Original Scientific Article The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual in Outdoor Interpretive Panels Šarolta Godnič Vičič University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies - Turistica, Slovenia sarolta.godnic. vicic@gmail. com Nina Lovec University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies - Turistica, Slovenia nina.lovec@fts.upr.si Ljudmila Sinkovič University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies - Turistica, Slovenia milka.sinkovic@fts. upr.si Outdoor interpretive panels inform visitors about the features of a heritage site and the events and objects they encounter during their visit with the aim of improving their awareness and understanding of the site. In addition to having this educational role, interpretive panels are also regarded as a means of enhancing visitor experience and the quality of natural or cultural heritage sites - especially since the information on these signs is available at all hours and can be accessed by large numbers of visitors. Various disciplines have treated outdoor interpretive panels as communication and a form of product development, highlighting topics such as visitors' use of interpretive panels, strategies for capturing and holding visitors' attention, the effective conceptual design of interpretive panels, their efficiency in educating visitors and enhancing visitor experience, and others. This study will focus on outdoor interpretive panels in natural sites. To deliver their message, interpretive panels combine verbal and visual information. The analysis of the intersemiotic logical relations between them aims to reveal the ways in which the two modes interplay in interpretive panels and create cohesive messages through logical relations. Keywords: heritage interpretation, outdoor interpretive panels, textual-visual intersemiosis, intersemiotic cohesion, intersemiotic logical relations https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.11.161-170 Introduction Outdoor interpretive panels6 are a form of non-personal interpretation that most frequently offer textual and visual interpretive contents to visitors in natural and cultural heritage sites. Since interpretive panels do not 6 In the relevant literature, interpretive panels are interchangeably referred to as 'interpretive' or 'interpretation boards', 'signs' or 'signage', or 'wayside exhibits'. require an interpreter to share their contents, visitors are free to read them or not. If they decide to read the texts and view the visual materials on display, they can do so in any order they prefer; moreover, they can read all the text and view all the images or only some of them (Ham, 2013; Smaldone, 2013; Ward & Wilkinson, 2006). This freedom of selective reading and viewing, however, may come at a price: visitors may overlook parts of the messages the creators of the Académica Turística, Year 11, No. 2, December 2018 | 161 Sarolta Godnic Vicic et al. The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual panels intended them to read (Smaldone, 2013; Ward & Wilkinson, 2006). While there is ample literature reporting on the effects of the placement decisions of interpretive panels (Hall, Ham, & Lackey, 2010; Ham, 2013; Light, 1995; Smaldone, 2013) and highlighting the principles for designing effective texts for interpretive displays both in heritage sites (Hall et al., 2010; Ham, 2013; Light, 1995; Smaldone, 2013; Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) and in museums (Fritsch, 2011; Hillier & Tzortzi, 2006; Moser, 2010; Psarra, 2005), little has been said about the interplay between texts and visuals in outdoor interpretive panels. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to address this gap by exploring the intersemi-otic relations between the verbal and visual semiotic resources in interpretive panels and their cohesive ties with each other. Using a multimodal approach, this paper will analyse an interpretive panel from a protected nature reserve, the Strunjan Natural Park in Slovenia, in greater detail. We begin the next section with a brief review of heritage interpretation, outdoor interpretive panels and intersemiosis. The rationale for the choice of methods is then presented as well as the intersemi-otic relations found in the outdoor interpretive panel. We conclude the paper with a discussion of the implications of our results. Heritage Interpretation While the roots of heritage interpretation have been traced back to the times of storytellers and bards (Brochu & Merriman, 2002) as well as to ancient travel journals and stories told by the first tourist guides 4000 years ago (Silberman, 2013), heritage interpretation as a profession and object of academic inquiry is of a more recent origin. Disciplines such as geography, education, sociology, environmental science, archaeology, museology, and marketing have all contributed to the theories and techniques on which heritage interpretation is based. The diversity in their understandings about the interaction between visitors and heritage sites was partly lost in the 1980s due to standardisation processes that narrowed the focus of heritage interpretation, reducing it mainly to communication and education (Staiff, 2014). This is why Tilden's (1977) heritage interpretation precepts from the 1950s still resonate with contemporary interpretive practice and more practice-oriented interpretation literature (among others Brochu & Merriman, 2002; Ham, 2013; Ludwig, 2015). Tilden regards heritage interpretation as' [A]n educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information' (Tilden, 1977, p. 8). His six principles of interpretation are meant to assist interpreters in achieving this goal. They suggest that heritage interpretation should relate its contents to the experience of the visitor, be provocative and adjusted to children when it addresses them as visitors, and interpret heritage as a whole and not only its parts; finally, interpretation is more than information - it is an art that can be taught. Although Tilden's definition and principles still echo not only in the practice-oriented works suggested above but also in the influential icomos Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (icip, 2008), recent years have witnessed more critical views of Tilden's work (Silberman, 2013; Silverman & Ruggles, 2007; Staiff, 2014; Uzzell, 1998). Tilden's approach to heritage interpretation is thus viewed as 'stuck in a rut where how has become more important than the why (Uzzell, 1998, p. 12; emphasis in original), or just 'a method of face-to-face communication' (Silberman, 2013, p. 22). Tilden is further criticised for 'separating heritage interpretation - as an educational activity for visitors - from interpretation more generally' (Staiff, 2014, p. 34; emphasis in original) and maintaining 'a hierarchical power relationship between the "expert" and the nonexpert, between those with "the knowledge" and those "without the knowledge"' (Staiff, 2014, p. 37). Therefore, it has been suggested that heritage interpretation should be rather approached as a system of representation that aims to facilitate multiple meaning-making as well as meaning-making as a dynamic process (Clarke & Waterton, 2015; Francesconi, 2018; Staiff, 2014). Outdoor Interpretive Panels Unlike personal interpretation (e.g., guided tours and walks, demonstrations, talks), in which the interpreter 162 | Académica Turística, Year 11, No. 2, December 2018 Sarolta Godnic Vicic et al. The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual controls the content, delivery, and order of information presented, interpretive panels communicate through a combination of vivid images and short written texts (Hall et al., 2010; Ham, 2013), and it is the visitors who choose the pace and order of communication when looking at panels, and decide whether to access the information at all or not (Moscardo, Bal-lantyne, & Hughes, 2007; Smaldone, 2013). Outdoor interpretive panels help improve the visitor experience in places where the constant presence of staff is not convenient or possible, or where other communication media (e.g., audio guides, brochures) are not available (Hall et al., 2010; Hose, 2006; Moscardo et al., 2007). Heritage sites can feature a single interpretive panel or a series of interpretive displays that can be used as a self-guided trail. Outdoor interpretive panels support visitors' engagement with heritage sites through the 'official message' of the site incorporated in the panels' contents and also through engagement with that which is beyond the panels' discursive contents: the landscape, the sound, smell, movement, etc. (Clarke & Waterton, 2015). This is why interpretive panels are widely regarded as important communication mediators that help direct the interactivity of visitors with heritage sites (Tussyadiah, 2014) and encourage suitable visitor behaviours at sensitive natural sites (Hall et al., 2010; Hose, 2006; Light, 1995). Interpretive panels are, however, also known for their inflexibility (e.g., they are incapable of adjusting to diverse audiences, they cannot be changed or updated easily) and constant need for care and maintenance (Light, 1995; Moscardo et al., 2007). Research has also shown that some interpretive boards are viewed by many while others by only a handful (Hall et al., 2010; Light, 1995). Besides careful placement of interpretative panels, the vividness of the message and overall design seem to play essential roles in assuring the greater visibility and attractiveness of panels. While visitor interest is enhanced through messages that appeal to visitors' empathy and encourage them to take perspective, or through stories, humour and telegraphic thematic titles (Hall et al., 2010; Smal-done, 2013) or metaphors (Smaldone, 2013), the communication appeal of interpretive panels is also en- hanced through design (e.g., background colour, fonts and illustrations, layout) (Hall et al., 2010; Ham, 2013; Moscardo et al., 2007; Smaldone, 2013). The attention-paying behaviour of visitors to heritage sites is further shaped by their purpose of visit (Light, 1995), the various schemas, past experiences, interests (Hall et al., 2010), or the cultural systems (Clarke & Waterton, 2015) visitors bring with them to heritage sites. Intersemiosis and Justification of Method Choice Texts targeting tourists tend to exploit more than one semiotic resource to increase their cognitive and emotional effects on the text recipients, i.e., the tourists. There is, however, limited research on intersemiotic relations between the verbal and visual modes in multimodal tourism texts. Following Martinec and Sal-way's (2005) classification of logico-semantic relations between words and images in static texts, Francesconi (2014) explored the integration of the verbal and visual modes in humorous British postcards often purchased by tourists. She found that the verbal and the visual may exhibit both equal and unequal relative status, the verbal and the visual may be independent of each other or they may complement each other. Using Kress and van Leeuwen's (2006) approach to the analysis of multimodal texts, Maci (2007) examined the composition, interrelation, and interaction between the verbal and visual modes on websites and found that the visual mode often stresses the representational character of places while the verbal enhances the interactive and persuasive aspects of communication with tourists. To our knowledge, the relations between the verbal and visual modes in outdoor interpretive panels have not yet been addressed by research, thus justifying our choice of the method a brief overview of findings on intersemiosis in static texts that will follow. It was Roland Barthes (1977) who started the critical debate on intersemiosis in his analysis of the relations between the visual and verbal in printed advertisements by claiming that the verbal mode dominated the visual one. In recent years, however, the interplay between the visual and verbal semiotic modes has attracted the attention of multimodal discourse analy-sists too. Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) suggested that the use of several semiotic modes may reinforce or 162 | Académica Turística, Year 11, No. 2, December 2018 Sarolta Godnic Vicic et al. The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual Figure 1 The Interpretive Panel at the Entrance to the Strunjan Natural Park (photo by Sarolta Godnic Vicic) Figure 2 The View of the Interpretive Panel on the Way Out of the Strunjan Natural Park (photo by Sarolta Godnic Vicic) complement each other, or be hierarchically ordered. Stockl (2004), in contrast, suggested that the verbal and the visual modes can be integrated in two ways: first, verbal texts and images are most commonly integrated in ways that allow each mode to use its semiotic potential strategically in order to create a combined meaning, and secondly, the integration of the modes takes place when verbal texts emulate the visual (e.g., typography and layout give verbal texts an image quality). Stockl further suggested that this complex integration of verbal and visual modes involves mode mixing and mode overlapping. Meaning between the different semiotic modes in multimodal texts is created on the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunction levels; therefore, inter-semiotic relations exist on all three levels (O'Halloran, 2008). The different modes have to create a coherent semantic unit. However, Liu and O'Halloran (2009) warn that the semantic integration of the verbal and visual modes should not be taken for granted: words and images can also merely be placed together. Following Halliday and Hasan (1976) who regard cohesion as a crucial criterion to distinguish text from nontext and thus an essential property of a text, Liu and O'Halloran (2009) suggest that semantic relations between different modalities are realised through inter-semiotic cohesive devices and not by the mere linking of the two modes. Liu and O'Halloran thus propose that the semiotic relations between the textual and visual are shown in the intersemiotic texture of multi- modal texts, which integrates the two modes through intersemiotic cohesion into a coherent whole. Liu and O'Halloran (2009) further show that the intersemiotic logical relations (ideational metafunc-tion level) between verbal text and images, or between images, or even between verbal text, image and context can be comparative, additive, consequential, or temporal. When visual and linguistic components share a similar experiential meaning, the different modes are a semiotic reformulation of each other, and their logical relations are defined as being Comparative. They are accompanied by the use of intersemiotic cohesive devices, such as correspondence, parallelism, and contextualisation propensity. When one semiotic component adds new information to another component, the verbal and visual parts convey related, but different messages and the logical relation is defined Additive. In contrast, when one semiotic message enables or determines the other, the logical relation is that of Consequence. A subfield of Consequence can be Contingency when the cause carries only the potential to determine a possibility and the effect is not ensured. Temporal logical relations are procedures that are not realised in mere language but are characterised by multimodality when different procedural steps are represented both verbally and visually. Using Liu and O'Halloran's (2009) classification of intersemiotic logical relations, the present study sets out to explore the ways in which the verbal and the visual modes form a coherent unit in outdoor inter- 162 | Académica Turística, Year 11, No. 2, December 2018 ŠAROLTA GODNIČ VlČIČ ET AL. The Interplay between the Verbal and Visual Krajinski park Strunjan Parco naturale Strugnano Strunjan Landscape Park ¡I Kaj lahko v parku doživim? Che cosa ci off re i I parco? What can I experience in the park? Kaj pa lahko sam zanj storim? Come possiamo proteggerlo? What can I do to protect it? Strunjan Strugnano: v podobah morja ritratta dal mare Strunjan: Portraits of the Sea Krajinski park Strunjan se razkriva skozi podobe, ki jih že tisočletja ustvarja morje. Kažejo se v naravni in kulturni dediščini, ki jima je morje dalo življenje, domačini pa pomen. Odpravite se po poti, ki vam kot na dlani razkriva vse morske skrivalnice. Spoznajte in spoštujte ta edinstveni, naravno ohranjeni košček slovenske obale. II Parco naturale Strugnano si rivela at-traverso immagini che ¡'Adriático ha forgiato per millenni, fuse in un patrimonio naturale e culturóle a cui il mare ha dato vita e la gente del posto signiñcato. Incamminatevi lungo il sentiero che vi svelerá tutti i segreti di un ambiente marino único. Scoprite e rispettate questo tratto della costa slo-vena, a tutfoggi naturale. Landscape Park Strunjan reveals itself through images that have been moulded by the sea for millennia, that merge to form a natural and cultural heritage given life by the Adriatic and meaning by the local people. Set out along the path to discover the secrets of this unique maritime environment. Get to know and respect this naturally preserved strip of Slovene coast. CMn.ddLnnaHHkStn*».» mmmt—~m undicapc Part Suun|in