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
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston