called "land magazines" have appeared on the market, attracting millions of readers. Our research analyses land magazines as discursive events. We examine the specific combination of discourses land magazines are serving or creating by looking at the semiotic practices – writing and images – they manifest themselves by. Our results show that the magazine under scrutiny does not simply provide new forms of escapism but also positions itself politically in subtle ways as part of the traditional-conservative spectrum by reacting to metalinguistic discourses such as purism and feminist criticism.

Stakeholder interpretations of design: Semiotic insights into the briefing process

Briefing phase interactions between clients and designers are recognized as social engagements, characterized by communicative sign use, where conceptual ideas are gradually transformed into potential design solutions. A semiotic analysis of briefing communications between client stakeholders and designers provides evidence of the significance and importance of stakeholder interpretation and understanding of design, empirical data being drawn from a qualitative study of NHS hospital construction projects in the UK. It is contended that stakeholders engage with a project through communicative signs and artefacts of design, referencing personal cognitive knowledge in acts of interpretation that may be different from those of designers and externally appointed client advisers. Such interpretations occur in addition to NHS client and design team efforts to ‘engage’ with and ‘understand’ stakeholders using a variety of methods. Social semiotic theorizations indicate how narrative strategies motivate the formulation of signs and artefacts in briefing work, the role of sign authors and sign readers being elucidated as a result. Findings are contextualized against current understandings of briefing communications and stakeholder management practices, a more socially attuned understanding of briefing countering some of the process-led improvement models that have characterized much of the post-Egan report literature. A stakeholder interpretation model is presented as one potential method to safeguard against unforeseen interpretations occurring, the model aligning with the proposal for a more measured recognition of how designs can trigger interpretations among client stakeholders.

Rethinking the spatiality of literacy practices in multicultural conditions

Moving beyond the limitations of the ‘space-as-container’ ontology (Gotham, 2003), this paper offers Bakhtinian (dialogical) perspective on the use of cultural-semiotic spaces, in particular with regard to the production of new transcultural meanings and hybrid literacy practices as a result of interaction between differences. From this perspective cultural-semiotic space is not a neutral backdrop against which literacy practices unfold, but rather it is in the constant process of change due to the struggle between centrifugal and centripetal forces that operate on the level of spatial and textual politics – that is, between the processes of cultural and textual uniformization and local fragmentation. Given the dialogical nature of space and its relations to cultural identities of migrant and minority students and their literacy practices, the paper argues for rethinking literacy studies in multicultural conditions. This task becomes more urgent in the current educational era of standards, accountability and classroom pedagogies that are not attuned to the particularities of students’ intertextual practices and emergent transcultural places in which they live.

Semiotic Analysis in the Study of Social Work

Research and professional practices have the joint aim of re-structuring the preconceived notions of reality. They both want to gain the understanding about social reality. Social workers use their professional competence in order to grasp the reality of their clients, while researchers’ pursuit is to open the secrecies of the research material. Development and research are now so intertwined and inherent in almost all professional practices that making distinctions between practising, developing and researching has become difficult and in many aspects irrelevant. Moving towards research-based practices is possible and it is easily applied within the framework of the qualitative research approach (Dominelli 2005, 235; Humphries 2005, 280). Social work can be understood as acts and speech acts crisscrossing between social workers and clients. When trying to catch the verbal and non-verbal hints of each others’ behaviour, the actors have to do a lot of interpretations in a more or less uncertain mental landscape. Our point of departure is the idea that the study of social work practices requires tools which effectively reveal the internal complexity of social work (see, for example, Adams & Dominelli & Payne 2005, 294 – 295). The boom of qualitative research methodologies in recent decades is associated with much profound the rupture in humanities, which is called the linguistic turn (Rorty 1967). The idea that language is not transparently mediating our perceptions and thoughts about reality, but on the contrary it constitutes it was new and even confusing to many social scientists. Nowadays we have got used to read research reports which have applied different branches of discursive analyses or narratologic or semiotic approaches. Although differences are sophisticated between those orientations they share the idea of the predominance of language. Despite the lively research work of today’s social work and the research-minded atmosphere of social work practice, semiotics has rarely applied in social work research. However, social work as a communicative practice concerns symbols, metaphors and all kinds of the representative structures of language. Those items are at the core of semiotics, the science of signs, and the science which examines people using signs in their mutual interaction and their endeavours to make the sense of the world they live in, their semiosis. When thinking of the practice of social work and doing the research of it, a number of interpretational levels ought to be passed before reaching the research phase in social work. First of all, social workers have to interpret their clients’ situations, which will be recorded in the files. In some very rare cases those past situations will be reflected in discussions or perhaps interviews or put under the scrutiny of some researcher in the future. Each and every new observation adds its own flavour to the mixture of meanings. Social workers have combined their observations with previous experience and professional knowledge, furthermore, the situation on hand also influences the reactions. In addition, the interpretations made by social workers over the course of their daily working routines are never limited to being part of the personal process of the social worker, but are also always inherently cultural. The work aiming at social change is defined by the presence of an initial situation, a specific goal, and the means and ways of achieving it, which are – or which should be – agreed upon by the social worker and the client in situation which is unique and at the same time socially-driven. Because of the inherent plot-based nature of social work, the practices related to it can be analysed as stories (see Dominelli 2005, 234), given, of course, that they are signifying and told by someone. The research of the practices is concentrating on impressions, perceptions, judgements, accounts, documents etc. All these multifarious elements can be scrutinized as textual corpora, but not whatever textual material. In semiotic analysis, the material studied is characterised as verbal or textual and loaded with meanings. We present a contribution of research methodology, semiotic analysis, which has to our mind at least implicitly references to the social work practices. Our examples of semiotic interpretation have been picked up from our dissertations (Laine 2005; Saurama 2002). The data are official documents from the archives of a child welfare agency and transcriptions of the interviews of shelter employees. These data can be defined as stories told by the social workers of what they have seen and felt. The official documents present only fragmentations and they are often written in passive form. (Saurama 2002, 70.) The interviews carried out in the shelters can be described as stories where the narrators are more familiar and known. The material is characterised by the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee. The levels of the story and the telling of the story become apparent when interviews or documents are examined with the use of semiotic tools. The roots of semiotic interpretation can be found in three different branches; the American pragmatism, Saussurean linguistics in Paris and the so called formalism in Moscow and Tartu; however in this paper we are engaged with the so called Parisian School of semiology which prominent figure was A. J. Greimas. The Finnish sociologists Pekka Sulkunen and Jukka Törrönen (1997a; 1997b) have further developed the ideas of Greimas in their studies on socio-semiotics, and we lean on their ideas. In semiotics social reality is conceived as a relationship between subjects, observations, and interpretations and it is seen mediated by natural language which is the most common sign system among human beings (Mounin 1985; de Saussure 2006; Sebeok 1986). Signification is an act of associating an abstract context (signified) to some physical instrument (signifier). These two elements together form the basic concept, the “sign”, which never constitutes any kind of meaning alone. The meaning will be comprised in a distinction process where signs are being related to other signs. In this chain of signs, the meaning becomes diverged from reality. (Greimas 1980, 28; Potter 1996, 70; de Saussure 2006, 46-48.) One interpretative tool is to think of speech as a surface under which deep structures – i.e. values and norms – exist (Greimas & Courtes 1982; Greimas 1987). To our mind semiotics is very much about playing with two different levels of text: the syntagmatic surface which is more or less faithful to the grammar, and the paradigmatic, semantic structure of values and norms hidden in the deeper meanings of interpretations. Semiotic analysis deals precisely with the level of meaning which exists under the surface, but the only way to reach those meanings is through the textual level, the written or spoken text. That is why the tools are needed. In our studies, we have used the semiotic square and the actant analysis. The former is based on the distinctions and the categorisations of meanings, and the latter on opening the plotting of narratives in order to reach the value structures.