Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton April 25, 2018

Semiotic resources for navigation: A video ethnographic study of blind people’s uses of the white cane and a guide dog for navigating in urban areas

  • Brian Due EMAIL logo and Simon Lange
From the journal Semiotica

Abstract

This paper describes two typical semiotic resources blind people use when navigating in urban areas. Everyone makes use of a variety of interpretive semiotic resources and senses when navigating. For sighted individuals, this especially involves sight. Blind people, however, must rely on everything else than sight, thereby substituting sight with other modalities and distributing the navigational work to other semiotic resources. Based on a large corpus of fieldwork among blind people in Denmark, undertaking observations, interviews, and video recordings of their naturally occurring practices of walking and navigating, this paper shows how two prototypical types of semiotic resources function as helpful cognitive extensions: the guide dog and the white cane. This paper takes its theoretical and methodological perspective from EMCA multimodal interaction analysis.

References

Adams, F. & K. Aizawa. 2009. Why the mind is still in the head. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, 78–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816826.005Search in Google Scholar

Arminen, I. & A. Weilenmann. 2009. Mobile presence and intimacy – Reshaping social actions in mobile contextual configuration. Journal of Pragmatics 41(10). 1905–1923.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.016Search in Google Scholar

Bach-y-Rita, P. 2002. Sensory substitution and qualia. In A. Noë & E. Thompson (eds.), Vision and mind, 497–514. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bach-y-Rita, P. & S. W. Kercel. 2003. Sensory substitution and the human-machine interface. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(12). 541–546.10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.013Search in Google Scholar

Broth, M. & L. Keevallik. 2014. Getting ready to move as a couple accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space and Culture 17(2). 107–121.10.1177/1206331213508483Search in Google Scholar

Bruce, I. W., A. C. McKennell & E. C. Walker, R. N. I. for the Blind. 1991. Blind and partially sighted adults in Britain: The RNIB survey. London: HMSO.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1552.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A. 1999. Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (eds.), A companion to cognitive science, 506–517. Malden: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631218517.1999.00042.xSearch in Google Scholar

Clark, A. 2010. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1007/s11098-010-9598-9Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A. 2013. Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A. & D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1). 7–19.10.1093/analys/58.1.7Search in Google Scholar

Descartes, R. 1988. Selected philosophical writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805059Search in Google Scholar

Dror, I. & S. Harnad. 2008. Offloading cognition onto cognitive technology. In I. Dror & S. Harnad (eds.), Cognition distributed: How cognitive technology extends our minds, 1–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.16Search in Google Scholar

Due, B. L. 2016. Fælles orientering som ressource for idéudvikling: En single case analyse baseret på Distributed Cognition (DC) & Conversation Analysis (CA). Nydansk Sprogstudier 50. 86–119.10.7146/nys.v1i50.23799Search in Google Scholar

Due, B. L., R. Kupers, S. Lange & M. Ptito. 2017. Technology enhanced vision in blind and visually impaired individuals. Circd Working Papers in Social Interaction 3(1). 1–31.Search in Google Scholar

Due, B. L. & S. Lange. 2017. The Moses effect: The spatial hierarchy and joint accomplishment of a blind person navigating. Space and Culture. 1–16. doi:10.1177/1206331217734541.Search in Google Scholar

Due, B. L. & S. Lange. forthcoming. Annoying things: Unpacking unpredictable trouble sources in blind navigation using video ethnography and ethnomethodology. Sociological Research Online.Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2009. Relationship thinking and human pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 41(1). 60–78.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.007Search in Google Scholar

Fiannaca, A., I. Apostolopoulous & E. Folmer. 2014. Headlock: A wearable navigation aid that helps blind cane users traverse large open spaces. In Proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers & accessibility, 19–26. ACM Press.10.1145/2661334.2661453Search in Google Scholar

Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. 1986. Ethnomethodological studies of work. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar

Golledge, R. G. 1999. Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801859939Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1986. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62(1/2). 29–49.10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1993. The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, 111–140. Berlin & New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_6Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2000a. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10). 1489–1522.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-XSearch in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2000b. Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7(1–2). 19–36.10.1080/10749039.2000.9677646Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2003a. Pointing as situated practice. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 217–241. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2003b. The semiotic body in its environment. In J. Coupland & R. Gwyn (eds.), Discourses of the body, 19–42. New York: Palgrave Connect.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2007. Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society 18(1). 53–74.10.1177/0957926507069457Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2010. Multimodality in human interaction. Calidoscópio 8(2). 85–98.10.4013/cld.2010.82.01Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2011. Building action in public environments with diverse semiotic resources. Versus 112. 169–182.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2013. The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1). 8–23.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. & M. H. Goodwin. 1986. Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62(1–2). 51–75.10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.51Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. & M. H. Goodwin. 1996. Formulating planes: Seeing as a situated activity. In David Middleton & Yrjö Engestrom (eds.), Cognition and communication at work, 61–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174077.004Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, M. H. & C. Goodwin. 2012. Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica 191(1/4). 257–286.10.1515/sem-2012-0063Search in Google Scholar

Griffin, D. R. 1958. Listening in the dark, the acoustic orientation of bats and men. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haddington, P., L. Mondada & M. Nevile. 2013a. Being mobile: Interaction on the move. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada & M. Nevile (eds.), Interaction and mobility language and the body in motion, 3–61. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110291278.3Search in Google Scholar

Haddington, P., L. Mondada & M. Nevile (eds.). 2013b. Interaction and mobility, language and the body in motion. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110291278Search in Google Scholar

Haddington, P. & M. Rauniomaa. 2014. Interaction between road users offering space in traffic. Space and Culture 17(2). 176–190.10.1177/1206331213508498Search in Google Scholar

Haraway, D. 2003. The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. London: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 2012. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 30–52.10.1080/08351813.2012.646685Search in Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, J., C. Heath & P. Luff. 2010. Video in qualitative research. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. 1995a. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: CogNet.10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. 1995b. How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science 19(3). 265–288.10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. 2005. Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 1555–1577.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. 2014. The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology 27(1). 34–49.10.1080/09515089.2013.830548Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. 2005. The semiotic stance. Semiotica 157(1/4). 233–304.10.1515/semi.2005.2005.157.1-4.233Search in Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., C. LeBaron, C. Goodwin & P. Feltovich. 2011. “Can you see the cystic artery yet?”: A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2). 521–541.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.009Search in Google Scholar

Kreplak, Y. & C. Mondémé. 2014. Artworks as touchable objects. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann & M. Rauniomaa (eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity, 295–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.186.13kreSearch in Google Scholar

Kupers, R. & M. Ptito. 2011. Insights from darkness: What the study of blindness has taught us about brain structure and function. Progress in Brain Research 192. 17–31.10.1016/B978-0-444-53355-5.00002-6Search in Google Scholar

Kupers, R. & M. Ptito. 2014. Compensatory plasticity and cross-modal reorganization following early visual deprivation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 36–52.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Liberman, K. 2013. More studies in ethnomethodology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, M. 2006. Cognitive activities without cognition? Ethnomethodological investigations of selected “cognitive” topics. Discourse Studies 8(1). 95–104.10.1177/1461445606059559Search in Google Scholar

Magnus, R. 2014. Training guide dogs of the blind with the “phantom man” method: Historic background and semiotic footing. Semiotica 198(1/4). 181–204.10.1515/sem-2013-0107Search in Google Scholar

Maidenbaum, S., S. Abboud & A. Amedi. 2014. Sensory substitution: Closing the gap between basic research and widespread practical visual rehabilitation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 3–15.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.11.007Search in Google Scholar

Maynard, D. W. 2006. Cognition on the ground. Discourse Studies 8(1). 105–115.10.1177/1461445606059560Search in Google Scholar

McIlvenny, P. 2014. Vélomobile formations-in-action biking and talking together. Space and Culture 17(2). 137–156.10.1177/1206331213508494Search in Google Scholar

McIlvenny, P., M. Broth & P. Haddington. 2014. Moving together: Mobile formations in interaction. Space and Culture 17(2). 104–106.10.1177/1206331213508679Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, M. 2002. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203994610Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, L. 2014. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65. 137–156.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004Search in Google Scholar

Mondémé, C. 2011. Animal as subject matter for social sciences: When linguistics addresses the issue of a dog’s “speakership.”. In P. Gibas, K. Pauknerová & M. Stella (eds.), Non-humans in social science: Animals, spaces, things, 87–105. Nakladatel: Pavel Mervart.Search in Google Scholar

Mondémé, C. 2013. Formes d’interactions sociales entre hommes et chiens Une approche praxéologique des relations interspécifiques. Bâle: Université de Bâle dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Neuschmid, J., L. Gajevic, M. Schrenk & W. Wasserburger. 2014. The blind’s critical space and the role of modern ICT. In A. Calcatinge (ed.), Critical spaces: Contemporary perspectives in urban, spatial, and landscape studies, 179–203. Münster: LIT Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Nevile, M. 2012. Interaction as distraction in driving: A body of evidence. Semiotica 191(1/4). 169–196.10.1515/sem-2012-0060Search in Google Scholar

Nevile, M. 2015. The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(2). 121–151.10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499Search in Google Scholar

Nevile, M., P. Haddington, T. Heinemann & M. Rauniomaa (eds.). 2014. Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.186Search in Google Scholar

Norman, D. 1993a. Cognition in the head and in the world: An introduction to the special issue on situated action. Cognitive Science 17(1). 1–6.10.1207/s15516709cog1701_1Search in Google Scholar

Norman, D. 1993b. Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Basic.Search in Google Scholar

Norman, D. 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3). 38–43.10.1145/301153.301168Search in Google Scholar

Norman, D. 2000. The design of everyday things. London: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Parkin, J. & N. Smithies. 2012. Accounting for the needs of blind and visually impaired people in public realm design. Journal of Urban Design 17(1). 135–149.10.1080/13574809.2012.646139Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. 1955. In J. Buchler (ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar

Poyatos, F. 2002. Paralanguage, kinesics, silence, personal and environmental interaction (Nonverbal communication across disciplines 2). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.ncad2Search in Google Scholar

Proulx, M. J., D. J. Brown, A. Pasqualotto & P. Meijer. 2014a. Multisensory perceptual learning and sensory substitution. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 16–25.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.017Search in Google Scholar

Proulx, M. J., M. Ptito & A. Amedi. 2014b. Multisensory integration, sensory substitution and visual rehabilitation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 1–2.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.03.004Search in Google Scholar

Psathas, G. 1976. Mobility, orientation, and navigation: Conceptual and theoretical considerations. New Outlook for the Blind 70(9). 385–391.10.1177/0145482X7607000904Search in Google Scholar

Psathas, G. 1980. Approaches to the study of the world of everyday life. Human Studies 3(1). 3–17.10.1007/BF02331797Search in Google Scholar

Ptito, M., S. M. Moesgaard, A. Gjedde & R. Kupers. 2005. Cross-modal plasticity revealed by electrotactile stimulation of the tongue in the congenitally blind. Brain 128(3). 606–614.10.1093/brain/awh380Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, A. W. 2008. Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies 29(5). 701–732.10.1177/0170840608088768Search in Google Scholar

Renier, L., A. G. De Volder & J. P. Rauschecker. 2014. Cortical plasticity and preserved function in early blindness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 53–63.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.025Search in Google Scholar

Ricciardi, E., D. Bonino, S. Pellegrini & P. Pietrini. 2014. Mind the blind brain to understand the sighted one! Is there a supramodal cortical functional architecture? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 64–77.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.006Search in Google Scholar

Rowland, B. A. & B. E. Stein. 2014. A model of the temporal dynamics of multisensory enhancement. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 78–84.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.003Search in Google Scholar

Ryave, L. A. & J. N. Schenkein. 1974. Notes on the art of walking. In R. Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology, 265–274. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, H. L. 1989. Lecture six: The M.I.R. membership categorization device. Human Studies 12(3/4). 271–281.10.1007/BF00142771Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, H. L. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, H. L., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. & H. L. Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4). 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289Search in Google Scholar

Schenkman, B. N. & M. E. Nilsson. 2010. Human echolocation: Blind and sighted persons’ ability to detect sounds recorded in the presence of a reflecting object. Perception 39(4). 483–501.10.1068/p6473Search in Google Scholar

Schutz, A. 1976. Collected papers. The Hague: Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-010-1340-6Search in Google Scholar

Stefani, E. D. & L. Mondada. 2014. Reorganizing mobile formations when “guided” participants initiate reorientations in guided tours. Space and Culture 17(2). 157–175.10.1177/1206331213508504Search in Google Scholar

Steffensen, S. V. 2013. Human interactivity: Problem-solving, solution-probing and verbal patterns in the wild. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (eds.), Cognition beyond the brain, 195–221. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4471-5125-8_11Search in Google Scholar

Strong, P. 2009. The history of the white cane. http://www.acb.org/tennessee/white_cane_history.html (accessed 20 February 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Teng, S., A. Puri & D. Whitney. 2011. Ultrafine spatial acuity of blind expert human echolocators. Experimental Brain Research 216(4). 483–488.10.1007/s00221-011-2951-1Search in Google Scholar

Turner, R. (ed.). 1974. Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Vom Lehn, D. 2010. Discovering “experience-ables”: Socially including visually impaired people in art museums. Journal of Marketing Management 26(7–8). 749–769.10.1080/02672571003780155Search in Google Scholar

Vom Lehn, D. 2014. Harold Garfinkel. Walnut Creek, US: Left Coast Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ward, J. & T. Wright. 2014. Sensory substitution as an artificially acquired synaesthesia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41. 26–35.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.07.007Search in Google Scholar

Wiener, W. R., R. L. Welsh & B. B. Blasch. 2010. Instructional strategies and practical applications (Foundations of orientation and mobility 2), 3rd edn American Foundation for the Blind. New York: AFB Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-4-25
Published in Print: 2018-4-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 25.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0196/html
Scroll to top button