## HERMES

Journal of Language and Communication in Business

No. 64 - 2024

Published by the School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University ISSN: 1903-1785

## HERMES

## Journal of Language and Communication in Business

<!-- image -->

Margrethe Petersen* & Carmen D. Maier**

## Exploring Multimodal Intersubjective Stance in the Linguistic Landscape of a Danish University

## Abstract

This article focuses on investigating multimodal signage in a Danish organizational linguistic landscape. We report on the signage study of an indoor university site primarily used by students but open to the public. To identify multimodal means by  which  sign  owners  communicate  intersubjective  stance,  the  study  primarily  explores  signs  targeting  students.  The stance-taking exploration centres on multimodal dialogic engagement and disengagement strategies. This study shows how consistent usage of multimodal linking strategies reinforce the persuasive messages displayed in the signage. Thus, the study  complements  and  extends  previous  research  on  linguistic  landscapes  by  providing  novel  insights  related  to multimodal strategies of dialogic engagement and disengagement of signage.

## Keywords

Linguistic landscape; multimodality; intersubjective stance; dialogic engagement; dialogic disengagement; linking strategy.

## 1. Introduction

This paper springs from a larger project aimed at investigating communication in organisations as evidenced through multimodal means in their linguistic landscapes (Landry & Bourhis, 1997; Gorter, 2006; Shohamy, 2006; Gorter, 2013; Shohamy, 2019; Gorter & Cenoz, 2024).

In the present paper, the main perspective on communication is adopted from White's (2003) work on linguistic resources expressing intersubjective stance, where intersubjective stance refers to 'the communicative and rhetorical functionality of those wordings by which speakers/writers take a stance  towards  the  various  points-of-view  and  value  positions  being  referenced  by  the  text  and thereby align themselves vis-à-vis those who hold, or are represented as holding, these positions' (White, 2003, p. 260). Starting with this early understanding of intersubjective stance, this paper extends White's (2003) outlook on a diverse array of lexico-grammatical forms and structures by focusing also on multimodal resources as do, for example, Maier and Engberg (2021). Thus, it is the dialogic  functionality  of  a  diverse  array  of  both  multimodal  and  linguistic  resources  in  an organizational landscape that is identified and explained in this paper.

From  this  multidisciplinary  perspective  -  multimodal  and  linguistic  landscape  (LL)  analysis (Gorter, 2019) - the paper studies a site at a Danish university: a refectory and its immediate environs and specifically investigates material signage targeting students as a non-integral part of their studies. For  the  purpose  of  identifying  (a)  multimodal  means  by  which  sign  owners  (Spolsky,  2009)  as senders communicate stance and (b) the contribution of such means to intersubjective stance-taking across  assumed  role  relations  (Simpson  &  Carroll,  2008),  the  study  primarily  focuses  on  signs targeting student receivers and, secondarily, on signs with a wider target group. The stance-taking exploration is centred on the strategies of engagement enhancement (Hyland, 2002, 2010; Chen, 2010; Tan, 2010). The impact of the meaning-making interaction of several semiotic resources - from language  to  images  -  upon  these  strategies  is  discussed  from  a  social  semiotic  perspective (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Kress, 2010; Iedema, 2003; Hull & Nelson, 2005; Jewitt, 2009; Höllerer et al., 2019).

*  Margrethe Petersen School of Communication and Culture Aarhus University mpe@cc.au.dk

** Carmen Daniela Maier School of Communication and Culture Aarhus University cdm@cc.au.dk

## 1.1. Context

The site investigated was at Aarhus University (AU) in Denmark, the country's second largest city, which at the time of the data collection had a population of approximately 90,000 in the city itself (Aarhus Kommune, n.d.) and some 350,000 in the municipality (Aarhus Kommune, n.d.) while the country as a whole had a population of just above 5.8 million (Statistics Denmark, n.d.). Founded in 1928  (Aarhus  Universitet,  2024),  AU  has  developed  into  an  international  university  with  five faculties and, at the time when the data were gathered, 8,040 staff (full-time equivalent) and 34,818 students  (undergraduate,  graduate  and  doctoral)  including  2,790  full-time  and  61  part-time international  students  as  well  as  996  exchange  students  (Aarhus  University,  2020,  July),  i.e., approximately 11 percent of the student body consisted of international or exchange students. The university  offers  36  doctoral  programmes  (Aarhus  University,  2024,  February),  67  all-English master's  programmes  and  a  few  all-English  bachelor's  programmes  (Aarhus  University,  2024, October).  Due  to  its  internationalisation  efforts  over  the  past  four  decades,  AU  is  a de  facto multilingual institution with students from around 100 different countries (Aarhus University, 2025, January) and staff from approximately 80 countries (Aarhus University, 2023, July). As a  result, English is 'the secondary language' at AU (Aarhus University, 2023, July), the primary language at the  university  being  Danish  (Aarhus  University,  2023,  July),  the de  facto official  language  of Denmark and, as indicated above, the first language (L1) of the majority of AU students and staff.

## 1.2. Aim

Much research has been done on linguistic landscapes from a language policy perspective (see, for example, Gorter & Cenoz, 2024). The launching in 2015 of Linguistic Landscape , an international academic journal, bears witness to this interest while, in focusing on 'the presence and absence of languages in public spaces' ( Linguistic Landscape , 2015, p. 1), the introduction to the very first issue testifies to the language policy perspective. With the present paper, we intend to extend the reach of the concept of linguistic landscape by focusing not on languages used, or not used, but on multimodal communication of intersubjective stance and relationships in material signage as evidenced in the case of a university site accessible to the public including university-external sign owners.

For that purpose, we use a functional framework, combining linguistic and visual analysis of material signage in an organisational landscape, specifically an educational one, with the aim to investigate (a) which multimodal strategies of engagement employed by sign owners, i.e., senders, contribute to communicating their intersubjective stance and (b) how multimodal linking strategies contribute to the distance between senders and receivers of the signage.

## 2. Theoretical framework

The  theoretical  framework  of  this  research  project  is  informed  by  perspectives  upon  linguistic landscapes and intersubjective stance. Simultaneously, we also adopt a multimodal perspective upon communication when exploring these topics.

## 2.1. Linguistic landscapes

Linguistic landscape studies have seen considerable development since the publication of Landry and Bourhis (1997), in which the linguistic landscape was described as referring 'to the visibility and salience  of  languages  on  public  and  commercial  signs  in  a  given  territory  or  region'  (Landy  & Bourhis, 1997, p. 23). That paper was very much concerned with the material linguistic landscape as an expression of language policies, and it is not least within the field of language policy that linguistic landscapes have drawn much attention. A number of overviews of the field (e.g. Gorter, 2013; Gorter & Cenoz, 2024) bear testimony to the development. Gorter (2013, p. 191), for example, points out that 'the interest of most researchers is with the use of more than one language in urban settings' and argues that a more precise designation might be that of 'multilingual cityscape', reflecting the fact that much interest in the field at the time focused on signage in multilingual urban sites, particularly on language choice and its symbolic value. It was also noted, however, that new uses of the linguistic landscape label referred to 'the general language situation or linguistic diversity' (Gorter, 2013, p. 191), i.e., a more abstract perception of linguistic landscape. Gorter and Cenoz (2024) provide an overview  of  further  developments  in  terms  of  the  many  theoretical  approaches  adopted  and  the variety of research methods, including data collection methods, applied. A constant focus - whether implicit or explicit - however, is language choice and, frequently, the symbolic value of that choice in the social context of the site.

Given that the site chosen for this paper is part of Aarhus University, this study is, of course, a candidate for inclusion in the body of studies focusing on what, in the field of language policy, has been  termed schoolscape (see  Brown,  2005,  2012,  2018,  on  schoolscapes  in  Estonia)  or educationscape (see Huang, 2021, on an educationscape in Hong Kong). Our focus, however, is not on language choice. The present paper aims to study how sign owners in the sense of Spolsky (2009), i.e., senders, combine linguistic and visual means to engage receivers through signage in a linguistic landscape. The landscape is part of the immediate environs of a university refectory primarily used by students and, to a much lesser extent, by staff, visitors, or passersby. The part of the site that we have chosen to make our focus is in a  partly  open gallery  immediately  above  the refectory  and includes five juxtaposed panels with signage that, given the primary users, may be expected to target students. Figure 1 below is a photograph of the site.

## 2.2. The multimodal perspective

Inevitably, in order to address the challenges of exploring signage in this context of multiliterate senders and receivers, it is necessary to adopt a theoretical perspective that takes into consideration the intrinsically multimodal nature of communication. According to this perspective, meanings are always made through a series of interrelated semiotic modes - from language to images and layout that  are  co-deployed  in  all  texts  (Jewitt,  2017).  Furthermore,  meanings  can  also  be  (re)created through resemiotization when the semiotic modes are translated from one into the other during the unfolding of social processes (Iedema, 2003). The viability of this perspective upon contemporary communication has been signalled in the  past two  decades  across  diverse research fields  by the variety  of  applications  focused  on,  for  example,  moving  images  (Iedema,  2001;  Maier,  2014), mathematical images and symbolism (O'Halloran, 2005), media texts (Chouliaraki, 2017), software (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2012), web communication (Djonov & Knox, 2014; Ravazzani & Maier, 2017;  Belmonte  &  Porto,  2020),  social  interactions  (Weatherall  et  al.,  2021),  and  corporate communication (Höllerer, Jancsary & Grafström, 2018).

When addressing the multimodal character of contemporary communication, these researchers highlight the fact that in any text each mode is partial 'in relation to the whole meaning and speech and writing are no exception' (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2022, p. 1260). The choice of semiotic modes is thus significant for the articulation of meaning, but this does not mean that all semiotic modes are always harmonized when producing meaning. They may also subvert each other when producing the overall meaning of a multimodal text. The meaning-making interweaving between semiotic modes has been explored by a series of multimodal researchers (Knox, 2007; Martinec & Salway, 2005; Royce, 2016; van Leeuwen, 2005) who consider that 'the value of information lies in its relation to its context' (van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 219), regardless of the semiotic modes that are employed.

Figure 1. The five juxtaposed panels with the signage studied.

<!-- image -->

For multimodal researchers, especially this dynamic interplay is in focus as they consider that 'the  multimodal  ensemble  is  the  most  fruitful  unit  of  analysis'  (Andersen  et  al.,  2015,  p.  159). Exploring  any single  mode  such  as the  verbal  or  visual  mode  distorts  the  analysis  because  'the interaction  between  modes  is  itself  a  part  of  the  production  of  meaning'  (Jewitt,  2017,  p.  17). Accordingly, a multimodal perspective offers the possibility of addressing the complex interaction and interplay of semiotic modes within each signage. By implication, we take as point of departure in our analytical endeavour the idea that any semiotic mode is able not only to represent reality but also 'to project the relations between the producer of a (complex) sign and the receiver/reproducer of that sign' and 'to form texts, complexes of signs which cohere both internally with each other and externally with the context in and for which they were produced' (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, pp. 42-43). This understanding of semiotic modes is a relevant assumption of the multimodal perspective that we intend to adopt, i.e., social semiotics, because it allows us to understand the meanings of signs as being social: 'they are shaped by the norms and rules operating at the moment of signmaking,  influenced  by  the  motivations  and  interests  of  sign-maker  in  a  specific  social  context' (Jewitt, 2017, p. 17).

## 2.3. The intersubjective stance

As the multimodal signages explored in this article are embedded in a social practice that requires a continuous positioning of social actors towards each other, we also take into consideration theoretical perspectives dealing with stance-taking in communication.

Starting with the assumption that all texts have a dialogic character (Bakhtin, 1981), researchers working  within  the  framework  of  Systemic  Functional  Linguistics  and,  specifically,  the  field  of appraisal (Martin, 2000; White, 2003; Martin & White, 2005; Martin, 2015) have devised a semantic typology of resources that accounts for the means used by various social actors to engage with each other in diverse communicative contexts. Engagement researchers consider that 'these resources can be broadly divided into those which entertain or open up the space for dialogic alternatives and those which suppress or close down the space for such alternations' (White, 2003, p. 259). Accordingly, the resources that allow space for dialogic alternatives are labelled as heteroglossic , while the other resources that do not invoke alternative positions are monoglossic (Martin & White, 2005; Martin, 2015).  The  heteroglossic  resources  of  engagement  are  further  subcategorized  according  to  their functions in the dialogic space (Martin & White, 2005): dialogically expansive and dialogically contractive .  The  dialogically  expansive  resources  include  resources  through  which  'alternative positions are construed as possible or even likely and as to a greater or lesser degree authorized' (White, 2003, p. 268). The other set of resources, namely the dialogically contractive ones, 'act to reject, counter, confront, head off or rule out actual or potential dialogic alternatives (White, 2003, p.  268).    Based  on  Martin  and  White  (2005,  pp.  97-98),  an  overview  of  the  main  resources  of (dis)engagement and their functions is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of forms of engagement and their functions (Martin and White, 2005).

| Forms of engagement                                                                  | Functions                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Monoglossic engagement                                                               | To communicate consensual knowledge that is accepted in the current communicative context, so no dialogistic alternatives are recognized.                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Dialogic alternative 1: heteroglossic engagement (dialogic expansive resources)      | To entertain: 'By explicitly presenting the proposition as grounded in its own contingent, individual subjectivity, the authorial voice represents the proposition as but one of a range of possible positions - it thereby entertains or invokes these dialogic alternatives' (Martin and White, 2005, p. 98).          |
| Dialogic alternative 1: heteroglossic engagement (dialogic expansive resources)      | To attribute by acknowledging or distancing: 'By representing proposition as grounded in the subjectivity of an external voice, the textual voice represents the proposition as but one of a range of possible positions - it thereby entertains or invokes these dialogic alternatives' Martin and White (2005, p. 98). |
| Dialogic alternative 2: heteroglossic disengagement (dialogic contractive resources) | To proclaim through concurring, pronouncing or endorsing: 'By representing the proposition as highly warrantable (compelling, valid, plausible, well-founded, generally agreed, reliable, etc.), the textual voice sets itself against, suppresses or rules out alternative positions' Martin and White (2005, p. 97).   |
| Dialogic alternative 2: heteroglossic disengagement (dialogic contractive resources) | To disclaim by denying or countering: 'The textual voice positions itself as at odds with, or rejecting, some contrary position' Martin and White (2005, p. 97).                                                                                                                                                         |

This dialogic view upon communication has been adopted by a series of researchers (Fryer, 2013 & 2019; Pérez-Llantada Auría, 2011; Moyano, 2019; Xu & Nesi, 2019) who applied the engagement typology to a variety of texts belonging to academic writing from the domains of, among others, applied linguistics, medicine, microbiology and sociology. In the social media context, this typology has  been  applied  in  the  study  of  political  communication  in  order  to  examine  a  negative  stance construed  through  the  affordances  of  Twitter  (Ross  &  Caldwell,  2020).  Thus,  this  typology  of engagement resources has been recurrently employed to examine 'the linguistic mechanisms by which texts naturalise certain value positions and construct for themselves ideal, model or compliant readerships' (White, 2003, p. 259) .

However,  being  established  on  the  premise  that  an  intersubjective  stance  characterizes  all communication, this engagement system also allows researchers to explore the potential of other modes than language to provide the means for taking a stance. For example, in order to shed light on the  dialogic  process  in  a  pedagogic  context,  Chen  (2010)  examines  how  various  multimodal resources in EFL textbooks enable dialogic engagement with readers. A series of researchers have also adopted this system in order to explore multimodal texts in web context. For example, Tan (2010) examines the dynamic multimodal texts of an internet-based advertising campaign and shows how the multimodal resources construct preferred dialogic positions for target audiences in order to influence them to adopt a certain point of view. Maier and Engberg (2021) focus also on engagement enhancement  when  they  address  hypermodal  strategies  used  for  conveying  domain-specific knowledge  and  offering  practical  guidance  to  various  audiences  in  the  business  communication context.

In our present analyses, we apply the above-mentioned engagement typology to multimodal texts in order to identify and explain the dialogic functionality of a diverse array of multimodal resources existing in organizational signages. Another reason for this choice is that by exploring engagement, 'it becomes possible to see imagined audience construal not in terms of some single modeled reader or reading position but, rather, in terms of multiple, not necessarily consistent readers or reading positions' (White, 2003, p. 275).

## 3. Methodological considerations

We collected and analysed multimodal data from the refectory and its immediate environs at Aarhus University. The data were gathered on the January 14, 2020, by taking photos of the five juxtaposed panels (see Figure 1 above), of the individual panels, and of the 49 multimodal signages displayed on the panels.

The design of our analytical framework was based upon the assumption that 'transcription and analysis go hand in hand' (Norris, 2019, p. 199) when dealing with multimodal data. The process of transcribing, coding and analysing the multimodal data involved several stages. In the first stage, for each panel (P), we produced a data analysis table where each row was dedicated to a multimodal signage (S) (see an excerpt in Table 2 which includes one row). In the first column of each table, we inserted a photo of each signage, annotating it in the second column according to type, purpose and sender. In the sixth column, the relations between the semiotic modes were labelled.

The key conceptual labels used to identify the relations between semiotic modes in the signages are elaboration and extension (van  Leeuwen,  2005).  A  relation  of  elaboration  indicates  that  a semiotic mode makes the other one more specific by providing more details, or it explains the other one by paraphrasing it. A relation of extension denotes a situation in which the meaning of  one semiotic mode is similar to, contrasts with, or complements that of the other semiotic modes. Table 2 includes the overview of these relations identified by Van Leeuwen (2005).

Table 2. Overview of image-text relations (Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 230).

| Image - text relations   | Image - text relations   | Image - text relations                                                                |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Elaboration              | Specification            | The image makes the text more specific (or vice versa)                                |
| Elaboration              | Explanation              | The text paraphrases the image (or vice versa)                                        |
| Extension                | Similarity               | The content of the text is similar to that of the image                               |
| Extension                | Contrast                 | The content of the text contrasts with that of the image                              |
| Extension                | Complement               | The content of the image adds further information to that of the text, and vice versa |

During the second stage, our focus was on columns three and four, in which we annotated each signage according to the engagement and/or disengagement that multimodal resources employed.

We employed the a priori categories from Martin and White's conceptual framework (2005), but we tried to avoid prioritizing a specific semiotic resource (such as language, for example). The fifth column was dedicated to codifying forms of identity construction as identified in each multimodal signage. Although time consuming, such detailed multimodal transcription and analysis practices ensure  the  transparency  of  the  cross-modal  criteria  used  in  the  analytical  work  (Thibault,  2000; Baldry  &  Thibault,  2006;  Norris,  2004,  2012).  In  order  to  refine  each  data  analysis  table,  both researchers verified the transcription and discussed the further development and modification of all tables. An excerpt of one of the tables is displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. Excerpt from a data analysis table.

| Signage                               | Stance Signage type, purpose, sign owner                                      | Multimodal monoglossic engagement                                                                                                                                               | Multimodal heteroglossic engagement or disengagement   | Identity construction (community affiliation or individuality support)   | Multimodal interplay                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Panel 1 Signage 1 Image embedded here | Syndicate announcement& invitation Reaction expectation Offer Welcome bidding | Engagement through imperative: Welcome to AU (superimposed text with different typography) Engagement through imperatives: Become a member; Get also the book; Join; Read more. |                                                        | Community affiliation                                                    | Elaboration through specification: Få samtidig bogen [Get the book at the same time] and the book photo |

## 4. Analysis

## 4.1. Multimodal stance-taking

In analysing our data, we apply engagement analysis as a methodological lens. This provides an analytical  perspective  and  a  method  of  inquiry  enabling  us  the  possibility  of  explaining  how multimodal  resources  of  intersubjective  positioning  are  co-deployed.  More  specifically,  in  what follows, we explain the multimodal resources through which the senders engage (or not) with other positions and anticipate responses from potential receivers of the signage: multimodal monoglossic engagement and heteroglossic (dis)engagement .

The  selection  of  specific  multimodal  resources  of  intersubjective  positioning  contributes  to identity  construction  by  unfolding,  negotiating  or  adjusting  potential  aspects  of  collective  or individual  identities  when  communicating  about,  for  instance,  specific  associations,  events  or activities. Aspects of multimodal linking are also explained below in connection with the interplay between verbal and visual elements in these resources that intend to subjectively propose specific reading  and  attitudinal  positions  for  the  potential  receivers  of  the  signage.  The  construction  of identity takes place along two coordinates in the signage: community affiliation and individuality support . The following presentation of our analytical findings related to multimodal stance-taking is thus structured according to these two coordinates.

When  identity  construction  through community  affiliation is  in  focus,  the  stance-taking strategies  of multimodal monoglossic engagement are  verbally  marked by a recurrent usage of aarhu®

Skal vi ikke afslutte

mad en hyldest til cyklen?

Black Friday Velkom- men pa Bygnin: 1482 Lokale 105

EINTRITT FREI

Kommunikation ou Kultu GOETHE

DEAL HUMANISTER!

Prov kræfter med erhvervslivet gennem

FN's 17 verdensmål

I Smag på Erhvervslivet 2020

KALDER ALLE HUMANISTER!

Prov kræfter med erhvervslivet gennem

FN's 17 verdensmål

i Smag på Erhvervslivet 2020

Ta.39 modig: fatten cools teen nole de ki Shan bou kigs toa-

МА УЗУДИТЕНИМ ПЕЙ В УРІК

imperatives through which the senders try to include the receivers in various associations, events or activities  (see  Figure  2).  According  to  Martin  and  White  (2005,  p.  112),  'the  imperative  is monoglossic in that it neither references, nor allows for the possibility of, alternative actions'. For example, receivers are encouraged: 'Become a member!' (P1S1), 'Buy tickets!' (P3S1), 'Stop the terminals!'  (P2S8).  Furthermore,  concrete  verbal  information  about  names  of  associations, participants and/or organizers, dates, phone numbers, addresses or webpages are also part of the recurrent  stance-taking  strategies  of multimodal  monoglossic  engagement as  this  kind  of information does not recognize dialogic alternatives either.

The verbal information is meaningfully linked to various types of visuals both through extension and elaboration when  these  strategies  of multimodal  monoglossic  engagement are  employed. While elaboration through specification occurs more frequently in cases such as a book's image specifying  visually  the  actual  book  indicated  in  the  imperative  'Get  also  the  book!'  (P1S1), extension  through  complementation is  also  present.  For  example,  the  imperatives  'Observe, analyse and implement the UN's 17 global goals in a company!' (P5S4) complement the abstract images of the UN's sustainable development goals and of a globe by adding more verbal information about the focus of the respective event (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Examples of multimodal monoglossic engagement stance (P1S1) and extension through complementation linking (P5S4).

<!-- image -->

The  stance-taking  strategies  of multimodal  heteroglossic  (dis)engagement that  appear  when identity construction is performed through community affiliation are primarily represented by two disengagement  strategies  meant  to  close  down  the  dialogic  space: disengagement  through concurrence and disengagement through pronouncement .  Martin  and  White  explain  that  'the category of 'concur' involves formulations which overtly announce the addresser as agreeing with, or  having  the  same  knowledge  as,  some  projected  dialogic  partner'  (2005,  p.  122),  while pronouncements 'do not 'entertain' alternative positions' (2005, p. 131). Although these strategies imply an absence of dialogic alternatives, they still engage the receivers multimodally. Usually, the disengagement  through  concurrence is  manifested  verbally  through  single,  or  clusters  of, rhetorical questions that should arguably lead the receiver to an inevitable or obvious answer as in these examples: 'Do you want to make a difference for others? (P3S10) or 'Shouldn't we end Black Friday  with  a  homage  to  the  bike?'  (P1S2).  The  senders  also  limit  the  dialogic  alternatives  by employing the strategy of disengagement through pronouncement : 'All are welcome to engage themselves  in  the  book  club  regardless  of  their  background'  (P2S4).  As  far  as  the  category  of endorsements is  concerned, these  'associate  the  proposition  with  an  individual  subjectivity,  and primarily  with  the  subjectivity  of  the  authorial  voice'  (Martin  and  White,  2005,  p.  127). Thus, disengagement through endorsement (see Figure 3) appears in the explored data when the senders

-The Male Sare

3 SHOWS

NU MED

International Gradu

Fem forskellige tracks

inane

evaluate the proposed event and rule out alternative positions as follows: 'a heavenly Christmas show', 'a wonderful experience', 'a super professional show' (P3S1). The senders' stance quite rarely becomes dialogic as when, for example, a strategy of multimodal heteroglossic engagement is employed to offer 'an explicit distancing of the authorial voice' (Martin and White, 2005, p. 113), and  to  explicitly  give  the  receivers  a  choice:  'Economic  inequality,  unjust  distribution  or  fair reward?' (P5S8).

As in  the  case  of multimodal monoglossic engagement strategies,  the  verbal  information  is meaningfully linked to various types of visuals both through extension and elaboration relations when  the  strategies of multimodal  heteroglossic  (dis)engagement operate.  By  means  of elaboration through specification , in one of the signs, the verbal presentation of a syndicate's offers provides specific information about the six abstract images that try to symbolize those offers and limits  the  receivers'  interpretative  choices  (P4S8).  In  another  sign,  namely  the  Christmas  show announcement mentioned above (P3S1), the relation between text and image is one of extension through complementation as the words 'the heavenly show' are complemented by the image of two performers with stars in a golden background (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Examples of disengagement through endorsement stance and e xtension through complementation linking (P3S1).

<!-- image -->

These  multimodal  resources  of  intersubjective  positioning  contribute  systematically  to  identity construction as all of them imply the existence of a collective identity that connects individuals even when no dialogic alternatives are offered in the signage. This collective identity is projected and shaped in the signage by alluding to potentially shared values or/and routinized practices.

When identity construction through individuality support is in focus, the stance-taking strategies of multimodal monoglossic engagement are also verbally marked by imperatives through which the senders attempt to convince receivers to make an effort and act in order to improve a specific aspect of their life. In the case of job announcements, the imperatives are meant to urge the individual receivers to apply for the respective job: 'Send your application as soon as possible' (P1S8), 'Then come and join us, send your application' (P1S10), 'Apply for the position' (P4S3) and the like. The imperatives used for encouraging the receivers to attend events meant to improve an individual's life quality advocate for action in more nuanced ways such as 'Sink your teeth into small nourishing delicacies' (P2S3) (see Figure 4) or 'Give yourself permission to let go of unrest, tensions, stress and  worries'  (P3S13).  By using  such  imperatives,  the  senders  signal  that  they  do  not  recognize dialogic alternatives because the offers are supposed to improve the individual's life. The multimodal configuration of these stance-taking strategies is rather weak in the case of job announcements as the detailed verbal information usually covers the entire surface of the sign.

flot show og

le intlsamlede

Igore godt

steder.

TAR

LEN

RED"

sibed

profesionel fion

g müsikeres

stiske smigeres

meget Morsetup™

International Graduate

Fem forskellige tracks

Sund

Procurement

Supply Chain Management NOVEM

06.

Morge

- Mad e

og koc

Projek

O7.

- Bliv kl Kropsterapi &

<!-- image -->

Massage

Sildest me oto mr ciapugr

Bastone Coate/torice200173mm

talbasr üblege limed sloe gé dl 6030 8300 dsr it ber» nee de ve Tere Mige

Figure 4. Example of multimodal monoglossic engagement with imperatives encouraging receivers to attend an event (P2S3).

The verbal information rarely enters a relation of elaboration through specification with  some images when it can label the respective images as in the case of the job announcement in Figure 5, where five job tracks are symbolically visualized and verbally labelled (P4S3). By contrast, event announcements are usually designed multimodally and elaborations through specification are the dominant linking strategies (see Figure 5). In the event announcements exemplified above and below (P2S3  in  Figure  4  and  P3S13  in  Figure  5),  the  verbal  information  specifies  the  meaning  of decontextualized  images  such  as  three  apples  (P2S3)  or  hands  massaging  the  back  of  a  person (P3S13).

Figure 5. Examples of elaborations through specification linking (P4S3 and P3S13).

<!-- image -->

The stance-taking strategies of multimodal heteroglossic disengagement that appear when identity construction is performed through individuality support are also meant to close down the dialogic space. The heteroglossic disengagement through concurrence strategies appear in job announcements in the form of clusters of rhetorical questions that should lead the potential applicant to the inevitable or obvious answer implied by the senders: 'Can you smile with your eyes? Are you good at working with many different assignments simultaneously? […] Then this is a job for you' (P5S7). In the case of events meant to improve an individual's life quality, the recurrent form of heteroglossic disengagement is through pronouncement : 'In the psychotherapy sessions, we can work  with…'  (P5S3).  When  the  senders  evaluate  the  proposed  event  and  rule  out  alternative rse dig di ler er d

30 · Buande Farane)

Drømmer du om

studier eller praktik i udlandet?

EPTEMBER

e "Lyt til positions , disengagement through endorsement is employed: 'Response from former participants …'  (P1S4).  Very  rarely,  the disengagement  through  denial strategy  is  also  used:  'Only  for members of DA and MA' (P2S3). Such a strategy links and balances in fact the two types of identity construction  processes, community affiliation and individuality  support ,  because  although  the announced event is meant to improve an individual's life quality through the individual's own efforts, this disengagement through denial strategy anticipates an unavoidable group affiliation.

er i dit liv lige nu.

When  such  stance-taking  strategies  are  employed,  the  connections  of extensions  through complementation between  verbal  information  and  visuals  can  appear  in  combination  with elaborations through specification when more than one image accompanies the verbal information of  an  announcement.  For  example,  in  a  psychotherapy  announcement  (P5S3),  the  name  of  the psychotherapist specifies the identity of the man from the close-up photo placed in the upper part of the page, while the image of some stones complement the information provided in the announcement. In  rare  cases,  relations  of extensions  through  contrast are  also  employed.  For  example,  the rhetorical  question  'Do  you  dream  of  studying  or  getting  an  internship  abroad?'  (P1S3)  is superimposed on the photo of two young women relaxing in front of a holiday-like scenery (see Figure 5). Obviously, the photo un/intentionally subverts the meaning of the rhetorical questions or suggests additional activities that could be enjoyed while being abroad.

Figure 5. Example of extension through contrast linking (P1S3).

<!-- image -->

As  in  the  case  of  identity  construction  through  community  affiliation,  this  individual  identity  is projected  and  shaped  in  the  signage  by  alluding  to  potentially  shared  values  or/and  routinized practices.

## 4. Conclusion

This qualitative analysis of multimodal signage is meant to respond to the call for expanding the linguistic landscape's scenery into a semiotic landscape and delving into the exploration of signage's complex interplay of semiotic resources (Shohamy & Gorter, 2009a, 2009b; Pütz & Mundt, 2019). Although, due to the detailed analytical work, the focus of this paper has been on only two semiotic resources, language and visuals, this analysis demonstrates that tracing the multimodal aspects of signage can enhance our understanding of identity construction through stance-taking strategies.

The necessity of taking into consideration the multimodal aspect of signage has been clarified when  examining  identity  construction  through  both community  affiliation and individuality support . Thus, according to the present analytical findings, the multimodal character of the stancetaking  strategies  of monoglossic  engagement or heteroglossic  (dis)engagement contribute  to identity construction by providing new sources of meaning-making that cannot be found at the level of a single semiotic resource.

The  consistent  usage  of  multimodal  linking  strategies  is  clearly  an  indispensable  way  of reinforcing the persuasive messages displayed in the signages. Furthermore, the linking strategies employed are geared to minimizing the distance between senders and receivers even when the verbal strategies do not recognize or invoke dialogistic alternatives. Although all the signs are meant not only to inform but also to persuade their receivers about the feasibility of their offers and, thus, expect some sort of reaction or action, the majority of the multimodal strategies presented above are meant to ignore or deny dialogistic alternatives. The recurrent choice of these strategies might be motivated by  the  fact  that  the  receivers  are  expected  to  become  dialogue  partners  when/if  they  accept  the proposals offered, and the potential identities constructed through the signages are acknowledged through  future  reactions  or  actions.  Thus,  instead  of,  for  example,  disclaiming  strategies  of heteroglossic (dis)engagement such as denying or countering, the strategies analysed above are also motivated by the senders' overall goal of contributing to the construction of identities through their signages. Simultaneously, in most of the signs marked by the stance-taking strategies of multimodal monoglossic  engagement or heteroglossic  (dis)engagement presented  above,  an  indication reverberates also implicitly or explicitly of coalescing systems of values and/or norms that belong to, for instance, certain age groups, academic or leisure interests, or religious inclinations.

This  analytical  work  also  provides  an  understanding  of  the  academic  space  of  signage  as  a semiotic landscape, a discursively constructed space (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010), belonging to those places  'considered  not  as  mere  geographically  defined  areas  but  as  symbolic  representations  of social,  cultural  and  political  values'  (Pütz  &  Mundt,  2019,  p.  4).  Based  on  the  analytical  work explained above, the consistent usage of multimodal linking strategies seems an indispensable way of reinforcing the persuasive force of the messages displayed in the signage. None of the multimodal signages analysed would be likely to have attained the same level of perceived persuasiveness had they  made  use  of  the  affordances  of  a  single  mode  of  communication.  Through  the  multimodal interplay between texts and images, the meanings produced at the level of each semiotic mode are nuanced. Furthermore, the linking strategies employed are geared at minimizing the distance between senders  and  receivers  even  when  the  verbal  strategies  do  not  recognize  or  invoke  dialogistic alternatives.

Further, by tracing the stance-taking multimodal strategies and clarifying the connections of these strategies with the persuasive construction of identity on two coordinates, i.e. community affiliation and individuality support, this paper contributes to a better understanding of how multimodal dialogic alternatives  can  be  employed  to  construct  or  strengthen  identity  in  an  academic  organizational context. In addition to showing these analytical results, the paper also provides a methodological framework that can be employed to examine these phenomena not only in this specific organizational context,  but  also  in  other  contexts  where  identities  are  also  constantly  negotiated.  In  spite  of  its complexity,  practitioners  from  various  organizational  contexts  could  adopt  this  understanding  of multimodal intersubjective stance and employ it strategically in the design of persuasive signage.

Additionally, this transferable methodological framework presented above and the multimodal manifestations of 'evaluative judgements' of participants that project specific identities (Blommaert, 2020, p. 21) could also be applied in the linguistic landscapes of a given organization or, for example, across organizations belonging to the same domain of activity. Such multimodal analyses could be further nuanced by also taking into consideration typography (van Leeuwen, 2005, 2006) or colour 'as affect and effect' (van Leeuwen, 2011, p. 23) in order to clarify their roles in the stance-taking strategies. Aspects of resemiotization could also be taken into consideration as the same multimodal information is sometimes, in the same linguistic landscape, transported from paper announcements to screen ones. Another relevant direction for future research would be a longitudinal approach to multimodal and linguistic landscapes to investigate how or whether such landscapes are transformed over time and, if they are, what novel contextual situations might provoke potential changes.

## References

- Andersen, T. H., Boeriis,  M.,  Maagerø,  E.,  &  Tønnessen,  E.  S.  (2015). Social  semiotics.  Key  figures,  new directions . Routledge.
- Aarhus Universitet (2024). AU's historie [AU's history]. https://www.au.dk/om/aus-historie

[AU in figures 2019]. Aarhus University.

- Aarhus University (2020, July). AU i tal 2019 https://auhist.au.dk/historiske-noegletal/arkiv-for-au-i-tal/au-i-tal-2019
- Aarhus University (2023, July). Communicating at a multilingual university: Guidelines for AU administration. https://medarbejdere.au.dk/en/administration/communication/language-and-translation/communicating-at-amultilingual-university-guidelines-for-au-administration
- Aarhus University (2024, February). PhD programmes. https://phd.au.dk/phd-programmes
- Aarhus University (2024, October). Vil du læse på AU [Do you want to study at AU]. https://www.au.dk/uddannelse/

Aarhus University (2025, January). International admissions at Aarhus University. https://international.au.dk/education/

Aarhus Kommune [Aarhus Municipality] (n.d.). Aarhus i tal [Aarhus in figures].

- https://aarhus.dk/om-kommunen/aarhus-i-tal/aarhus-i-tal
- Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination (translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist). University of Texas Press. Baldry, A., Thibault, P. J., (2006). Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis . Equinox.
- Belmonte,  I.  A.,  &  Porto,  M.  D.  (2020).  Multimodal  framing  devices  in  European  online  news. Language  & Communication , 71 , 55-71.
- Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C. (2022). Social semiotics. In J. Verschueren & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (1255-1263). John Benjamins.
- Blommaert,  J.  (2020).  Are  chronotopes  helpful?..In  S.  Kroon  &  J.  Swanenberg  (Eds.), Chronotopic  identity  work. Sociolinguistic analyses of cultural and linguistic phenomena in time and space (pp. 16-24). Multilingual Matters.
- Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R. E., & Svejenova, S. (2018). Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies. Organization Studies , 39 (5-6), 597-616.
- Brown, K. D. (2005). Estonian schoolscapes and the marginalization of regional identity in education. European Education, 37 , 78-89.
- Brown, K. D. (2012). The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: Language revitalization and schools in southeastern Estonia. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten & L. van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 281298). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Brown, K. D. (2018). Shifts and stability in schoolscapes: Diachronic considerations of southeastern Estonian schools. Linguistics and education, 44 , 12-19.
- Chen,  Y.  (2010).  Exploring  dialogic  engagement  with  readers  in  multimodal  EFL  textbooks  in  China. Visual Communication, 9 (4), 485-506.
- Chouliaraki, L. (2017). Towards an analytics of mediation. In Jewitt, C. (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (253-274). Routledge.
- Djonov, E., & Knox, J. (2014). How-to-analyze webpages. In S. Norris & C.D. Maier (Eds.). Interactions, images and texts. A reader in multimodality (171-195). De Gruyter.
- Djonov, E., & van Leeuwen, T. (2012). Normativity and software. A multimodal social semiotic approach). In S. Norris (Ed.), Multimodality in practice. Investigating theory-in-practice-through-methodology (pp. 119-137). Routledge.
- Fryer, D. L., (2013). Exploring the dialogism of academic discourse: Heteroglossic engagement in medical research articles. In G. Andersen & K. Bech (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: Variation in time, space and genre (183-207). Rodopi.
- Fryer,  D.  L.  (2019).  Multiplying  engagement:  Visual-verbal  intersemiosis  in  an  online  medical  research  article.  In  C. Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres (157-178). John Benjamins.
- Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism . International Journal of Multilingualism , 3 (1), 1-6.
- Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33 , 190-212.
- Gorter,  D.  (2019).  Methods  and  techniques  for  linguistic  landscape  research:  About  definitions,  core  issues  and technological innovations. In M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.), Expanding the linguistic landscape: Linguistic diversity, multimodality and the use of space as a semiotic resource (39-57). Multilingual Matters.
- Gorter, D. & Cenoz, J. (2024). A panorama of linguistic landscape studies . Multilingual Matters.
- Höllerer, A. M., Jancsary, D., & Grafström, M. (2018). 'A picture is worth a thousand words': Multimodal sensemaking of the global financial crisis. Organization Studies , 39 , 621-648.

- Höllerer, M. A., van Leeuwen, T., Jancsary, D., Meyer, R. E., Andersen, H.T., & Vaara, E. (2019). Visual and multimodal research in organization and management studies . Routledge.
- Huang, C. F. (2021). Displaying care: The neoliberal semiotic landscape of psychological health service posters on a university campus in Hong Kong. In E. Krompák, V. Fernández-Mallat & S. Meyer (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes and educational spaces (pp. 104-126). Multilingual Matters.
- Hull, G., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22 (2), 224-261.
- Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing . Pearson.
- Hyland K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal , 56 (4), 351-358.
- Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27 (2), 159-188.
- Iedema,  R.  (2001).  Analyzing  film  and  television:  A  social  semiotic  account.  In  T.  van  Leeuwen  &  C.  Jewitt  (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (183-204) . Sage.
- Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2 (1), 29-57.
- Jaworski, A. and Thurlow, C. (Eds.) (2010). Semiotic landscapes. Language, image, space . Continuum.
- Jewitt, C. (2009). An introduction to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 15-31) . Routledge.
- Jewitt, C. (2017). An introduction to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (1531). Routledge.
- Knox, J. (2007). Visual-verbal communication on online newspaper homepages. Visual Communication, 6 (1), 19-53.
- Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication . Routledge.
- Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. Routledge.
- Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16 , 23-49.
- Linguistic Landscape (2015). Introduction. Linguistic Landscape. A new journal. Linguistic Landscape, 1 (1/2), 1-5.
- Maier, C.D. (2014). Multimodal analysis of new corporate genres. In S. Norris and C.D. Maier (Eds.), Interactions, Images and Texts. A Reader in Multimodality (pp. 93-111). DeGruyter.
- Maier, C.D., & Engberg, J. (2021). Harvard Business Review's reframing of digital communication: From professional expertise to practical guidance. Journal of Pragmatics , 176 , 186-197.
- Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-75). Oxford University Press.
- Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of evaluation. Appraisal in English . Palgrave.
- Martin, J. R., (2015). Jim R. Martin. In T. H. Andersen, M. Boeriis, E. Maagerø, E. S. Tønnesen (Eds.), Social semiotics. Key figures, new directions (pp. 42-69). Routledge.
- Martinec, R., & Salway, A. (2005). A system for image-text relations in new (old) media. Visual Communication, 4 , 337371.
- Moyano, E.J., (2019). Knowledge construction in discussions of research articles in two disciplines in Spanish: the role of resources of appraisal. Journal of Pragmatics , 139 , 231-246.
- Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework . Routledge.
- Norris, S. (2019). Systematically working with multimodal data: Research methods in multimodal discourse analysis . Wiley Blackwell.
- Norris, S. (2012). Introduction to part I: Primary focus - social actors and their actions. In S. Norris (Ed.), Multimodality in practice. Investigating theory-in-practice-through-methodology (pp. 3-6). Routledge.
- O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. Continuum.
- Pérez-Llantada Auría, C. (2011), Heteroglossic (dis)engagement and the construal of the ideal readership: dialogic spaces in academic texts. In V. Bhatia, P. S. Hernández & P. Pérez-Paredes (Eds.), Researching specialized languages (2545). John Benjamins.
- Pütz, M., & Mundt, N. (2019). Multilingualism, multimodality and methodology: Linguistic landscape research in the context of assemblages, ideologies and (in)visibility: An introduction. In M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.), Expanding the linguistic  landscape.  Linguistic diversity,  multimodality  and  the use  of  space  as  a  semiotic  resource .  Multilingual Matters.
- Ravazzani, S., & Maier, C.D. (2017). Strategic organizational discourse and framing in hypermodal spaces. Corporate Communications, 22 (4), 507-522.
- Ross, A. S., & Caldwell, D. (2020) Going negative: An appraisal analysis of the rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter. Language & Communication , 20 , 13-27.

- Royce, T. D. (2016). Intersemiotic complementarity in print advertisements. In N-M. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext (pp. 348-371). DeGruyter.
- Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches . Routledge.
- Shohamy, E. (2019). Linguistic landscape after a decade: An overview of themes, debates and future directions. In M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.), Expanding the linguistic landscape: Linguistic diversity, multimodality and the use of space as a semiotic resource (25-37). Multilingual Matters.
- Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.), (2009a). Linguistic landscape. Expanding the scenery . Routledge.
- Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (2009b). Introduction. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 1-10). Routledge.
- Simpson, B., & Carroll, B. (2008). Re-viewing 'role' in processes of identity construction. Organization 15 (1), 29-50.
- Spolsky, B. (2009). Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: expanding the scenery (25-39). Routledge.
- Statistics Denmark (n.d.). Population figures. Development in the number of inhabitants since 1901. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/befolkningstal
- Tan, S. (2010). Modelling engagement in a web-based advertising campaign. Visual Communication, 9 (1), 91-115.
- Thibault, P. (2000). The multimodal transcription of a television advertisement: Theory and practice. In A. Baldry (Ed.), Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age (pp. 311-385. Palladino Editore.
- van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Typographic meaning. Visual Communication , 4 (2), 137-142.
- van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal , 14 (2), 139-155.
- van Leeuwen, T. (2011). The language of colour: An introduction . Routledge.
- Weatherall, A., Keevallik, L., La, J., Dowell, T., & Stubbe, M. (2021). The multimodality and temporality of pain displays. Language & Communication, 80 , 56-70.
- White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of the intersubjective stance. Text, 23 (2), 259-284.
- Xu, X., & Nesi, H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 38 , 121-134.