3 semiotic dimensions in m-activities

January 12, 2007

The classical semiosis elements enable to anchor the ideas behind different m-activities.

Image from:

Mobile culture of augmenting reality with virtual artifacts creates three types of possibilities for activities:
i) any place (referent/object) in town may be interpreted by people of the community (interpretants/signifiers) with their meanings (presentant/significations) – sms, images and other artifacts can be virtually connected to that place. Examples of m-activities that exploit semiotic signification might be those that focus on creativity and self-expression aspects
of community members. For them it is important to record their imaginations, meanings, feelings in a way that they can manage them in connection with the real objects. The focus is on object-signification relationship.
Examples of such m-activities are for instance Urban Juice Project where a tool was created for manipulating and reocording travel information and memories.

ii) when walking in these places that are enriched with meanings, we will have the possibility for interpreting the significations of the place, we can for instance rate them, select the meanings which we support from the set of meanings of that place. The signification/presentant is re-signified by new signifiers/interpretants. m-activities utilizing this continuous re-signification of presentants would gradually create multiple perspectives to the place, that will in turn, in interaction with the real place will enable to perceive this place differently. Different activities might be arising in places with significations, and the places would be changing as well due to the actions made by interpretants in real place.

The m-activities of this kind are for instance the projects like STAMPS, where people add meanings to geographical places and others’ can comment and add new meanings to create the dynamic perspectives of the place for other visitors…and in the end some places would be visited more and different activities become part of this place in reality. The focus is on signification-object relationship.

iii) in these places we can also interact with interpretants who have created similar meanings what we share, identifying ourselfs according to certain perspectives of the meaning space – thus several community-activities of m-learning can be built on the signifier/interpretant – signification/presentant relationships. We can also think of activities where these different communities who have contraversial perspectives become aware of each other, and have the possibility of reinterpreting their understanding of the other groups of signifiers according to their significations. The focus is on signification – signifier relationship.

potter map


One comment

  1. […] number of participants 10-15, max 20. There was a plan with Mauri to do a small study about our ideas related with meaning-making in relation with this study, but we have both been so busy recently that we didnt discuss it […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: