Home Linguistics & Semiotics Comparing the negotiation of attitudes in audience-sensitive art exhibition labels: how they engage visitors of different age groups
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Comparing the negotiation of attitudes in audience-sensitive art exhibition labels: how they engage visitors of different age groups

  • Siyu Yao

    Siyu Yao is currently a lecturer of linguistics at the School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Chongqing University. She was awarded the MAK Halliday Medal by the University of Sydney and a national scholarship by the Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China. Her research interests include systemic functional linguistics, discourse studies and social semiotics. Her recent publications have appeared in journals including Social Semiotics, Games and Culture, Discourse & Society, and Journal of World Languages.

    ORCID logo
    and Yumin Chen

    Yumin Chen is a professor of linguistics at the School of Foreign Languages, Sun Yat-sen University. She graduated from the University of Sydney with a doctorate degree. She is currently leading a research project sponsored by the Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China. Her research interests include functional linguistics, social semiotics and discourse analysis. Her recent publications have appeared in journals such as Semiotica, Discourse & Communication, Visual Communication, and Linguistics and Education.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: January 17, 2025

Abstract

This article examines how audience-sensitive art exhibition labels engage visitors of different age groups – children and adults – from an appraisal perspective. The potential of evaluative language and emotionally charged expressions in enhancing visitor engagement is increasingly recognized by museum professionals, while it has received limited in-depth exploration in the research literature. A corpus of 56 audience-sensitive labels from an exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Australia was compiled for a comparative analysis of how they negotiate affect, judgement, and appreciation meanings. The findings reveal that both sets of labels frequently employ positive and inscribed appreciations to evaluate the qualities of the artworks. However, there are notable differentiations regarding the realizations of attitude types, subtypes, polarity, mode, appraisers, and the appraised triggers/targets. This article contributes to our understanding about the use of evaluative language in art exhibition labels for children and adults, offering insights into audience-sensitive label writing practice in the art museum context.


Corresponding author: Yumin Chen, School of Foreign Languages, Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 135, Xingang Xi Road, Guangzhou, 510275, China, E-mail:

Funding source: Project of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China

Award Identifier / Grant number: Grant No. 22YJA740005

About the authors

Siyu Yao

Siyu Yao is currently a lecturer of linguistics at the School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Chongqing University. She was awarded the MAK Halliday Medal by the University of Sydney and a national scholarship by the Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China. Her research interests include systemic functional linguistics, discourse studies and social semiotics. Her recent publications have appeared in journals including Social Semiotics, Games and Culture, Discourse & Society, and Journal of World Languages.

Yumin Chen

Yumin Chen is a professor of linguistics at the School of Foreign Languages, Sun Yat-sen University. She graduated from the University of Sydney with a doctorate degree. She is currently leading a research project sponsored by the Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China. Her research interests include functional linguistics, social semiotics and discourse analysis. Her recent publications have appeared in journals such as Semiotica, Discourse & Communication, Visual Communication, and Linguistics and Education.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our gratitude to Professor James Robert Martin for his support and guidance in the development of our research. We are also grateful to the four anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, whose suggestions have greatly enhanced its quality.

  1. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

  2. Research funding: This study has been supported by the Project of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China (Grant No. 22YJA740005).

References

Anderson, Gail. 2004. Introduction. In Anderson Gail (ed.), Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift, 1–7. Oxford: Altamira Press.Search in Google Scholar

Annechini, Claudia, Elisa Menardo, Rob Hall & Margherita Pasini. 2020. Aesthetic attributes of museum environmental experience: A pilot study with children as visitors. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.508300.Search in Google Scholar

Antón, Carmen, Carmen Camarero & María-José Garrido. 2018. Exploring the experience value of museum visitors as a co-creation process. Current Issues in Tourism 21(12). 1406–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1373753.Search in Google Scholar

Archibald, Robert. 2002. Mastering civic engagement: A challenge to museums. Washington: American Association of Museums.Search in Google Scholar

Bednarek, Monika. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230285712Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randy Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804489Search in Google Scholar

Black, Graham. 2005. The engaging museum: Developing museums for visitor involvement. New York & Hampshire: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Black, Graham. 2012. Transforming museums in the twenty-first century. Oxon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203150061Search in Google Scholar

Blunden, Jennifer. 2016. The language with displayed art(efacts): Linguistic and sociological perspectives on meaning, accessibility and knowledge-building in museum exhibitions. Sydney: University of Technology Unpublished PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Campos, Ana Cláudia, Júlio Mendes, Patrícia Oom do Valle & Noel Scott. 2018. Co-Creation experiences: A literature review. Current Issues in Tourism 21(4). 369–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1081158.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Orna & Andreas Heinecke. 2018. Dialogue exhibitions: Putting transformative learning theory into practice. Curator 61(2). 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12254.Search in Google Scholar

Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

De Angeli, Daniela, Kelly Ryan & Eamonn O’Neill. 2020. Beyond happy-or-not: Using emoji to capture visitors’ emotional experience. Curator: The Museum Journal 63(2). 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12352.Search in Google Scholar

Deeth, Jane. 2012. Engaging strangeness in the art museum: An audience development strategy. Museum & Society 10(1). 1–14.Search in Google Scholar

Dockett, Sue, Sarah Main & Lynda Kelly. 2011. Consulting young children: Experiences from a museum. Visitor Studies 14(1). 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.557626.Search in Google Scholar

Dodd, Jocelyn & Richard Sandell. 2001. Including museums: Perspectives on museums, galleries and social inclusion. Leicester: RCMG.Search in Google Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Falk, John & Lynn Dierking. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Search in Google Scholar

Falk, John, Lynn Dierking & Marianna Adams. 2006. Living in a learning society: Museums and free-choice learning. In Sharon Macdonald (ed.), A companion to museum studies, 323–339. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.1002/9780470996836.ch19Search in Google Scholar

Galla, Amareswar. 2013. Benchmarking diversity in museums. In Ida Brændholt Lundgaard & Jacob Thorek Jensen (eds.), Museums: Social learning spaces and knowledge producing processes, 62–87. Copenhagen: Kulturstyrelsen.Search in Google Scholar

Golding, Viv. 2005. The museum clearing: A metaphor for new museum practice. In Dennis Atkinson & Manoj Kumar Dash (eds.), Social and critical practices in education, 51–66. London: Trentham Books.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Frank Allan, Karen Johanne Kortbek & Kaj Grønbæk. 2012. Mobile urban drama: Interactive storytelling in real world environments. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 18(1–2). 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2012.617842.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan. 2004. Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Sydney: University of Technology Unpublished PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230274662Search in Google Scholar

Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 2000. Changing values in the art museum: Rethinking communication and learning. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(1). 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/135272500363715.Search in Google Scholar

Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 2007. Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203937525Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

James, Allison & Alan Prout. 1997. Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, Nina. 1994. Children’s perceptions of their museum experiences: A contextual perspective. Children’s Environments 11(4). 300–324.Search in Google Scholar

Johanson, Katya & Hilary Glow. 2012. ‘It’s not enough for the work of art to be great’: Children and young people as museum visitors. Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 9(1). 26–42.Search in Google Scholar

Kanel, Victor & Pinchas Tamir. 1991. Different labels – different learnings. Curator 34(1). 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1991.tb01452.x.Search in Google Scholar

Karp, Ivan, Corinne Kratz, Lynn Szwaja & Thomas Yburra-Frausto. 2006. Museum frictions: Public cultures, global transformations. Durham & London: Duke University Press.10.1515/9780822388296Search in Google Scholar

Kidd, Jenny. 2011. Enacting engagement online: Framing social media use for the museum. Information Technology & People 24(11). 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841111109422.Search in Google Scholar

Lazzeretti, Cecilia. 2016. The language of museum communication: A diachronic perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-57149-6Search in Google Scholar

Lazzeretti, Cecilia & Marina Bondi. 2012. A hypnotic viewing experience’. Promotional purpose in the language of exhibition press announcements. Pragmatics 22(4). 567–589.10.1075/prag.22.4.02lazSearch in Google Scholar

Lord, Barry. 2001. The purpose of museum exhibitions. In Barry Lord & Gail Dexter Lord (eds.), The manual of museum exhibitions, 11–25. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Search in Google Scholar

MacLulich, Carolyn. 1995. Off the wall: New perspectives on the language of exhibition texts. In Carol Scott (ed.), Evaluation and visitor research in museums, 105–115. Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Macken-Horarik, Mary. 2004. Interacting with the multimodal text: Reflections on image and verbiage in art express. Visual Communication 3(1). 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357204039596.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.59Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse – Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert & Peter R.R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Minkiewicz, Joanna, Jody Evans & Kerrie Bridson. 2014. How do consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Management 30(12). 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2013.800899.Search in Google Scholar

Mocini, Renzo. 2013. The promotional functionality of evaluative language in tourism discourse. Lingue Linguaggi 9. 157–172.Search in Google Scholar

Munro, Ealasaid. 2014. Doing emotion work in museums: Reconceptualising the role of community engagement practitioners. Museum & Society 12(1). 44–60.Search in Google Scholar

Packer, Jan. 2008. Beyond learning: Exploring visitors’ perceptions of the value and benefits of museum experiences. Curator: The Museum Journal 51(1). 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2008.tb00293.x.Search in Google Scholar

Packer, Jan & Roy Ballantyne. 2016. Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A review of literature and development of a multifaceted model. Visitor Studies 19(2). 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2016.1144023.Search in Google Scholar

Painter, Clare. 2003. Developing attitude: An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL. Text 23(2). 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.008.Search in Google Scholar

Pekarik, Andrew. 2002. Feeling or learning? Curator: The Museum Journal 45(4). 262–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2002.tb00063.x.Search in Google Scholar

Piscitelli, Barbara & Louisa Penfold. 2015. Child-centered practice in museums: Experiential learning through creative play at the Ipswich Art Gallery. Curator: The Museum Journal 58(3). 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12113.Search in Google Scholar

Piscitelli, Barbara & Katrina Weier. 2002. Learning with, through and about art: The role of social interations. In Scott Paris (ed.), Perspectives on object-centred learning in museums, 121–151. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Precht, Kristen. 2003. Stances moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text 23(2). 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.010.Search in Google Scholar

Radighieri, Sara. 2005. Arts in the news: Evaluative language use in the “art review. In Proceedings from the corpus linguistic conference series, 1. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Search in Google Scholar

Ravelli, Louise J. 1996. Making language accessible: Successful text writing for museum visitors. Linguistics and Education(8). 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-5898(96)90017-0.Search in Google Scholar

Ravelli, Louise J. 2006. Museum texts: Communication frameworks. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203964187Search in Google Scholar

Samis, Peter & Stephanie Pau. 2011. Museet i dialog? In Kirsten Drotner, Christina Papsø Weber, Berit Anne Larsen & Anne Sophie Warberg Løssing (eds.), Det interaktive museum, 153–176. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Search in Google Scholar

Simon, Nina. 2010. The participatory museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.Search in Google Scholar

Simon, Nina. 2016. The art of relevance. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.Search in Google Scholar

Stenglin, Maree. 2008. Interpersonal meaning in 3D space: How a bonding icon gets its ‘charge. In Len unsworth, multimodal semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of education, 50–66. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Vallance, Elizabeth. 1995. The public curriculum of orderly images. Educational Researcher 24(2). 4–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176420.Search in Google Scholar

Van Aalst, Irina & Inez Boogaarts. 2002. From museum to mass entertainment: The evolution of the role of museums in cities. European Urban and Regional Studies 9(3). 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967642002009003033.Search in Google Scholar

Watanabe, Hideo. 2023. The discursive construction of a conflict: A case of disputed islands in the East China Sea. Text & Talk 43(3). 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0187.Search in Google Scholar

Weil, Stephen E. 1999. From being about something to being for someone: The ongoing transformation of the American museum. Daedalus 128(3). 229–258.Search in Google Scholar

Werner, Brian L., Jeff Hayward & Christine Larouche. 2014. Measuring and understanding diversity is not so simple: How characteristics of personal identity can improve museum audience studies. Visitor Studies 17(2). 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2014.945352.Search in Google Scholar

Yao, Siyu & Yumin Chen. 2024. The recontextualization of art exhibition text panels for children: A comparative analysis of the semiotic resources in audience-sensitive texts. Social Semiotics 34(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2022.2038014.Search in Google Scholar

Zeki, Semir. 2002. Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-12-04
Accepted: 2024-12-30
Published Online: 2025-01-17
Published in Print: 2025-11-25

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 24.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2023-0236/pdf
Scroll to top button