‘Exploring strategies of semiotic mediation – Making sense of COVID-19’

Abstract

Human meaning-making becomes particularly dramatic at times of social or biological calamities. COVID-19 appeared in the winter of 2020 and had an immense catalytic influence on peoples' lives worldwide. New coronavirus was a new object for many people and they needed the challenge to make sense of it. The meaning of new coronavirus influenceed an individual’s self-positioning in relation to the new threat in the context of related developments. This manuscript reveals the diversity in mediating new coronavirus among discussants representing the same ethnocultural community. Taking the perspective of cultural psychology of semiotic dynamics, we assume that people would make sense of the new coronavirus sourcing semiotic resources from the socio-cultural context; however, simultaneously it is argued that there are no hegemonic ways of reacting to COVID-19. Individuals are considered not passive recipients of external guidance but rather proactive agents whose interpretants serve as regulators of internal and hetero dialogues. Through our exploration, we identified the variety of semiotic techniques which are used by individuals whilst making sense of new signs and developments through various ways of their schematisation and pleromatization. The online-ethnographic research approach was taken to explore various forms of COVID-19 mediation.

Exploring experiences of proculturation in international students during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Another aspect of individuals’ I-positions as proficient in the host language is that I-positions can be vocalized through dialogue. This dialogue can be internal, referring to the individual’s own views, or external, which refers to other people’s views ( Gamsakhurdia, 2022b ; Hermans, 2001 ; Hermans et al, 2017 ). Some participants considered possible perceptions from people about their proficiency in English, while others focus only on their own perceptions of their ability.…”

“…Mainstream psychological research on cultural adaption seems to have adopted a Cartesian approach, denoted by the prominence of acculturation research. Redfield et al’s (1936) description remains the most accepted definition of acculturation ( Gamsakhurdia, 2022b ), stating that it is the continual first-hand contact between groups of people from different cultures, including changes that may follow in the cultural patterns in any of the groups. Although this encapsulates the main aspects associated with cross-cultural interactions, it treats cultures as ontological entities without accounting for the role of subjectivity; culture is a social construct that exists solely in human interpretation ( Gamsakhurdia, 2018a ).…”

“…Despite this, acculturation has branched into the infamous acculturation model, in which Berry (2001 , 2005) classifies the experiences of adaption into four orientations based on the individual’s connections, or lack of them, with their native and host cultures: assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Although Berry’s model has shown to be effective at correlating these orientations with well-being ( Berry & Hou, 2016 ), it does not show regard for affective and cognitive processes, as it simply relies on surveys of one’s attitudes towards cultures ( Gamsakhurdia, 2022b ). The experience of adaptation is again being atomised as if the elements of it could be understood in a vacuum with the absence of the interconnections that compose them.…”