(PDF) Shaping Learning for Young Audiences: A Comparative Case Study of Children’s Texts from Two Parisian Museums

Visitor Studies Shaping learning for young audiences: A comparative case study of children’s texts from two Parisian museums --Manuscript Draft-- Manuscript Number: Full Title: Shaping learning for young audiences: A comparative case study of children’s texts from two Parisian museums Article Type: Research Article Order of Authors: Caroline Lipovsky Abstract: With numerous museums presently targeting children and families, museum texts aimed at a young public are becoming increasingly frequent. There is little literature however concerning the ways in which those texts strive to shape children’s experience and understanding. Using children’s texts collected from two French museums, Paris’s Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe, and drawing from Systemic Functional Linguistics theory, this study first seeks to explore the linguistic features of children’s texts. Using Legitimation Code Theory, the study also highlights and contrasts the ways in which the two museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the texts that they produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with their young audience. Author Comments: This article has been accepted for publication in Visitor Studies, published by Taylor & Francis. Powered by Edit orial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Syst em s Corporat ion Shaping learning for young audiences: A comparative case study of children’s texts from two Parisian museums Caroline Lipovsky Department of French and Francophone Studies School of Languages and Cultures The University of Sydney Australia ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7793-7809

ABSTRACT With numerous museums presently targeting children and families, museum texts aimed at a young public are becoming increasingly frequent. There is little literature however concerning the ways in which those texts strive to shape children’s experience and understanding. Using children’s texts collected from two French museums, Paris’s Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe, and drawing from Systemic Functional Linguistics theory, this study first seeks to explore the linguistic features of children’s texts. Using Legitimation Code Theory, the study also highlights and contrasts the ways in which the two museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the texts that they produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with their young audience. Keywords museum; museum text; children’s text; systemic functional linguistics; legitimation code theory; multimodal discourse analysis Introduction Museums no longer let exhibits speak for themselves; rather, they interpret and contextualize them for their visitors. To this aim, texts play a significant role (Ravelli, 1996; 2006b). Indeed, exhibition texts constitute the primary tools for creating meaning out of exhibits and communicating museums’ messages to various audiences (Ferguson et al., 1995, p. 4). With numerous museums nowadays striving to make their permanent collections and temporary exhibitions intelligible to an enlarged audience of children visiting with their parents or school teachers, the accessibility of such texts to a young public of diverse linguistic and social backgrounds is crucial. Although (audio and written) verbal texts are becoming more and more central to visitors’ experience of museums, such texts are still poorly understood (Blunden, 2016, p. 15). Among the scholarship in the field of museum studies however, a small number of studies, drawing on the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, engages specifically with museum discourse, focusing explicitly on language (e.g. Ferguson et al., 1995; Ravelli, 1996, 1998, 2006a, 2006b; Blunden, 2016, 2020). A first strand of research focuses on the effectiveness of museum texts and their comprehensibility. Using field work at the Australian Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, Systemic Functional Linguistics-based guidelines were first developed with the aim of producing museum texts that were more comprehensible to visitors. 1 This approach shed light on a number of problematic features arising in some museum texts such as the use of a highly-written register characterized by high lexical density and complex nominal groups, and incorporation of specialised terms without definition or explanation. Another issue that was identified consists of lack of thematic organisation at macro- and hyper- Theme levels, leading to poor coherence and cohesion within museum texts (Ferguson et al., 1995; Ravelli, 1996, 1998). Another strand of research explores meanings along broad ideological and educational issues, such as the representation of indigenous peoples and cultures, and the ideologies pertaining to such texts. For example, a study about texts concerning indigenous Australians from the Berlin-Dahlem, a major European ethnographic museum (Purser, 2000), highlighted difficulties arising from lack of reference to displayed exhibits, high lexical density, numerous complex nominal groups, and high frequency of grammatical metaphor. Importantly, the study also highlighted instances of concealed Agency presenting Aborigines as passive, or events occurring by themselves, leading to a biased framing of colonisation and colonised people. Further studies focus on the complex intersemiotic processes that take place in the dynamic interactions between exhibits and verbiage. Considering the interaction of verbiage and image in art exhibitions, an analysis of two student artworks at the ArtExpress Sydney exhibition (Macken-Horarik, 2004), drawing on semiotic grammar (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) and APPRAISAL (Martin & White, 2005), drew attention to the complementarity contribution of meaning potentials of images (artworks) and verbiage (their accompanying text panels). Similarly, an analysis of the interaction between a family portrait and its accompanying audio- taped recording at the Mozart-Wohnhaus Museum in Salzburg (Hofinger & Ventola, 2004) outlined the ways in which verbal texts can foster the interpretative process of images. Using a range of museum texts and staff interviews in a comparative case-study of an art exhibition and a social history exhibition in Canberra and Sydney, Blunden (2016, 2020) focused on both museum texts and their authorial developing processes. More particularly, she explored the ways in which label texts work to shape visitors’ experiences of artefacts, and verbiage may add meanings to displayed artefacts. Using the concepts of converging vs. diverging relations in image-text relations, and vectors from text to artefact that prompt viewers to look at specific features of works, the study explored the ways in which interpretative museum texts may add to the observation of exhibits and exemplified how close observation of the exhibits may be fostered. Furthermore, the study highlighted the ways in which museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the kinds of texts they produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with the public. In spite of numerous studies about children’s learning in various types of museums – see for instance Andre et al. (2017)’s review of a decade of studies focusing on museum activities supporting children’s learning experiences in museum contexts – little has been said about museum texts that are aimed at a younger audience. Using data collected from two Parisian museums, the Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe, the present study first aims at exploring the ways in which museum texts may interpret their exhibits in ways that are intelligible and engaging to a younger audience. The study also seeks to shed light on the ways in which museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the texts that they produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with their young audience. Theoretical framework To understand the ways in which meaning-making is being construed in verbal museum texts, Systemic Functional Linguistics’ social semiotic model of language can be usefully engaged. 2 SFL views language as made up of three concurrent layers of meanings, or ‘metafunctions’ (Halliday revised by Matthiessen, 2014, pp. 84-85): - an ideational metafunction for representing experiential reality, - an interpersonal metafunction referring to the relationships that are construed between writers and their audience – their roles, status, social distance, - a textual metafunction for organizing texts into coherent messages. To reveal the ways in which museums texts inform young visitors’ experience and understanding of their exhibits, some linguistic features seem particularly relevant in light of the review above to the success or failure or museum texts, as illustrated in Table 1. These linguistic features will be further explored in turn in my analysis. Table 1. Issues to be considered in museum texts – adapted from Ravelli (1996, p. 376) This study also draws on a theory of knowledge, Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), to explore the role played by verbiage in museum texts in enabling their young audience to build knowledge. LCT is a conceptual framework “that enables knowledge practices to be seen, their organizing principles to be conceptualized, and their effects to be explored” (Maton, 2014, pp. 2-3). As such, LCT may contribute to highlighting museums’ practices, or attitudes vis-à-vis knowledge, that motivate their meaning-making choices, also called ‘legitimation codes’ (Maton, 2014, p. 18). LCT Specialization codes in particular theorize relations to knowledge, positing communication along epistemic relations (ER) vs. social relations (SR). The relative strengths of epistemic vs. social relations can each vary from stronger (+) to weaker (-) to generate a continuum of specialization codes (ER+/-, SR+/-) (Maton, 2014, p. 30). In the writing of museum texts, a knowledge code orientation would emphasize epistemic relations (ER+) and downplay social relations (SR-). That is, it would emphasize what legitimate knowledge consists of, and downplay visitors’ personal experience and preferences. In contrast, a knower code orientation would emphasize social relations (SR+) and downplay epistemic relations (ER-). That is, it would downplay hierarchies between the institution and its public, be inclusive of a variety of visitors, connect knowledge with visitors’ experience and preferences, and position the institution’s role as facilitating visitors’ connection with the exhibits. This is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Knowledge code vs. knower code orientations Data description While label texts accompanying exhibits have long been identified as significant communicative artefacts between museums and their visitors, a range of mediums contribute to such communication, such as wall texts, catalogue entries or brochure descriptions. In my search for data for this study, I found that children’s texts are available in a variety of ways, such as online resources that can be read, downloaded and printed prior to one’s visit, printed brochures that can be found at museums’ information desks or ticket booths, or wall texts. Indeed, numerous texts are also offered in the spoken mode, in the form of audio guides, guided tours or children’s workshops. This study focuses on two types of texts: interpretative ones, as well as texts from children’s discovery trails, since interactivity is increasingly considered as significant in children’s learning experiences in museum contexts (Andre et al., 2017). Interpretative texts are those “texts which provide a guide to and explanation of the exhibition for the visitor” (Ravelli, 1998, p. 139), “to explain what it is the objects are meant to ‘say’ – […] what they reveal, what they 3 relate to” (L. J. Ravelli, 2006b, p. 95). Discovery trails are programs aimed at children of varying ages encompassing activities based on close observation of exhibits. The data include texts from the museums’ websites, wall texts and children’s discovery trail booklets. As shown in Table 3, children’s wall texts are only represented at the Musée en Herbe. This is a reflection of the texts that were found overall. In fact, of all the museums that I visited in Paris, only the Musée en Herbe was found to display such texts on their walls. As a result, this medium appears as a marked practice. Finally, adult texts were included in the corpus, so as to find out the ways in which children’s texts might differ from them. Table 3. Distribution of texts collected Findings and discussion Further to discussion of the museums’ mission statements, as shown in their websites, the next sections will analyze in turn linguistic features of children’s texts concerning their organization and complexity, representation of reality and interpersonal relations. Institution mission statements The two museums’ mission statements might first provide some insight into their practices. Le musée d'Orsay est un musée national ouvert au public le 9 décembre 1986 pour montrer, dans toute sa diversité, la création artistique du monde occidental de 1848 à 1914. (The Musée d’Orsay is a national museum opened to the public on 9 December, 1986 to show, in all its diversity, the artistic creation of the Western world from 1848 to 1914.) In their mission statement, the Musée d’Orsay’s authority for displaying Western artworks is foregrounded. To whom they will show their collection is not specified, as visitors are excluded from the statement. The displayed artworks are thus central to the museum’s raison d’être. The statement foregrounds institutional knowledge, while distancing itself from visitors’ engagement and interaction. If we consider the Musée d’Orsay’s children’s webpage (Les petits M’O), as illustrated in Figure 1, emphasis is put on taxonomy, with artists, artworks, itineraries for preparing one’s future visit and a timeline of the museum’s artworks, all outlined within clearly segregated white rectangles. The heading points to a process of discovery (‘DÉCOUVRIR’, DISCOVER) – although from artworks that have been preselected by the museum, while the infinitive clause precludes any participant. Figure 1. Musée d’Orsay’s children’s website On the other hand, the Musée en Herbe’s mission statement declares that le Musée en Herbe présente des expositions d’art adaptées à tous, de 3 à 103 ans. Des expositions prestigieuses et des parcours dont les visiteurs sont les héros permettent de capter la curiosité, la sensibilité et l’intérêt des petits comme des grands. Une approche de l’art basée sur le jeu et l’humour […] (the Musée en Herbe presents art exhibitions that are suitable for everyone from 3 to 103 years old. Prestigious exhibitions and tours whose visitors are the heroes capture the 4 curiosity, sensitivity and interest of young and old alike. An approach to art based on play and humor) Visitors, young and old alike, are positioned as the institution’s main concern – they are construed as ‘heroes’, whose curiosity and interest must be piqued. This suggests that social relations, rather than knowledge, are at the fore of the museum’s mission, with visitors’ emotional response to artworks foregrounded. The institution’s authority is played down, with ‘play’ and ‘humor’ given center stage. This is reflected in the titles for their exhibitions, as seen in the alliteration of their Monsters, Mangas and Murakami show. This playfulness is reinforced visually in the museum’s website (Figure 2) through the choice of cursive and round-shaped typography, and a background of light-hearted drops of paint. A quite different taxonomy from the one used by the Musée d’Orsay is used, with exhibitions (‘L’Exposition’) sharing space with school visits (‘Les Ecoles’) and children’s workshops (‘Les Ateliers’). Figure 2. Musée en Herbe’s website In their description for the exhibition Walk the Line with [artist] L’ATLAS, the Musée en Herbe similarly gives pre-eminence to visitors, who are ‘archaeologists’, ‘detectives’ and ‘travelers’ in their exploration of the artist’s world: En suivant les lignes tracées par L’Atlas, vous réaliserez une percée dans l’archéologie, une traversée des rues de Paris, une découverte de l’art optique et cinétique et vous voyagerez autour de la terre avec l’artiste… Archéologues, détectives et voyageurs, les visiteurs partiront explorer le monde de L’Atlas entre références, créativité et Art de la rue. (Following the lines drawn by L’Atlas, you will realize a breakthrough in archaeology, a voyage through the streets of Paris, a discovery of optical and kinetic art and you will travel around the earth with the artist… Archaeologists, detectives and travelers, visitors will explore L’Atlas’s world across references, creativity and street Art.) Note the ways in which visitors are foregrounded through the use of second personal plural pronoun ‘vous’ (although toned down by the use of ‘visiteurs’/visitors in the second paragraph) in the promise of an exploratory journey around the world with the artist, thus reducing social distance between visitors and artist/museum. This impression is reinforced by the face to face accentuated gaze of the artist making eye contact with the viewer in the promotional video for the exhibition. Text organization – Theme development and cohesive patterns Effective organization is essential to ensure text cohesion and clarity. According to Halliday (revised by Matthiessen, 2014, p. 89), “[t]he Theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context”, while the Rheme contains the rest of the message. Because of its orienting function, congruence between Theme and exhibit may contribute to enhancing clarity (Ravelli, 1996, p. 377). Taking as an example the interpretative text for the first artwork in the Musée d’Orsay’s children’s website, Claude Monet’s painting La pie/The magpie (Figure 3), both the artist and his painting have been chosen as Topical Themes (underlined in the extract below), or points of departure, for each section of the text, with New information appearing in the Rhemes: 5 Claude Monet a intitulé cette toile La pie […] (Claude Monet called this painting The magpie) Dans La pie, Monet s’est surtout intéressé à la lumière et aux reflets. (In The magpie, Monet mainly took an interest in light and reflections.) In contrast, the Musée d’Orsay’s catalogue entry uses a Circumstance of Time (‘in the late 1860s’) as Topical Theme for its description of the artwork, with the magpie being only referred to in the Rheme at the end of the first paragraph: Calmant le lyrisme de [Courbet], Monet préfère au monde de la forêt et de la chasse, la frêle note d'une pie posée sur un portail comme sur une portée musicale. (Toning down Courbet's lyricism, Monet prefers a frail magpie perched on a gate, like a note on a musical staff, to the realm of forests and hunting.) Figure 3. Claude Monet’s La pie Cohesion is further provided in the children’s text through endophoric references (underlined below), as the young reader is assigned the task to look for the magpie in the painting: Claude Monet a intitulé cette toile La pie, mais il n’est pas évident de repérer ce petit oiseau du premier coup d’œil ! Tu peux la voir sur la barrière, à gauche de la toile… Ce sont surtout ses plumes noires qui nous permettent de la distinguer du reste du paysage. (Claude Monet called this painting The magpie, but it is not easy to spot this small bird at first glance! You can see it on the gate, to the left of the canvas… It is especially its black feathers that allow us to distinguish it from the rest of the landscape.) Questions may be used to contribute to the cohesion of texts (Ferguson et al., 1995, p. 29). This device is often used in children’s text, as illustrated in the following extract: Dans La pie, Monet s’est surtout intéressé à la lumière et aux reflets. A quoi le voit-on ? A la manière dont il peint la neige. (In The magpie, Monet mainly took an interest in light and reflections. How do you see this? The way he paints snow.) Museum texts are multimodal in nature, as verbal texts are accessed through typography and layout (Ravelli, 2006b). At its macro-level of organization, the children’s text begins with headings in bold and red and blue colors, in large typeface, providing the title for the artwork and name of the artist, further differentiated through capital letters. Typographical emphasis thus highlights the names of the artworks and their authors for the young reader. A large image of the artwork is followed, on a differently colored background, by concrete details, such as the size and date of creation of the work, each introduced by distinctive icons. Thus, key points are signaled to young readers through typeface size, color, bolding, capital letters and differentiated backgrounds. The ensuing description also differs visually from the adult text with its headings in bold, as well as the use of a larger typeface size, longer lines and higher line spacing, all features that contribute to increasing the text’s navigability and readability (see Lipovsky, 2014). As was the case in the adult text for La pie, the adult text for the Monsters, mangas and Murakami exhibition at the Musée en Herbe starts with four paragraphs of historical context, before introducing the artist: 6 Né en 1962 à Tokyo, Takashi Murakami est une figure incontournable de la scène artistique japonaise. (Born in 1962 in Tokyo, Takashi Murakami is a key player of the Japanese art scene), with a marked Theme realized by Circumstances of time and place. This points to the significance of the social historical context in artistic output. In contrast, in the first children’s text for the same exhibition (Figure 4), Takashi Murakami is provided unmarked ‘Thematic prominence’ (Martin & Stengling, 2007, p. 217): TAKASHI MURAKAMI Takashi Murakami est l’artiste contemporain japonais le plus célèbre du monde ! Fan de mangas et de dessins animés, il crée des œuvres colorées, imprégnées par les légendes et l’histoire de son pays, peuplées de personnages fantastiques, de créatures fabuleuses, de monstres malicieux et de mignonnes marguerites… (TAKASHI MURAKAMI Takashi Murakami is the most famous contemporary Japanese artist in the world! Fan of mangas and cartoons, he creates colorful works, permeated with the legends and history of his country, populated with fantastic characters, fabulous creatures, mischievous monsters and delightful daisies…) The description provides concrete references to the things that can be seen in Murakami’s artworks, what they instantiate visually, such as mischievous monsters and delightful daisies (‘monstres malicieux et mignonnes marguerites’) – with alliterations drawing attention to their characteristics. Figure 4. Children’s text, Monsters, mangas and Murakami exhibition, Musée en herbe Visually, the text appears in large typeface, with its parts highly differentiated via a heading in bolding and clearly segregated paragraphs. Thus, linguistic features that are found in both the Musée d’Orsay’s and the Musée en Herbe’s children’s texts include clear Thematic prominence to the artists and their artworks. Children’s texts are also differentiated from adult texts through typographical emphasis that makes texts easily navigable for their young audience. Concrete endophoric references may not only provide cohesion, but also identify verbally what is instantiated visually. Text complexity - nominal groups structure, and clause density and intricacy 7 Text complexity is another feature that sets children’s and adults’ museum texts apart. Lexical density refers to the density of information in a given text, as measured by the number of content words per clause (Halliday & Martin, 1993, p. 83). In the catalogue description of Claude Monet’s La pie/The magpie for instance, lexical density is quite high, with highly complex nominal groups, as illustrated in the extract below, La représentation de ce coin de campagne de la région d'Etretat, réalisée sur le motif, donne à voir des tons clairs et lumineux très inhabituels, (The painting of this little nook of countryside situated near Etretat, executed on the spot, uses quite unusual light and luminous colors,) with numerous Post-Modifiers qualifying the Head nouns ‘représentation’ (painting) and ‘tons’ (colors). As a result, the adult text is densely packed, necessitating a great deal of effort and energy on the part of the reader. Note that such grammatical construction, whereby the ‘what’ (or content) and the ‘how’ (or technical aspects) of an artwork, accompanied by an appraisal (Martin & White, 2005) of the work, are connected through a relational process, seems typical of art discourse (Ravelli, 1998, pp. 144-145). In contrast, the children’s text contains few complex nominal groups. Where the adults’ text uses two highly complex nominal groups linked by a relational process, the children’s text is closer to spoken language in that it strings a number of clauses together, making it more grammatically intricate, rather than lexically dense: Nous sommes ici transportés par le peintre à Etretat, un village de la côte normande. || Si tu regardes bien, || tu verras || qu’elle [la neige] n’est jamais vraiment de la même couleur ; || elle est tantôt blanche teintée de bleu, || puis elle devient rose ou grise. (The painter takes us here to Etretat, a village on the Normandy coast. || If you look closely, || you will see || that it [the snow] is never really the same colour; || it is sometimes white tinged with blue, || then it turns pink or grey.) This spreading of information over a number of clauses makes the text less lexically dense, hence more accessible to readers (Ferguson et al., 1995, p. 35). Note also how while the adults’ text refers to ‘quite unusual colors’, the children’s text is explicit, with concrete references to the colors used in the painting – white, blue, pink and grey. The reference to Etretat is also further explained as ‘un village de la côte normande’ (a village on the Normandy coast). Furthermore, the complex nominalizations of the adult text are unpacked in the children’s text, as shown in the following extracts: La nouveauté et l’audace du parti pris de Monet, plus préoccupé de perception que de description […] (The novelty and daring of Monet's approach, who was more concerned with perception than description […]) vs. Ce qui l’intéresse dans un paysage, c’est tout ce que l’on ressent mais que l’on ne peut pas forcément décrire. Ce sont par exemple les changements de lumière en fonction de l’heure de la journée, ou bien le souffle du vent. (What interests him [Monet] in a landscape is all that you can feel but cannot always describe. These are for example the changes of light according to the time of the day, or the wind blowing.) 8 whereby the adult text’s ‘parti pris’ (approach), ‘perception’ and ‘description’ have been replaced in the children’s text with embedded clauses ‘Ce qui l’intéresse dans un paysage’ (What interests him in a landscape), ‘tout ce que l’on ressent’ (all that you can feel), ‘que l’on ne peut pas forcément décrire’ (you cannot always describe). A further clause provides two concrete examples. This makes the children’s text both more spoken in style and more concrete, and consequently more intelligible. Therefore, a more spoken style characterized by grammatical intricacy and low lexical density, as well as shorter nominal groups, makes texts more comprehensible to a younger audience. These examples also suggest that the Musée d’Orsay is much concerned about artistic knowledge. That is, it favors more epistemic relations (see further discussion below). Representation of reality – ideational concurrence and technical terms Ideational meanings in artworks are revealed through the individuals, objects, landscapes, etc. that are depicted. A strong pattern of intermodal ideational concurrence occurs when similar ideational meanings are instantiated both visually and verbally. This is the case when items that are depicted visually in an artwork are identified in the accompanying interpretative text. In the Magpie children’s text, while the visual mode embeds all the attributes of Monet’s painting simultaneously, the verbal text spells them out one by one. This points to a strong ideational concurrence between image and verbiage, whereby meanings instantiated visually in the painting are also instantiated in the interpretative text (underlined below), as shown in the passage locating the magpie: Claude Monet a intitulé cette toile La pie, mais il n’est pas évident de repérer ce petit oiseau du premier coup d’œil ! Tu peux la voir sur la barrière, à gauche de la toile… Ce sont surtout ses plumes noires qui nous permettent de la distinguer du reste du paysage. (Claude Monet called this painting The magpie, but it is not easy to spot this small bird at first glance! You can see it on the gate, to the left of the canvas… It is especially its black feathers that allow us to distinguish it from the rest of the landscape.) This may not only encourage young readers to keep on observing the painting, but also direct their attention towards particular aspects. This is also the case with Monet’s use of colours and ways in which he uses his painting brush: Si tu regardes bien, tu verras qu’elle [la neige] n’est jamais vraiment de la même couleur ; elle est tantôt blanche teintée de bleu, puis elle devient rose ou grise. Pour donner cet effet, Monet peint par de toutes petites touches de pinceau. (If you look closely, you will see that it [the snow] is never really the same colour; it is sometimes white tinged with blue, then it turns pink or grey. To achieve this effect, Monet paints with tiny brushstrokes.) Another issue in children’s texts concerns technical wording. Ravelli (2006b, p. 97) advises that in museum texts “[g]enerally, technicality should be mediated; that is, the technicality should be explained, not presumed”. This is all the more true in children’s texts, since art knowledge cannot be assumed in a younger audience. In the Musée d’Orsay’s catalogue description of Claude Monet’s La pie/The magpie, it is assumed that adult readers know about impressionist painting, as shown in the extract below, where ‘impressionist landscape’ appears in the Theme: 9 Le paysage impressionniste était né, cinq ans avant la première exposition officielle et le baptême du mouvement. (The impressionist landscape was born, five year before the movement’s first official exhibition and it being given a name.) In contrast, the technical term is fully explained in the children’s text for Claude Monet’s Régates à Argenteuil/Regattas at Argenteuil (Figure 5): Impressionnant ! Ou plutôt « impressionniste », comme le style de cette peinture. A quoi le reconnait-on ? Aux touches de pinceaux rapides et visibles pour commencer. Regarde par exemple le ciel : il est composé d’une multitude de ces touches grises, bleues et blanches, superposées les unes aux autres. La deuxième caractéristique de l’impressionnisme, c’est l’usage de la couleur. Monet les utilise ici sans vraiment les mélanger ; cela se voit surtout dans les reflets des maisons et des voiliers sur la rivière. Les touches horizontales de blanc, de rouge et de vert contrastent avec le bleu de l’eau. (Impressive! Or rather ‘impressionist’, like the style of this painting. How do you recognize it? Because of the quick and visible brushstrokes for a start. Look at the sky for example: it is made of a multitude of these grey, blue and white strokes, superimposed on each other. The second characteristic of impressionism is its use of colors. Monet uses them here without really mixing them; this is especially obvious in the reflections of the houses and sailing boats in the river. The horizontal strokes of white, red and green contrast with the blue of the water.) The technical term is introduced in a playful manner through a play on the words ‘impressionnant’ (impressive) and ‘impressionniste’ (impressionist), and is made accessible by spelling out its characteristics, introduced by the question ‘A quoi le reconnait-on?’ (By what things do you recognize [impressionist style]?). The young viewer is then prompted to observe the brushstrokes and application of colours in the sky and river respectively (see ‘Regarde’ / Look and ‘cela se voit surtout’ / this is especially obvious). These aspects – numerous, superimposed, visible brush strokes, as well as the application of contrasting colors with little mixing – appear in a relationship of ‘meronymy’; that is, referring to parts of the painting. They all constitute as many prompts to closely examine the painting. In other words, young viewers are given contextual cues, or tools, that may be transferable to other contexts for identifying impressionist paintings. This suggests that the meanings gained by the reading of this text will have a transferable value to other artworks (Blunden, 2016, p. 174). In other words, the text shows some potential in terms of knowledge building. Figure 5. Claude Monet’s Régates à Argenteuil Technical wording is similarly explained at the Musée en Herbe, as shown in the following extract: SUPERFLAT Murakami a inventé un mouvement artistique : le Superflat, ce qui veut dire « extraplat ». Dans son art, presque tout 10 est plat, sans perspective. (SUPERFLAT Murakami invented an art movement: Superflat, which means [French translation]. In his art, almost everything is flat, without perspective), whereby the term ‘Superflat’ is unpacked for its young readers through hyponymy (referencing Superflat to the larger category of art movements), translation into French, and synonymy (‘sans perspective’ / without perspective). Thus, a strong pattern of intermodal ideational concurrence between artwork and interpretative text may prompt young viewers to closely observe exhibits. This in turn can promote observation of art techniques and contribute to knowledge building. This is reinforced by detailed, concrete, explanations of technical terms. Interpersonal relations – mood and attitudinal lexis Addressing a younger audience specifically may entail a shift in Tenor, compared with adult texts. This includes the distance that is construed between the institution and their young readers/viewers. Museum texts may also either position visitors to receive knowledge, or, alternatively, involve them in active exploration, helping them to uncover knowledge by themselves (Ravelli, 2006b, p. 73). Typically, the former would be the case of interpretative texts, whereas the latter would correspond to texts from discovery trails. In terms of distance, compared with adult texts, children’s texts favor the use of second person pronouns and possessive adjectives. They also favor the T form of informal address (underlined below) over the V form of formal address, as shown in the following examples: Si tu regardes bien, tu verras […] (If you look at this portrait more closely, you can notice…) En regardant ce portrait de plus près, tu peux remarquer certains détails […] (If you look closely, you will see…) Musée d’Orsay L’Atlas t’accueille dans l’exposition. (L’Atlas welcome you in the exhibition.) Musée en Herbe In this way, not only are young readers/viewers included through the use of a second person pronoun, but hierarchical power relations are also flattened through the use of T form. This means that the social distance between the institution and their young audience is reduced. Social distances are further reduced in children’s texts through various elements of Personalization, such as the use of a first person personal pronoun by the artist (in bold below in the exhibition of L’Atlas’s works), references to the emotions and aptitudes of the artist (underlined below), the use of direct speech by a mascot acting as a tour guide in a discovery trail – or station master, in the context of the Orsay train station reconverted as a museum, or by letting characters represented in the artworks speak for themselves: Lors d’un voyage en Grèce, je suis tombé amoureux [AFFECT] du marbre. Je suis fasciné [AFFECT] par l’écriture Kufique faite de carrés et de lignes. Je suis très pointilleux [JUDGEMENT], très précis [JUDGEMENT], peut-être un peu maniaque [JUDGEMENT] ! 11 (During a trip to Greece, I fell in love [AFFECT] with marble. I am fascinated [AFFECT] by Kufic writing made of squares and lines. I am very picky [JUDGEMENT], very precise [JUDGEMENT], maybe a little fussy [JUDGEMENT]!) Musée en Herbe Je suis le plus célèbre ours blanc de Paris. Allez savoir pourquoi, tout le monde me surnomme Pompon. Je suis aujourd’hui votre chef de gare. (I am the most famous polar bear in Paris. God knows why, everyone calls me Pompon. I am today your station master.) Musée d’Orsay J’ai beau avoir dirigé la France au 19e siècle, j’ai ici l’allure d’un chef romain. Avec mon sceptre, mes lauriers et l’aigle à mes pieds, pas de doute : l’empereur, c’est moi ! (Although I led France in the 19th century, I have here the appearance of a Roman leader. With my sceptre, my laurel wreath and the eagle at my feet, no doubt that I am the emperor!) Musée d’Orsay Interpersonally, visiting the Musée en Herbe involves not only close social distance with the institution, but also direct contact and strong involvement with some of the displayed artefacts. Exhibits are placed in smaller rooms with low ceilings, thus providing young visitors with a sense of comfort and security (Stenglin, 2004). Some exhibits are placed quite low at small child’s eye level, and can be easily seen or some even touched. There are also numerous opportunities for further engagement, as shown in the following examples and Figure 6: A ton tour image ta propre fleur à la manière de Takashi Murakami. (Your turn to imagine your own flower in the manner of Takashi Murakami) Assieds-toi sur un coussin péteur pour faire fuir les monstres ! (Sit on a fart cushion to scare away the monsters!) Sens cette fleur qui te donnera à toi aussi de la force. (Smell this flower that will give you too strength.) Musée en Herbe These examples show that commands are favored over questions as ways in which to engage children’s attention. Indeed, an imperative mood requires more explicit interaction (Ravelli, 2006b, p. 75). Note the T form of informal address, with children’s attention first engaged through ‘A ton tour’ (Your turn) in the first example. Not only does the possessive adjective ‘ton’ informally address the young visitor, but it also individualizes the address through the use of the singular form, thus offering an impression of intimacy. An imperative mood is used in the original French text, emphasizing that the desired outcome is action. Therefore, the text works explicitly to motivate interaction on the part of young viewers. The texts also entice children into material (‘doing’), rather than behavioral (such as ‘watching’), processes. This may provide young visitors with agency as meaning-makers as they get to design and produce 12 their own visual exhibits, or instantiate a range of semiotic modes along visual, oral, kinetic, olfactory… dimensions. This makes it an engaging exhibition, which places children at the center of meaning-making processes. Figure 6. Directing young visitors to do something, Musée en Herbe Such texts leave children free to produce an artefact of their own design and/or engage in their own learning experience, within the constraints of the material that is provided (such as flower petals, pencils, available paper). It provides children with some liberty to co-construct meaning from their museum experience. This also points to an emphasis on social relations – imagining, creating, having fun through drawing or other tasks, over gaining specific art knowledge. Systemic Functional Linguistics’ APPRAISAL framework outlines the lexical resources at play for giving value to social experiences. It describes the linguistic means by which feelings and beliefs (or attitudes) are encoded, the strength of these feelings, and how individuals position themselves vis-à-vis these values and possible respondents, hence the three systems of ATTITUDE, GRADUATION and ENGAGEMENT (e.g. Martin, 2000; Martin & Rose, 2003; Martin & White, 2005). ATTITUDE is concerned with all types of evaluative assessments, both positive and negative, and relate to how individuals share their feelings as AFFECT [AFF], assess people’s behavior as JUDGEMENT [JUD], and appraise the value of things and performances as APPRECIATION [APP], as illustrated in the following examples: - Qui a peur [AFF: SECURITY] des fantômes ? (Who is afraid [AFF: SECURITY] of ghosts?) - Il apprend à vivre avec les petits humains [JUD: CAPACITY] (He is learning to live with young humans [JUD: CAPACITY]) - les fantômes […] du mangaka Mizuki […] sont très [GRADUATION] effrayants [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD] (mangaka Mizuki’s ghosts are quite [GRADUATION] scary [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD]) These systems can be further sub-classified, as shown in Figure 7. Furthermore, the accumulation of evaluative meanings builds up significance and rhetorical force to position their readers as texts unfold (Coffin & O'Halloran, 2005). Figure 7. Subcategories of ATTITUDE (adapted from Martin, 2000) Children’s texts make extensive use of attitudinal meanings and graduation to engage their young visitors, as illustrated in the following example: D’où vient l’étrange [APP: REACTION] Inochi, créé par Takashi Murakami ? Cet enfant-robot à taille humaine a une drôle [APP: REACTION] de tête avec son crâne énorme [GRAD], ses yeux très [GRAD] éloignés l’un de l’autre, son nez et sa bouche minuscules [GRAD] et ses grandes oreilles ! [GRAD] Il apprend à vivre avec les petits humains [JUD: CAPACITY], il va à l’école [JUD: NORMALITY] et tombe amoureux [AFF: AFFECTION] d’une de ses camarades de classe. (Where does the strange [APP: REACTION] Inochi, created by Takashi Murakami, come from? This human-sized robot-child has a funny [APP: REACTION] head with a huge [GRAD] skull, far apart eyes, tiny [GRAD] nose and mouth and large ears! [GRAD] He learns to live with young humans [JUD: CAPACITY], goes to school [JUD: NORMALITY] and falls in love [AFF: AFFECTION] with one of his classmates. 13 Musée en Herbe A number of attitudinal meanings in this text concern Inoshi, the robot child created by Takashi Murakami, as well as the robot’s emotions and behavior. Note also the use of APPRECIATION: REACTION: IMPACT. REACTION is related to affect and emotions; it can be glossed as ‘it grabs me’, and is oriented to interpersonal significance (Martin & White, 2005, p. 57). Significantly, the text makes no use of APPRECIATION: VALUATION, which is related to cognition and oriented to ideational worth (Martin & White, 2005, p. 57). Therefore, an emotional response to the robot is invited through positive evaluations of its feelings and behavior, while the accumulation of REACTIONS invites awe. The cumulative effect of such evaluations suggests higher concern with emotional connection and bonding with the robot child, rather than appreciating Inochi as a sculpture and artwork. This underpins the importance of personal relevance over artistic significance at the Musée en herbe. Taking another example from the Musée en herbe, Qui a peur [AFF: SECURITY] des fantômes ? Ceux du mangaka Mizuki et des estampes japonaises sont très [GRAD] effrayants [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD] (Who is afraid [AFF: SECURITY] of ghosts? Those by mangaka Mizuki or found in Japanese prints are quite [GRAD] scary [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD]) the text starts with an attention catcher (Qui a peur des fantômes? / Who is afraid of ghosts?), followed by an intensified APPRECIATION ‘très effrayants!’ / quite scary!). The APPRECIATION is situated in the Ideal or top part of the text, while its description is situated in the Real, or bottom part (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 193). Such textual arrangement suggests that the emotional connection to the artwork is significant. This also suggests that the Musée en Herbe favors social relations with its young audience over epistemic relations emphasizing content knowledge. Children’s texts from the Musée d’Orsay are not exempt from attitudinal meanings either. In this interpretative text of a sculpture of imperial prince Bonaparte Eugène Louis Napoléon by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, expressions of AFFECT and JUDGEMENT are numerous: […] le petit prince Eugène ? Le voici simplement appuyé sur son chien. Il est très [GRAD] décontracté [AFF: SECURITY] ! Sa cravate est assez mal nouée [APP/JUD] et le bout de ses chaussures légèrement usé [APP/JUD]. Le prince n’est pas si sage qu’il en a l’air ici [JUD]. Un écrivain célèbre, ami de ses parents, le trouvait intelligent… [JUD: CAPACITY] mais très [GRAD] paresseux [JUD: TENACITY]. On sait aussi que dans des moments de colère, il était capable de casser ses petits soldats [JUD: PROPRIETY]. ([…] little prince Eugène? Here he is simply leaning on his dog. He looks very [GRAD] laid back [AFF: SECURITY] ! His tie is rather badly knotted [APP/JUD] and the tip of his shoes slightly worn [APP/JUD]. The prince is not as good as he seems here [JUD]. A famous writer, friend of his parents, found him intelligent… [JUD: CAPACITY] but very [GRAD] lazy [JUD: TENACITY]. We also know that in moments of anger, he could break his little [lead] soldiers [JUD: PROPRIETY].) In contrast with the adult text, which focuses on the historical context for the making of the sculpture, the children’s text favors bonding with visiting children by focusing on character traits in which they might recognize themselves. 14 There is thus a similar patterning of Tenor across the Musée d’Orsay’s and Musée en Herbe’s children’s text. They address their readers with a similar informal T, suggesting an individualized and more intimate relationship. They use first person personal pronouns to address their audience, impersonating the artist or a personal tour guide, thus diminishing social distance between institution and visitors. The analysis also highlights that a number of children’s texts are more concerned with feelings. Numerous texts focus on the appraisal of the represented characters through AFFECT and JUDGEMENT, rather than using VALUATIONS concerning the artworks as artefacts. Conclusion This case study of children’s texts from Paris’s Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe aimed at exploring the ways in which museum texts may interpret their exhibits in ways that are accessible and engaging to a younger audience, and revealing their linguistic features, compared with adult texts. The study also sought to shed light on the ways in which museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the texts that they produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with their young audience. In doing so, the analysis unveiled both similarities and differences across the texts produced in the two museums. The study started with an examination of the museums’ mission statements. It highlighted differences in the museums’ objectives. The Musée d’Orsay’s statement foregrounds institutional knowledge: its mission to display artworks is most significant. Quite the opposite, the Musée en Herbe places visitors at the centre stage of their exhibitions – they are construed as ‘heroes’, ‘archaeologists’, ‘detectives’ or ‘travelers’, whose curiosity and interest must be aroused. Experience, rather than knowledge, is at the core of their practices. Compared with adult texts, children’s texts achieve a higher degree of spoken-ness, making them more comprehensible to young readers. Indeed, texts might be read by their young audience, or be read aloud by parents to their children, and this particular use is reflected in the choice of language. Unlike adult texts that are more likely to be highly metaphorical, with high lexical density and complex nominal groups, children’s texts are characterized by congruent forms of meanings that are easily intelligible to a younger audience. They tend to be lower in lexical density and higher in grammatical intricacy, with few complex nominal groups. Technical terms are also introduced to young readers, who cannot be assumed to know and understand such terms, and explained through synonymy and/or concrete examples. This makes sense, since technicality prohibits an effective sharing of meanings. This is also congruent with findings showing that children’s texts, compared with adult ones, demonstrate lower levels of complexity and abstraction (Ravelli, 1998, pp. 139-140). In terms of Tenor, interpretative texts are typically written in declarative mood, that is, providing young viewers with information, even though they may strive to engage their audience by directing their attention to particular features of exhibits, or encourage active attention to content (Ravelli, 2006, p. 75). Discovery trails also typically engage children into performing particular tasks, thus soliciting them in the co-construction of knowledge. In other words, they may be invited to respond to the text by doing something. Thus, children’s texts are dialogic, with young viewers addressed explicitly via a T informal and singular form, thus reducing the distance between institution and their audience. Concerns about personalizing children’s visits may also contribute to explaining the use of first person personal pronouns in addressing the readers through the voice of the artist or a character represented in an artwork. Significantly, both museums were shown to seek to engage their young audience through attitudinal meanings linked to characters represented in the artworks, rather than based on their 15 artistic merits (e.g. structure, colors, technique) as represented visually. Finally, museums exhibits are multimodal in nature, and their verbal texts accessed through typography and layout. Headings differentiated through larger typeface, bolding, capital letters, colors and strongly segregated paragraphs all contribute to making children’s text easily navigable. Through the angle of LCT Specialization, the analysis of texts also revealed differences in the institutional orientations of the two museums, and whether they considered as more legitimate an orientation towards a knowledge code privileging epistemic relations, or towards a knower code favoring social relations. In other words, whether they favored individuals’ knowledge or personal experience. The Musée d’Orsay was found to foreground epistemic relations (ER+), that is, relations to knowledge, and downplay social relations (SR-). The institution was shown to assume the role of expert, and their interpretative texts to favor an understanding of historical knowledge and art movements. This is underpinned in the museum’s mission statement, which stresses the museum’s role in the display of the artistic output of the Western world in the years 1848-1914 in its diversity. In the texts, knowledge comes foremost for comprehending the artworks, indicating strong epistemic relations. The museum’s texts are more concerned with observing and close looking. This is achieved through explicit prompts directing young viewers to observe the exhibits. Meticulous and directed observation of specific details of artworks effectively contribute to scaffolding their interpretation for a young audience. Not only this, but there are also many instances of ideational concurrence between interpretative text and displayed artwork, more particularly focusing on specific aspects of exhibits in a relation of meronymy. For instance, young viewers may be encouraged to observe detailed features of the artworks, such as the brushstrokes and application of colors, directing young visitors’ gazes towards observable features of an impressionist painting, in other words, performing visual analysis of the artwork. In this way, verbiage that prompts viewers to look at specific features of the artworks, and exemplifies meanings in the displayed artwork that are not accessible by looking alone to the non-expert, can be claimed to add to the looking (Blunden, 2016, 2020). It follows then that such scaffolding of knowledge through relations of meronymy may be instrumental in the transfer of knowledge to broader contexts and the interpretation of other artworks. Conversely, the Musée en Herbe was found to foreground social relations (SR+) and downplay epistemic relations (ER-). Indeed, the museum downplays hierarchies and boundaries between itself and its public. It is explicitly inclusive of a range of visitors, aged 3 to 103 years-old. The institution connects knowledge with visitors’ experiences and preferences, and positions its role as facilitating visitors’ connection with the exhibits. This is shown by the ways in which it allows for greater participation of its young visitors. If we consider the texts that the museum produces, there is less emphasis on transmission of artistic knowledge, compared with the Musée d’Orsay. Besides interpretative texts that require visitors to observe the exhibits, a number of texts provide commands connected with a wide range of personal experiences, as children are engaged to ‘imagine’, ‘smell’… ‘fart’! While still recognizing the importance of art knowledge, the Musée en Herbe therefore puts emphasis on children’s personal experience and appreciation of the exhibits, more particularly in terms of reaction, that is, in relation to affective meanings: “it grabs me” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 57). Rather than assessing the artworks’ appeal or artistic value, interpretative texts also focus on the participants represented in the artwork – their looks or behaviour, as well as artists’ emotions and capacities (AFFECT and JUDGEMENT). Children are thus positioned to respond emotionally to the exhibits, rather than react to their aesthetics or artistic value. This points to the significance of social relations in the museum’s orientation. Indeed, if claims of aesthetic merit create hierarchies, expressions of feelings invite solidarity with the viewers. The museum thus provides opportunities for enhancing sensory and emotional, as well as cognitive learning. Indeed, if we consider the museum’s mission statement, visitors are placed at the core – they are the ‘heroes’, whose 16 curiosity, sensibility and interest must be aroused through play and humor. The institution assumes a role as facilitator, rather than expertise. Visually, this is also shown through exhibits that are placed at child’s eye level and easily navigable wall texts. As such, the Musée en Herbe, compared with the Musée d’Orsay, is less about ‘showing’ exhibits and more about providing experiences. References Andre, L., Durksen, T., & Volman, M. L. (2017). Museums as avenues of learning for children: A decade of research. Learning Environments Research, 20, 47-76. Blunden, J. (2016). THE LANGUAGE with DISPLAYED ART(EFACTS): Linguistic and sociological perspectives on meaning, accessibility and knowledge-building in museum exhibitions (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology, Sydney. Blunden, J. (2020). Adding ‘something more’ to looking: The interaction of artefact, verbiage and visitor in museum exhibitions. Visual Communication, 19(1), 45-71. Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2005). FINDING THE GLOBAL GROOVE: Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus, and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 143-163. Ferguson, L., MacLulich, C., & Ravelli, L. (1995). Meanings and messages: Language guidelines for museum exhibitions. Sydney: Australian Museum. Halliday, M.A.K., Revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (fourth edition). London and New York: Routledge. Halliday, M.A.K., & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press. Hofinger, A., & Ventola, E. (2004). Multimodality in operation: Language and picture in a museum. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 193–209). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London and New York: Routledge. Lipovsky, C. (2014). The CV as a multimodal text. Visual Communication, 13(4), 429-458. Macken-Horarik, M. (2004). Interacting with the multimodal text: Reflections on image and verbiage in ArtExpress. Visual Communication, 3(1), 5-26. 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. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London New York: Continuum. Martin, J., & Stengling, M. (2007). Materializing reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a transcolonial exhibition. In T. Royce, D. & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 215-238). Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Martin, J.R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London & New York: Routledge. Purser, E. R. (2000). Telling stories: Text analysis in a museum. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Discourse and community: Doing functional linguistics (pp. 169-198). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen. 17 Ravelli, L. (1996). Making language accessible: Successful text writing for museum visitors. Linguistics and Education, 8, 367-387. Ravelli, L. (1998). The consequences of choices: Discursive positioning in an art institution. In A. Sánchez-Macarro & R. Carter (Eds.), Linguistic choice across genres: Variation in spoken and written English (pp. 137 – 153). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ravelli, L. (2006a). Genre and the museum exhibition. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(2), 289 – 317. Ravelli, L. J. (2006b). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. London and New York: Routledge. Stenglin, M. K. (2004). Packaging curiosities: Towards a grammar of three-dimensional space (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney. 18 Title Page Shaping learning for young audiences: A comparative case study of children’s texts from two Parisian museums Caroline Lipovsky Department of French and Francophone Studies School of Languages and Cultures The University of Sydney Australia ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7793-7809

Manuscript - Anonymous Shaping learning for young audiences: A comparative case study of 1 2 children’s texts from two Parisian museums 3 4 5 ABSTRACT 6 7 8 With numerous museums presently targeting children and families, museum texts 9 aimed at a young public are becoming increasingly frequent. There is little literature 10 however concerning the ways in which those texts strive to shape children’s experience 11 and understanding. Using children’s texts collected from two French museums, Paris’s Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe, and drawing from Systemic Functional 12 13 14 Linguistics theory, this study first seeks to explore the linguistic features of children’s 15 texts. Using Legitimation Code Theory, the study also highlights and contrasts the ways 16 in which the two museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning 17 institutions influence the texts that they produce, in terms of both learning potential and 18 19 interaction with their young audience. 20 21 Keywords 22 23 24 museum; museum text; children’s text; systemic functional linguistics; legitimation 25 code theory; multimodal discourse analysis 26 27 Introduction 28 29 30 Museums no longer let exhibits speak for themselves; rather, they interpret and contextualize 31 them for their visitors. To this aim, texts play a significant role (Ravelli, 1996; 2006b). Indeed, 32 exhibition texts constitute the primary tools for creating meaning out of exhibits and 33 communicating museums’ messages to various audiences (Ferguson et al., 1995, p. 4). With 34 35 numerous museums nowadays striving to make their permanent collections and temporary 36 exhibitions intelligible to an enlarged audience of children visiting with their parents or school 37 teachers, the accessibility of such texts to a young public of diverse linguistic and social 38 backgrounds is crucial. 39 Although (audio and written) verbal texts are becoming more and more central to visitors’ 40 41 experience of museums, such texts are still poorly understood (Blunden, 2016, p. 15). Among 42 the scholarship in the field of museum studies however, a small number of studies, drawing on 43 the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, engages specifically with museum 44 discourse, focusing explicitly on language (e.g. Ferguson et al., 1995; Ravelli, 1996, 1998, 45 2006a, 2006b; Blunden, 2016, 2020). 46 47 A first strand of research focuses on the effectiveness of museum texts and their 48 comprehensibility. Using field work at the Australian Museum and the Museum of 49 Contemporary Art, Sydney, Systemic Functional Linguistics-based guidelines were first 50 developed with the aim of producing museum texts that were more comprehensible to visitors. 51 52 This approach shed light on a number of problematic features arising in some museum texts 53 such as the use of a highly-written register characterized by high lexical density and complex 54 nominal groups, and incorporation of specialized terms without definition or explanation. 55 Another issue that was identified consists of lack of thematic organization at macro- and hyper- 56 Theme levels, leading to poor coherence and cohesion within museum texts (Ferguson et al., 57 58 1995; Ravelli, 1996, 1998). 59 Another strand of research explores meanings along broad ideological and educational 60 issues, such as the representation of indigenous peoples and cultures, and the ideologies 61 62 63 64 1 65 pertaining to such texts. For example, a study about texts concerning indigenous Australians 1 from the Berlin-Dahlem, a major European ethnographic museum (Purser, 2000), highlighted 2 difficulties arising from lack of reference to displayed exhibits, high lexical density, numerous 3 4 complex nominal groups, and high frequency of grammatical metaphor. Importantly, the study 5 also highlighted instances of concealed Agency presenting Aborigines as passive, or events 6 occurring by themselves, leading to a biased framing of colonization and colonized people. 7 Further studies focus on the complex intersemiotic processes that take place in the dynamic 8 9 interactions between exhibits and verbiage. Considering the interaction of verbiage and image 10 in art exhibitions, an analysis of two student artworks at the ArtExpress Sydney exhibition 11 (Macken-Horarik, 2004), drawing on semiotic grammar (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) and 12 APPRAISAL (Martin & White, 2005), drew attention to the complementarity contribution of 13 meaning potentials of images (artworks) and verbiage (their accompanying text panels). 14 15 Similarly, an analysis of the interaction between a family portrait and its accompanying audio- 16 taped recording at the Mozart-Wohnhaus Museum in Salzburg (Hofinger & Ventola, 2004) 17 outlined the ways in which verbal texts can foster the interpretative process of images. 18 Using a range of museum texts and staff interviews in a comparative case-study of an art 19 exhibition and a social history exhibition in Canberra and Sydney, Blunden (2016, 2020) 20 21 focused on both museum texts and their authorial developing processes. More particularly, she 22 explored the ways in which label texts work to shape visitors’ experiences of artefacts, and 23 verbiage may add meanings to displayed artefacts. Using the concepts of converging vs. 24 diverging relations in image-text relations, and vectors from text to artefact that prompt viewers 25 26 to look at specific features of works, the study explored the ways in which interpretative 27 museum texts may add to the observation of exhibits and exemplified how close observation 28 of the exhibits may be fostered. Furthermore, the study highlighted the ways in which museums’ 29 practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the kinds of texts 30 they produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with the public. 31 32 In spite of numerous studies about children’s learning in various types of museums – see 33 for instance Andre et al. (2017)’s review of a decade of studies focusing on museum activities 34 supporting children’s learning experiences in museum contexts – little has been said about 35 museum texts that are aimed at a younger audience. 36 37 Using data collected from two Parisian museums, the Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe, 38 the present study first aims at exploring the ways in which museum texts may interpret their 39 exhibits in ways that are intelligible and engaging to a younger audience. The study also seeks 40 to shed light on the ways in which museums’ practices and beliefs concerning their roles as 41 learning institutions influence the texts that they produce, in terms of both learning potential 42 43 and interaction with their young audience. 44 45 Theoretical framework 46 47 48 To understand the ways in which meaning-making is being construed in verbal museum texts, 49 Systemic Functional Linguistics’ social semiotic model of language can be usefully engaged. 50 SFL views language as made up of three concurrent layers of meanings, or ‘metafunctions’ 51 (Halliday revised by Matthiessen, 2014, pp. 84-85): 52 - an ideational metafunction for representing experiential reality, 53 54 - an interpersonal metafunction referring to the relationships that are construed between 55 writers and their audience – their roles, status, social distance, 56 - a textual metafunction for organizing texts into coherent messages. 57 To reveal the ways in which museums texts inform young visitors’ experience and 58 understanding of their exhibits, some linguistic features seem particularly relevant in light of 59 60 61 62 63 64 2 65 the review above to the success or failure or museum texts, as illustrated in Table 1. These 1 linguistic features will be further explored in turn in my analysis. 2 3 4 Table 1. Issues to be considered in museum texts – adapted from Ravelli (1996, p. 376) 5 6 This study also draws on a theory of knowledge, Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), to 7 explore the role played by verbiage in museum texts in enabling their young audience to build 8 9 knowledge. LCT is a conceptual framework “that enables knowledge practices to be seen, their 10 organizing principles to be conceptualized, and their effects to be explored” (Maton, 2014, pp. 11 2-3). As such, LCT may contribute to highlighting museums’ practices, or attitudes vis-à-vis 12 knowledge, that motivate their meaning-making choices, also called ‘legitimation codes’ 13 (Maton, 2014, p. 18). LCT Specialization codes in particular theorize relations to knowledge, 14 15 positing communication along epistemic relations (ER) vs. social relations (SR). The relative 16 strengths of epistemic vs. social relations can each vary from stronger (+) to weaker (-) to 17 generate a continuum of specialization codes (ER+/-, SR+/-) (Maton, 2014, p. 30). 18 In the writing of museum texts, a knowledge code orientation would emphasize epistemic 19 relations (ER+) and downplay social relations (SR-). That is, it would emphasize what 20 21 legitimate knowledge consists of, and downplay visitors’ personal experience and preferences. 22 In contrast, a knower code orientation would emphasize social relations (SR+) and downplay 23 epistemic relations (ER-). That is, it would downplay hierarchies between the institution and 24 its public, be inclusive of a variety of visitors, connect knowledge with visitors’ experience and preferences, and position the institution’s role as facilitating visitors’ connection with the 25 26 27 exhibits. This is illustrated in Table 2. 28 29 Table 2. Knowledge code vs. knower code orientations 30 31 32 Data description 33 34 While label texts accompanying exhibits have long been identified as significant 35 communicative artefacts between museums and their visitors, a range of mediums contribute 36 37 to such communication, such as wall texts, catalogue entries or brochure descriptions. 38 In my search for data for this study, I found that children’s texts are available in a variety of 39 ways, such as online resources that can be read, downloaded and printed prior to one’s visit, 40 printed brochures that can be found at museums’ information desks or ticket booths, or wall 41 texts. Indeed, numerous texts are also offered in the spoken mode, in the form of audio guides, 42 43 guided tours or children’s workshops. 44 This study focuses on two types of texts: interpretative ones, as well as texts from children’s 45 discovery trails, since interactivity is increasingly considered as significant in children’s 46 learning experiences in museum contexts (Andre et al., 2017). Interpretative texts are those 47 48 “texts which provide a guide to and explanation of the exhibition for the visitor” (Ravelli, 1998, 49 p. 139), “to explain what it is the objects are meant to ‘say’ – […] what they reveal, what they 50 relate to” (L. J. Ravelli, 2006b, p. 95). Discovery trails are programs aimed at children of 51 varying ages encompassing activities based on close observation of exhibits. 52 The data include texts from the museums’ websites, wall texts and children’s discovery trail 53 54 booklets. As shown in Table 3, children’s wall texts are only represented at the Musée en Herbe. 55 This is a reflection of the texts that were found overall. In fact, of all the museums that I visited 56 in Paris, only the Musée en Herbe was found to display such texts on their walls. As a result, 57 this medium appears as a marked practice. Finally, adult texts were included in the corpus, so 58 as to find out the ways in which children’s texts might differ from them. 59 60 61 62 63 64 3 65 Table 3. Distribution of texts collected 1 2 Findings and discussion 3 4 5 Further to discussion of the museums’ mission statements, as shown in their websites, the next 6 sections will analyze in turn linguistic features of children’s texts concerning their organization 7 and complexity, representation of reality and interpersonal relations. 8 9 10 Institution mission statements 11 12 The two museums’ mission statements might first provide some insight into their practices. 13 14 15 Le musée d'Orsay est un musée national ouvert au public le 9 décembre 1986 pour 16 montrer, dans toute sa diversité, la création artistique du monde occidental de 1848 à 17 1914. 18 (The Musée d’Orsay is a national museum opened to the public on 9 December, 1986 to 19 20 show, in all its diversity, the artistic creation of the Western world from 1848 to 1914.) 21 22 In their mission statement, the Musée d’Orsay’s authority for displaying Western artworks is 23 foregrounded. To whom they will show their collection is not specified, as visitors are excluded 24 from the statement. The displayed artworks are thus central to the museum’s raison d’être. The 25 26 statement foregrounds institutional knowledge, while distancing itself from visitors’ 27 engagement and interaction. 28 If we consider the Musée d’Orsay’s children’s webpage (Les petits M’O), as illustrated in 29 Figure 1, emphasis is put on taxonomy, with artists, artworks, itineraries for preparing one’s 30 31 future visit and a timeline of the museum’s artworks, all outlined within clearly segregated 32 white rectangles. The heading points to a process of discovery (‘DÉCOUVRIR’, DISCOVER) 33 – although from artworks that have been preselected by the museum, while the infinitive clause 34 precludes any participant. 35 36 37 Figure 1. Musée d’Orsay’s children’s website 38 39 On the other hand, the Musée en Herbe’s mission statement declares that 40 41 le Musée en Herbe présente des expositions d’art adaptées à tous, de 3 à 103 ans. Des 42 43 expositions prestigieuses et des parcours dont les visiteurs sont les héros permettent de 44 capter la curiosité, la sensibilité et l’intérêt des petits comme des grands. Une approche 45 de l’art basée sur le jeu et l’humour […] 46 (the Musée en Herbe presents art exhibitions that are suitable for everyone from 3 to 103 47 48 years old. Prestigious exhibitions and tours whose visitors are the heroes capture the 49 curiosity, sensitivity and interest of young and old alike. An approach to art based on 50 play and humor) 51 52 Visitors, young and old alike, are positioned as the institution’s main concern – they are 53 54 construed as ‘heroes’, whose curiosity and interest must be piqued. This suggests that social 55 relations, rather than knowledge, are at the fore of the museum’s mission, with visitors’ 56 emotional response to artworks foregrounded. The institution’s authority is played down, with 57 ‘play’ and ‘humor’ given center stage. This is reflected in the titles for their exhibitions, as seen 58 59 in the alliteration of their Monsters, Mangas and Murakami show. This playfulness is 60 reinforced visually in the museum’s website (Figure 2) through the choice of cursive and 61 62 63 64 4 65 round-shaped typography, and a background of light-hearted drops of paint. A quite different 1 taxonomy from the one used by the Musée d’Orsay is used, with exhibitions (‘L’Exposition’) 2 sharing space with school visits (‘Les Ecoles’) and children’s workshops (‘Les Ateliers’). 3 4 5 Figure 2. Musée en Herbe’s website 6 7 In their description for the exhibition Walk the Line with [artist] L’ATLAS, the Musée en 8 9 Herbe similarly gives pre-eminence to visitors, who are ‘archaeologists’, ‘detectives’ and 10 ‘travelers’ in their exploration of the artist’s world: 11 12 En suivant les lignes tracées par L’Atlas, vous réaliserez une percée dans 13 l’archéologie, une traversée des rues de Paris, une découverte de l’art optique 14 15 et cinétique et vous voyagerez autour de la terre avec l’artiste… 16 Archéologues, détectives et voyageurs, les visiteurs partiront explorer le 17 monde de L’Atlas entre références, créativité et Art de la rue. 18 (Following the lines drawn by L’Atlas, you will realize a breakthrough in archaeology, a 19 voyage through the streets of Paris, a discovery of optical and kinetic art and you will 20 21 travel around the earth with the artist… 22 Archaeologists, detectives and travelers, visitors will explore L’Atlas’s world across 23 references, creativity and street Art.) 24 25 26 Note the ways in which visitors are foregrounded through the use of second personal plural 27 pronoun ‘vous’ (although toned down by the use of ‘visiteurs’/visitors in the second paragraph) 28 in the promise of an exploratory journey around the world with the artist, thus reducing social 29 distance between visitors and artist/museum. This impression is reinforced by the face to face 30 accentuated gaze of the artist making eye contact with the viewer in the promotional video for 31 32 the exhibition. 33 34 Text organization – Theme development and cohesive patterns 35 36 37 Effective organization is essential to ensure text cohesion and clarity. According to Halliday 38 (revised by Matthiessen, 2014, p. 89), “[t]he Theme is the element that serves as the point of 39 departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context”, 40 while the Rheme contains the rest of the message. Because of its orienting function, congruence 41 between Theme and exhibit may contribute to enhancing clarity (Ravelli, 1996, p. 377). 42 43 Taking as an example the interpretative text for the first artwork in the Musée d’Orsay’s 44 children’s website, Claude Monet’s painting La pie/The magpie (Figure 3), both the artist and 45 his painting have been chosen as Topical Themes (underlined in the extract below), or points 46 of departure, for each section of the text, with New information appearing in the Rhemes: 47 48 49 Claude Monet a intitulé cette toile La pie […] 50 (Claude Monet called this painting The magpie) 51 52 Dans La pie, Monet s’est surtout intéressé à la lumière et aux reflets. 53 54 (In The magpie, Monet mainly took an interest in light and reflections.) 55 56 In contrast, the Musée d’Orsay’s catalogue entry uses a Circumstance of Time (‘in the late 57 1860s’) as Topical Theme for its description of the artwork, with the magpie being only 58 referred to in the Rheme at the end of the first paragraph: 59 60 61 62 63 64 5 65 Calmant le lyrisme de [Courbet], Monet préfère au monde de la forêt et de la chasse, la 1 frêle note d'une pie posée sur un portail comme sur une portée musicale. 2 (Toning down Courbet's lyricism, Monet prefers a frail magpie perched on a gate, like a 3 4 note on a musical staff, to the realm of forests and hunting.) 5 6 Figure 3. Claude Monet’s La pie 7 8 9 Cohesion is further provided in the children’s text through endophoric references (underlined 10 below), as the young reader is assigned the task to look for the magpie in the painting: 11 12 Claude Monet a intitulé cette toile La pie, mais il n’est pas évident de repérer ce petit 13 oiseau du premier coup d’œil ! Tu peux la voir sur la barrière, à gauche de la toile… Ce 14 15 sont surtout ses plumes noires qui nous permettent de la distinguer du reste du paysage. 16 (Claude Monet called this painting The magpie, but it is not easy to spot this small bird 17 at first glance! You can see it on the gate, to the left of the canvas… It is especially its 18 black feathers that allow us to distinguish it from the rest of the landscape.) 19 20 21 Questions may be used to contribute to the cohesion of texts (Ferguson et al., 1995, p. 29). 22 This device is often used in children’s text, as illustrated in the following extract: 23 24 Dans La pie, Monet s’est surtout intéressé à la lumière et aux reflets. A quoi le voit-on ? 25 26 A la manière dont il peint la neige. 27 (In The magpie, Monet mainly took an interest in light and reflections. How do you see 28 this? The way he paints snow.) 29 30 Museum texts are multimodal in nature, as verbal texts are accessed through typography 31 32 and layout (Ravelli, 2006b). At its macro-level of organization, the children’s text begins with 33 headings in bold and red and blue colors, in large typeface, providing the title for the artwork 34 and name of the artist, further differentiated through capital letters. Typographical emphasis 35 thus highlights the names of the artworks and their authors for the young reader. A large image 36 37 of the artwork is followed, on a differently colored background, by concrete details, such as 38 the size and date of creation of the work, each introduced by distinctive icons. Thus, key points 39 are signaled to young readers through typeface size, color, bolding, capital letters and 40 differentiated backgrounds. The ensuing description also differs visually from the adult text 41 with its headings in bold, as well as the use of a larger typeface size, longer lines and higher 42 43 line spacing, all features that contribute to increasing the text’s navigability and readability (see 44 Lipovsky, 2014). 45 As was the case in the adult text for La pie, the adult text for the Monsters, mangas and 46 Murakami exhibition at the Musée en Herbe starts with four paragraphs of historical context, 47 48 before introducing the artist: 49 50 Né en 1962 à Tokyo, Takashi Murakami est une figure incontournable de la scène 51 artistique japonaise. 52 (Born in 1962 in Tokyo, Takashi Murakami is a key player of the Japanese art scene), 53 54 55 with a marked Theme realized by Circumstances of time and place. This points to the 56 significance of the social historical context in artistic output. 57 In contrast, in the first children’s text for the same exhibition (Figure 4), Takashi Murakami 58 is provided unmarked ‘Thematic prominence’ (Martin & Stengling, 2007, p. 217): 59 60 61 62 63 64 6 65 TAKASHI MURAKAMI 1 2 Takashi Murakami est l’artiste 3 4 contemporain japonais 5 le plus célèbre du monde ! 6 7 Fan de mangas et de dessins 8 9 animés, il crée des œuvres 10 colorées, imprégnées 11 par les légendes et l’histoire 12 de son pays, peuplées 13 de personnages fantastiques, 14 15 de créatures fabuleuses, 16 de monstres malicieux 17 et de mignonnes marguerites… 18 19 (TAKASHI MURAKAMI 20 21 Takashi Murakami is the most famous contemporary Japanese artist in the world! 22 Fan of mangas and cartoons, he creates colorful works, permeated with the legends and 23 history of his country, populated with fantastic characters, fabulous creatures, 24 mischievous monsters and delightful daisies…) 25 26 27 The description provides concrete references to the things that can be seen in Murakami’s 28 artworks, what they instantiate visually, such as mischievous monsters and delightful daisies 29 (‘monstres malicieux et mignonnes marguerites’) – with alliterations drawing attention to their 30 characteristics. 31 32 33 Figure 4. Children’s text, Monsters, mangas and Murakami exhibition, Musée en herbe 34 35 Visually, the text appears in large typeface, with its parts highly differentiated via a heading 36 37 in bolding and clearly segregated paragraphs. 38 Thus, linguistic features that are found in both the Musée d’Orsay’s and the Musée en 39 Herbe’s children’s texts include clear Thematic prominence to the artists and their artworks. 40 Children’s texts are also differentiated from adult texts through typographical emphasis that 41 makes texts easily navigable for their young audience. Concrete endophoric references may 42 43 not only provide cohesion, but also identify verbally what is instantiated visually. 44 45 Text complexity - nominal groups structure, and clause density and intricacy 46 47 48 Text complexity is another feature that sets children’s and adults’ museum texts apart. Lexical 49 density refers to the density of information in a given text, as measured by the number of 50 content words per clause (Halliday & Martin, 1993, p. 83). 51 In the catalogue description of Claude Monet’s La pie/The magpie for instance, lexical 52 density is quite high, with highly complex nominal groups, as illustrated in the extract below, 53 54 55 La représentation de ce coin de campagne de la région d'Etretat, réalisée sur le motif, 56 donne à voir des tons clairs et lumineux très inhabituels, 57 (The painting of this little nook of countryside situated near Etretat, executed on the spot, 58 uses quite unusual light and luminous colors,) 59 60 61 62 63 64 7 65 with numerous Post-Modifiers qualifying the Head nouns ‘représentation’ (painting) and ‘tons’ 1 (colors). As a result, the adult text is densely packed, necessitating a great deal of effort and 2 energy on the part of the reader. Note that such grammatical construction, whereby the ‘what’ 3 4 (or content) and the ‘how’ (or technical aspects) of an artwork, accompanied by an appraisal 5 (Martin & White, 2005) of the work, are connected through a relational process, seems typical 6 of art discourse (Ravelli, 1998, pp. 144-145). 7 In contrast, the children’s text contains few complex nominal groups. Where the adults’ text 8 9 uses two highly complex nominal groups linked by a relational process, the children’s text is 10 closer to spoken language in that it strings a number of clauses together, making it more 11 grammatically intricate, rather than lexically dense: 12 13 Nous sommes ici transportés par le peintre à Etretat, un village de la côte normande. || Si 14 15 tu regardes bien, || tu verras || qu’elle [la neige] n’est jamais vraiment de la même 16 couleur ; || elle est tantôt blanche teintée de bleu, || puis elle devient rose ou grise. 17 (The painter takes us here to Etretat, a village on the Normandy coast. || If you look 18 closely, || you will see || that it [the snow] is never really the same colour; || it is 19 sometimes white tinged with blue, || then it turns pink or grey.) 20 21 22 This spreading of information over a number of clauses makes the text less lexically dense, 23 hence more accessible to readers (Ferguson et al., 1995, p. 35). Note also how while the adults’ 24 text refers to ‘quite unusual colors’, the children’s text is explicit, with concrete references to the colors used in the painting – white, blue, pink and grey. The reference to Etretat is also 25 26 27 further explained as ‘un village de la côte normande’ (a village on the Normandy coast). 28 Furthermore, the complex nominalizations of the adult text are unpacked in the children’s 29 text, as shown in the following extracts: 30 31 32 La nouveauté et l’audace du parti pris de Monet, plus préoccupé de perception que de 33 description […] 34 (The novelty and daring of Monet's approach, who was more concerned with perception 35 than description […]) 36 37 38 vs. 39 40 Ce qui l’intéresse dans un paysage, c’est tout ce que l’on ressent mais que l’on ne peut 41 pas forcément décrire. Ce sont par exemple les changements de lumière en fonction de 42 43 l’heure de la journée, ou bien le souffle du vent. 44 (What interests him [Monet] in a landscape is all that you can feel but cannot always 45 describe. These are for example the changes of light according to the time of the day, or 46 the wind blowing.) 47 48 49 whereby the adult text’s ‘parti pris’ (approach), ‘perception’ and ‘description’ have been 50 replaced in the children’s text with embedded clauses ‘Ce qui l’intéresse dans un paysage’ 51 (What interests him in a landscape), ‘tout ce que l’on ressent’ (all that you can feel), ‘que l’on 52 ne peut pas forcément décrire’ (you cannot always describe). A further clause provides two 53 54 concrete examples. This makes the children’s text both more spoken in style and more concrete, 55 and consequently more intelligible. 56 Therefore, a more spoken style characterized by grammatical intricacy and low lexical 57 density, as well as shorter nominal groups, makes texts more comprehensible to a younger 58 audience. These examples also suggest that the Musée d’Orsay is much concerned about artistic 59 60 knowledge. That is, it favors more epistemic relations (see further discussion below). 61 62 63 64 8 65 1 Representation of reality – ideational concurrence and technical terms 2 3 4 Ideational meanings in artworks are revealed through the individuals, objects, landscapes, etc. 5 that are depicted. A strong pattern of intermodal ideational concurrence occurs when similar 6 ideational meanings are instantiated both visually and verbally. This is the case when items 7 that are depicted visually in an artwork are identified in the accompanying interpretative text. 8 9 In the Magpie children’s text, while the visual mode embeds all the attributes of Monet’s 10 painting simultaneously, the verbal text spells them out one by one. This points to a strong 11 ideational concurrence between image and verbiage, whereby meanings instantiated visually 12 in the painting are also instantiated in the interpretative text (underlined below), as shown in 13 the passage locating the magpie: 14 15 16 Claude Monet a intitulé cette toile La pie, mais il n’est pas évident de repérer ce petit 17 oiseau du premier coup d’œil ! Tu peux la voir sur la barrière, à gauche de la toile… Ce 18 sont surtout ses plumes noires qui nous permettent de la distinguer du reste du paysage. 19 (Claude Monet called this painting The magpie, but it is not easy to spot this small bird 20 21 at first glance! You can see it on the gate, to the left of the canvas… It is especially its 22 black feathers that allow us to distinguish it from the rest of the landscape.) 23 24 This may not only encourage young readers to keep on observing the painting, but also direct their attention towards particular aspects. This is also the case with Monet’s use of colours and 25 26 27 ways in which he uses his painting brush: 28 29 Si tu regardes bien, tu verras qu’elle [la neige] n’est jamais vraiment de la même couleur ; 30 elle est tantôt blanche teintée de bleu, puis elle devient rose ou grise. Pour donner cet 31 32 effet, Monet peint par de toutes petites touches de pinceau. 33 (If you look closely, you will see that it [the snow] is never really the same colour; it is 34 sometimes white tinged with blue, then it turns pink or grey. To achieve this effect, Monet 35 paints with tiny brushstrokes.) 36 37 38 Another issue in children’s texts concerns technical wording. Ravelli (2006b, p. 97) advises 39 that in museum texts “[g]enerally, technicality should be mediated; that is, the technicality 40 should be explained, not presumed”. This is all the more true in children’s texts, since art 41 knowledge cannot be assumed in a younger audience. 42 43 In the Musée d’Orsay’s catalogue description of Claude Monet’s La pie/The magpie, it is 44 assumed that adult readers know about impressionist painting, as shown in the extract below, 45 where ‘impressionist landscape’ appears in the Theme: 46 47 48 Le paysage impressionniste était né, cinq ans avant la première exposition officielle et le 49 baptême du mouvement. 50 (The impressionist landscape was born, five year before the movement’s first official 51 exhibition and it being given a name.) 52 53 54 In contrast, the technical term is fully explained in the children’s text for Claude Monet’s 55 Régates à Argenteuil/Regattas at Argenteuil (Figure 5): 56 57 Impressionnant ! 58 Ou plutôt « impressionniste », comme le style de cette peinture. A quoi le reconnait-on ? 59 60 Aux touches de pinceaux rapides et visibles pour commencer. Regarde par exemple le 61 62 63 64 9 65 ciel : il est composé d’une multitude de ces touches grises, bleues et blanches, 1 superposées les unes aux autres. La deuxième caractéristique de l’impressionnisme, c’est 2 l’usage de la couleur. Monet les utilise ici sans vraiment les mélanger ; cela se voit surtout 3 4 dans les reflets des maisons et des voiliers sur la rivière. Les touches horizontales de 5 blanc, de rouge et de vert contrastent avec le bleu de l’eau. 6 (Impressive! 7 Or rather ‘impressionist’, like the style of this painting. How do you recognize it? 8 9 Because of the quick and visible brushstrokes for a start. Look at the sky for example: it 10 is made of a multitude of these grey, blue and white strokes, superimposed on each other. 11 The second characteristic of impressionism is its use of colors. Monet uses them here 12 without really mixing them; this is especially obvious in the reflections of the houses and 13 sailing boats in the river. The horizontal strokes of white, red and green contrast with the 14 15 blue of the water.) 16 17 The technical term is introduced in a playful manner through a play on the words 18 ‘impressionnant’ (impressive) and ‘impressionniste’ (impressionist), and is made accessible by 19 spelling out its characteristics, introduced by the question ‘A quoi le reconnait-on?’ (By 20 21 what things do you recognize [impressionist style]?). The young viewer is then 22 prompted to observe the brushstrokes and application of colours in the sky and river 23 respectively (see ‘Regarde’ / Look and ‘cela se voit surtout’ / this is especially obvious). 24 These aspects – numerous, superimposed, visible brush strokes, as well as the application of contrasting colors with little mixing – appear in a relationship of ‘meronymy’; that is, referring 25 26 27 to parts of the painting. They all constitute as many prompts to closely examine the painting. 28 In other words, young viewers are given contextual cues, or tools, that may be transferable to 29 other contexts for identifying impressionist paintings. This suggests that the meanings gained 30 by the reading of this text will have a transferable value to other artworks (Blunden, 2016, p. 31 32 174). In other words, the text shows some potential in terms of knowledge building. 33 34 Figure 5. Claude Monet’s Régates à Argenteuil 35 36 37 Technical wording is similarly explained at the Musée en Herbe, as shown in the 38 following extract: 39 40 SUPERFLAT 41 Murakami a inventé un 42 43 mouvement artistique : 44 le Superflat, ce qui veut dire 45 « extraplat ». 46 Dans son art, presque tout 47 48 est plat, sans perspective. 49 (SUPERFLAT 50 Murakami invented an art movement: Superflat, which means [French translation]. In his 51 art, almost everything is flat, without perspective), 52 53 54 whereby the term ‘Superflat’ is unpacked for its young readers through hyponymy 55 (referencing Superflat to the larger category of art movements), translation into French, and 56 synonymy (‘sans perspective’ / without perspective). 57 Thus, a strong pattern of intermodal ideational concurrence between artwork and 58 interpretative text may prompt young viewers to closely observe exhibits. This in turn can 59 60 61 62 63 64 10 65 promote observation of art techniques and contribute to knowledge building. This is reinforced 1 by detailed, concrete, explanations of technical terms. 2 3 4 Interpersonal relations – mood and attitudinal lexis 5 6 Addressing a younger audience specifically may entail a shift in Tenor, compared with adult 7 texts. This includes the distance that is construed between the institution and their young 8 9 readers/viewers. Museum texts may also either position visitors to receive knowledge, or, 10 alternatively, involve them in active exploration, helping them to uncover knowledge by 11 themselves (Ravelli, 2006b, p. 73). Typically, the former would be the case of interpretative 12 texts, whereas the latter would correspond to texts from discovery trails. 13 In terms of distance, compared with adult texts, children’s texts favor the use of second 14 15 person pronouns and possessive adjectives. They also favor the T form of informal address 16 (underlined below) over the V form of formal address, as shown in the following examples: 17 18 Si tu regardes bien, tu verras […] 19 (If you look at this portrait more closely, you can notice…) 20 21 22 En regardant ce portrait de plus près, tu peux remarquer certains détails […] 23 (If you look closely, you will see…) 24 Musée d’Orsay 25 26 27 L’Atlas t’accueille dans l’exposition. 28 (L’Atlas welcome you in the exhibition.) 29 Musée en Herbe 30 31 32 In this way, not only are young readers/viewers included through the use of a second person 33 pronoun, but hierarchical power relations are also flattened through the use of T form. This 34 means that the social distance between the institution and their young audience is reduced. 35 Social distances are further reduced in children’s texts through various elements of 36 37 Personalization, such as the use of a first person personal pronoun by the artist (in bold below 38 in the exhibition of L’Atlas’s works), references to the emotions and aptitudes of the artist 39 (underlined below), the use of direct speech by a mascot acting as a tour guide in a discovery 40 trail – or station master, in the context of the Orsay train station reconverted as a museum, or 41 by letting characters represented in the artworks speak for themselves: 42 43 44 Lors d’un voyage en Grèce, je suis tombé amoureux [AFFECT] du marbre. 45 Je suis fasciné [AFFECT] par l’écriture Kufique faite de carrés et de lignes. 46 Je suis très pointilleux [JUDGEMENT], très précis [JUDGEMENT], peut-être un peu 47 48 maniaque [JUDGEMENT] ! 49 (During a trip to Greece, I fell in love [AFFECT] with marble. 50 I am fascinated [AFFECT] by Kufic writing made of squares and lines. 51 I am very picky [JUDGEMENT], very precise [JUDGEMENT], maybe a little fussy 52 [JUDGEMENT]!) 53 54 Musée en Herbe 55 56 Je suis le plus célèbre ours blanc de Paris. Allez savoir pourquoi, tout le monde me 57 surnomme Pompon. Je suis aujourd’hui votre chef de gare. 58 (I am the most famous polar bear in Paris. God knows why, everyone calls me Pompon. 59 60 I am today your station master.) 61 62 63 64 11 65 Musée d’Orsay 1 2 J’ai beau avoir dirigé la France au 19e siècle, j’ai ici l’allure d’un chef romain. Avec mon 3 4 sceptre, mes lauriers et l’aigle à mes pieds, pas de doute : l’empereur, c’est moi ! 5 (Although I led France in the 19th century, I have here the appearance of a Roman leader. 6 With my sceptre, my laurel wreath and the eagle at my feet, no doubt that I am the 7 emperor!) 8 9 Musée d’Orsay 10 11 Interpersonally, visiting the Musée en Herbe involves not only close social distance with 12 the institution, but also direct contact and strong involvement with some of the displayed 13 artefacts. Exhibits are placed in smaller rooms with low ceilings, thus providing young visitors 14 15 with a sense of comfort and security (Stenglin, 2004). Some exhibits are placed quite low at 16 small child’s eye level, and can be easily seen or some even touched. There are also numerous 17 opportunities for further engagement, as shown in the following examples and Figure 6: 18 19 A ton tour image ta propre 20 21 fleur à la manière de Takashi 22 Murakami. 23 (Your turn to imagine your own flower in the manner of Takashi Murakami) 24 25 26 Assieds-toi sur un coussin péteur 27 pour faire fuir les monstres ! 28 (Sit on a fart cushion to scare away the monsters!) 29 30 Sens cette fleur qui te donnera 31 32 à toi aussi de la force. 33 (Smell this flower that will give you too strength.) 34 Musée en Herbe 35 36 37 These examples show that commands are favored over questions as ways in which to engage 38 children’s attention. Indeed, an imperative mood requires more explicit interaction (Ravelli, 39 2006b, p. 75). Note the T form of informal address, with children’s attention first engaged 40 through ‘A ton tour’ (Your turn) in the first example. Not only does the possessive adjective 41 ‘ton’ informally address the young visitor, but it also individualizes the address through the use 42 43 of the singular form, thus offering an impression of intimacy. An imperative mood is used in 44 the original French text, emphasizing that the desired outcome is action. Therefore, the text 45 works explicitly to motivate interaction on the part of young viewers. The texts also entice 46 children into material (‘doing’), rather than behavioral (such as ‘watching’), processes. This 47 48 may provide young visitors with agency as meaning-makers as they get to design and produce 49 their own visual exhibits, or instantiate a range of semiotic modes along visual, oral, kinetic, 50 olfactory… dimensions. This makes it an engaging exhibition, which places children at the 51 center of meaning-making processes. 52 53 54 Figure 6. Directing young visitors to do something, Musée en Herbe 55 56 Such texts leave children free to produce an artefact of their own design and/or engage in 57 their own learning experience, within the constraints of the material that is provided (such as 58 flower petals, pencils, available paper). It provides children with some liberty to co-construct 59 60 meaning from their museum experience. This also points to an emphasis on social relations – 61 62 63 64 12 65 imagining, creating, having fun through drawing or other tasks, over gaining specific art 1 knowledge. 2 Systemic Functional Linguistics’ APPRAISAL framework outlines the lexical resources at 3 4 play for giving value to social experiences. It describes the linguistic means by which feelings 5 and beliefs (or attitudes) are encoded, the strength of these feelings, and how individuals 6 position themselves vis-à-vis these values and possible respondents, hence the three systems 7 of ATTITUDE, GRADUATION and ENGAGEMENT (e.g. Martin, 2000; Martin & Rose, 2003; Martin 8 9 & White, 2005). ATTITUDE is concerned with all types of evaluative assessments, both positive 10 and negative, and relate to how individuals share their feelings as AFFECT [AFF], assess people’s 11 behavior as JUDGEMENT [JUD], and appraise the value of things and performances as 12 APPRECIATION [APP], as illustrated in the following examples: 13 14 15 - Qui a peur [AFF: SECURITY] des fantômes ? 16 (Who is afraid [AFF: SECURITY] of ghosts?) 17 - Il apprend à vivre avec les petits humains [JUD: CAPACITY] 18 19 (He is learning to live with young humans [JUD: CAPACITY]) 20 - les fantômes […] du mangaka Mizuki […] sont très [GRADUATION] effrayants [APP: 21 REACTION] ! [GRAD] 22 (mangaka Mizuki’s ghosts are quite [GRADUATION] scary [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD]) 23 24 25 These systems can be further sub-classified, as shown in Figure 7. Furthermore, the 26 accumulation of evaluative meanings builds up significance and rhetorical force to position 27 their readers as texts unfold (Coffin & O'Halloran, 2005). 28 29 30 Figure 7. Subcategories of ATTITUDE (adapted from Martin, 2000) 31 32 Children’s texts make extensive use of attitudinal meanings and graduation to engage their 33 young visitors, as illustrated in the following example: 34 35 36 D’où vient l’étrange [APP: REACTION] Inochi, créé par Takashi Murakami ? 37 Cet enfant-robot à taille humaine a une drôle [APP: REACTION] de tête avec son crâne 38 énorme [GRAD], ses yeux très [GRAD] éloignés l’un de l’autre, son nez et sa bouche 39 minuscules [GRAD] et ses grandes oreilles ! [GRAD] Il apprend à vivre avec les petits 40 41 humains [JUD: CAPACITY], il va à l’école [JUD: NORMALITY] et tombe amoureux [AFF: 42 AFFECTION] d’une de ses camarades de classe. 43 (Where does the strange [APP: REACTION] Inochi, created by Takashi Murakami, come 44 from? This human-sized robot-child has a funny [APP: REACTION] head with a huge 45 46 [GRAD] skull, far apart eyes, tiny [GRAD] nose and mouth and large ears! [GRAD] He learns 47 to live with young humans [JUD: CAPACITY], goes to school [JUD: NORMALITY] and falls 48 in love [AFF: AFFECTION] with one of his classmates. 49 Musée en Herbe 50 51 52 A number of attitudinal meanings in this text concern Inoshi, the robot child created 53 by Takashi Murakami, as well as the robot’s emotions and behavior. Note also the use 54 of APPRECIATION: REACTION: IMPACT. REACTION is related to affect and emotions; it can be 55 glossed as ‘it grabs me’, and is oriented to interpersonal significance (Martin & White, 2005, 56 p. 57). Significantly, the text makes no use of APPRECIATION: VALUATION, which is related to 57 58 cognition and oriented to ideational worth (Martin & White, 2005, p. 57). Therefore, an 59 emotional response to the robot is invited through positive evaluations of its feelings and 60 behavior, while the accumulation of REACTIONS invites awe. The cumulative effect of such 61 62 63 64 13 65 evaluations suggests higher concern with emotional connection and bonding with the robot 1 child, rather than appreciating Inochi as a sculpture and artwork. This underpins the importance 2 of personal relevance over artistic significance at the Musée en herbe. 3 4 Taking another example from the Musée en herbe, 5 6 Qui a peur [AFF: SECURITY] des fantômes ? 7 Ceux du mangaka Mizuki 8 9 et des estampes japonaises 10 sont très [GRAD] effrayants [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD] 11 (Who is afraid [AFF: SECURITY] of ghosts? Those by mangaka Mizuki or found in 12 Japanese prints are quite [GRAD] scary [APP: REACTION] ! [GRAD]) 13 14 15 the text starts with an attention catcher (Qui a peur des fantômes? / Who is afraid of ghosts?), 16 followed by an intensified APPRECIATION ‘très effrayants!’ / quite scary!). The APPRECIATION 17 is situated in the Ideal or top part of the text, while its description is situated in the Real, or 18 bottom part (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 193). Such textual arrangement suggests that the 19 emotional connection to the artwork is significant. This also suggests that the Musée en Herbe 20 21 favors social relations with its young audience over epistemic relations emphasizing content 22 knowledge. 23 Children’s texts from the Musée d’Orsay are not exempt from attitudinal meanings either. 24 In this interpretative text of a sculpture of imperial prince Bonaparte Eugène Louis Napoléon 25 26 by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, expressions of AFFECT and JUDGEMENT are numerous: 27 28 […] le petit prince Eugène ? Le voici simplement appuyé sur son chien. Il est très [GRAD] 29 décontracté [AFF: SECURITY] ! Sa cravate est assez mal nouée [APP/JUD] et le bout de ses 30 chaussures légèrement usé [APP/JUD]. Le prince n’est pas si sage qu’il en a l’air ici [JUD]. 31 32 Un écrivain célèbre, ami de ses parents, le trouvait intelligent… [JUD: CAPACITY] mais 33 très [GRAD] paresseux [JUD: TENACITY]. On sait aussi que dans des moments de colère, il 34 était capable de casser ses petits soldats [JUD: PROPRIETY]. 35 ([…] little prince Eugène? Here he is simply leaning on his dog. He looks very [GRAD] 36 37 laid back [AFF: SECURITY] ! His tie is rather badly knotted [APP/JUD] and the tip of his 38 shoes slightly worn [APP/JUD]. The prince is not as good as he seems here [JUD]. A famous 39 writer, friend of his parents, found him intelligent… [JUD: CAPACITY] but very [GRAD] 40 lazy [JUD: TENACITY]. We also know that in moments of anger, he could break his little 41 [lead] soldiers [JUD: PROPRIETY].) 42 43 44 In contrast with the adult text, which focuses on the historical context for the making 45 of the sculpture, the children’s text favors bonding with visiting children by focusing 46 on character traits in which they might recognize themselves. 47 48 49 There is thus a similar patterning of Tenor across the Musée d’Orsay’s and Musée en 50 Herbe’s children’s text. They address their readers with a similar informal T, suggesting an 51 individualized and more intimate relationship. They use first person personal pronouns to 52 address their audience, impersonating the artist or a personal tour guide, thus diminishing social 53 54 distance between institution and visitors. The analysis also highlights that a number of 55 children’s texts are more concerned with feelings. Numerous texts focus on the appraisal of the 56 represented characters through AFFECT and JUDGEMENT, rather than using VALUATIONS 57 concerning the artworks as artefacts. 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 14 65 Conclusion 1 2 This case study of children’s texts from Paris’s Musée d’Orsay and Musée en Herbe aimed at 3 4 exploring the ways in which museum texts may interpret their exhibits in ways that are 5 accessible and engaging to a younger audience, and revealing their linguistic features, 6 compared with adult texts. The study also sought to shed light on the ways in which museums’ 7 practices and beliefs concerning their roles as learning institutions influence the texts that they 8 9 produce, in terms of both learning potential and interaction with their young audience. In doing 10 so, the analysis unveiled both similarities and differences across the texts produced in the two 11 museums. 12 The study started with an examination of the museums’ mission statements. It highlighted 13 differences in the museums’ objectives. The Musée d’Orsay’s statement foregrounds 14 15 institutional knowledge: its mission to display artworks is most significant. Quite the opposite, 16 the Musée en Herbe places visitors at the center stage of their exhibitions – they are construed 17 as ‘heroes’, ‘archaeologists’, ‘detectives’ or ‘travelers’, whose curiosity and interest must be 18 aroused. Experience, rather than knowledge, is at the core of their practices. 19 Compared with adult texts, children’s texts achieve a higher degree of spoken-ness, making 20 21 them more comprehensible to young readers. Indeed, texts might be read by their young 22 audience, or be read aloud by parents to their children, and this particular use is reflected in the 23 choice of language. Unlike adult texts that are more likely to be highly metaphorical, with high 24 lexical density and complex nominal groups, children’s texts are characterized by congruent 25 26 forms of meanings that are easily intelligible to a younger audience. They tend to be lower in 27 lexical density and higher in grammatical intricacy, with few complex nominal groups. 28 Technical terms are also introduced to young readers, who cannot be assumed to know and 29 understand such terms, and explained through synonymy and/or concrete examples. This 30 makes sense, since technicality prohibits an effective sharing of meanings. This is also 31 32 congruent with findings showing that children’s texts, compared with adult ones, demonstrate 33 lower levels of complexity and abstraction (Ravelli, 1998, pp. 139-140). 34 In terms of Tenor, interpretative texts are typically written in declarative mood, that is, 35 providing young viewers with information, even though they may strive to engage their 36 37 audience by directing their attention to particular features of exhibits, or encourage active 38 attention to content (Ravelli, 2006, p. 75). Discovery trails also typically engage children into 39 performing particular tasks, thus soliciting them in the co-construction of knowledge. In other 40 words, they may be invited to respond to the text by doing something. Thus, children’s texts 41 are dialogic, with young viewers addressed explicitly via a T informal and singular form, thus 42 43 reducing the distance between institution and their audience. Concerns about personalizing 44 children’s visits may also contribute to explaining the use of first person personal pronouns in 45 addressing the readers through the voice of the artist or a character represented in an artwork. 46 Significantly, both museums were shown to seek to engage their young audience through 47 48 attitudinal meanings linked to characters represented in the artworks, rather than based on their 49 artistic merits (e.g. structure, colors, technique) as represented visually. Finally, museums 50 exhibits are multimodal in nature, and their verbal texts accessed through typography and 51 layout. Headings differentiated through larger typeface, bolding, capital letters, colors and 52 strongly segregated paragraphs all contribute to making children’s text easily navigable. 53 54 Through the angle of LCT Specialization, the analysis of texts also revealed differences in 55 the institutional orientations of the two museums, and whether they considered as more 56 legitimate an orientation towards a knowledge code privileging epistemic relations, or towards 57 a knower code favoring social relations. In other words, whether they favored individuals’ 58 knowledge or personal experience. The Musée d’Orsay was found to foreground epistemic 59 60 relations (ER+), that is, relations to knowledge, and downplay social relations (SR-). The 61 62 63 64 15 65 institution was shown to assume the role of expert, and their interpretative texts to favor an 1 understanding of historical knowledge and art movements. This is underpinned in the 2 museum’s mission statement, which stresses the museum’s role in the display of the artistic 3 4 output of the Western world in the years 1848-1914 in its diversity. In the texts, knowledge 5 comes foremost for comprehending the artworks, indicating strong epistemic relations. The 6 museum’s texts are more concerned with observing and close looking. This is achieved through 7 explicit prompts directing young viewers to observe the exhibits. Meticulous and directed 8 9 observation of specific details of artworks effectively contribute to scaffolding their 10 interpretation for a young audience. Not only this, but there are also many instances of 11 ideational concurrence between interpretative text and displayed artwork, more particularly 12 focusing on specific aspects of exhibits in a relation of meronymy. For instance, young viewers 13 may be encouraged to observe detailed features of the artworks, such as the brushstrokes and 14 15 application of colors, directing young visitors’ gazes towards observable features of an 16 impressionist painting, in other words, performing visual analysis of the artwork. In this way, 17 verbiage that prompts viewers to look at specific features of the artworks, and exemplifies 18 meanings in the displayed artwork that are not accessible by looking alone to the non-expert, 19 can be claimed to add to the looking (Blunden, 2016, 2020). It follows then that such 20 21 scaffolding of knowledge through relations of meronymy may be instrumental in the transfer 22 of knowledge to broader contexts and the interpretation of other artworks. Conversely, the 23 Musée en Herbe was found to foreground social relations (SR+) and downplay epistemic 24 relations (ER-). Indeed, the museum downplays hierarchies and boundaries between itself and 25 26 its public. It is explicitly inclusive of a range of visitors, aged 3 to 103 years-old. The institution 27 connects knowledge with visitors’ experiences and preferences, and positions its role as 28 facilitating visitors’ connection with the exhibits. This is shown by the ways in which it allows 29 for greater participation of its young visitors. If we consider the texts that the museum produces, 30 there is less emphasis on transmission of artistic knowledge, compared with the Musée d’Orsay. 31 32 Besides interpretative texts that require visitors to observe the exhibits, a number of texts 33 provide commands connected with a wide range of personal experiences, as children are 34 engaged to ‘imagine’, ‘smell’… ‘fart’! While still recognizing the importance of art knowledge, 35 the Musée en Herbe therefore puts emphasis on children’s personal experience and 36 37 appreciation of the exhibits, more particularly in terms of reaction, that is, in relation to 38 affective meanings: “it grabs me” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 57). Rather than assessing the 39 artworks’ appeal or artistic value, interpretative texts also focus on the participants represented 40 in the artwork – their looks or behavior, as well as artists’ emotions and capacities (AFFECT and 41 JUDGEMENT). Children are thus positioned to respond emotionally to the exhibits, rather than 42 43 react to their aesthetics or artistic value. This points to the significance of social relations in the 44 museum’s orientation. Indeed, if claims of aesthetic merit create hierarchies, expressions of 45 feelings invite solidarity with the viewers. The museum thus provides opportunities for 46 enhancing sensory and emotional, as well as cognitive learning. Indeed, if we consider the 47 48 museum’s mission statement, visitors are placed at the core – they are the ‘heroes’, whose 49 curiosity, sensibility and interest must be aroused through play and humor. The institution 50 assumes a role as facilitator, rather than expertise. Visually, this is also shown through exhibits 51 that are placed at child’s eye level and easily navigable wall texts. As such, the Musée en Herbe, 52 compared with the Musée d’Orsay, is less about ‘showing’ exhibits and more about providing 53 54 experiences. 55 56 References 57 58 Andre, L., Durksen, T., & Volman, M. L. (2017). Museums as avenues of learning for children: 59 60 A decade of research. Learning Environments Research, 20, 47-76. 61 62 63 64 16 65 Blunden, J. (2016). THE LANGUAGE with DISPLAYED ART(EFACTS): Linguistic and 1 sociological perspectives on meaning, accessibility and knowledge-building in museum 2 exhibitions (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology, Sydney. 3 4 Blunden, J. (2020). Adding ‘something more’ to looking: The interaction of artefact, verbiage 5 and visitor in museum exhibitions. Visual Communication, 19(1), 45-71. 6 Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2005). FINDING THE GLOBAL GROOVE: Theorising and 7 analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus, and a concordancer. 8 9 Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 143-163. 10 Ferguson, L., MacLulich, C., & Ravelli, L. (1995). Meanings and messages: Language 11 guidelines for museum exhibitions. Sydney: Australian Museum. 12 Halliday, M.A.K., Revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. (2014). Halliday's introduction 13 to functional grammar (fourth edition). London and New York: Routledge. 14 15 Halliday, M.A.K., & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. 16 London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press. 17 Hofinger, A., & Ventola, E. (2004). Multimodality in operation: Language and picture in a 18 museum. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on 19 multimodality (pp. 193–209). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing 20 21 Company. 22 Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London 23 and New York: Routledge. 24 Lipovsky, C. (2014). The CV as a multimodal text. Visual Communication, 13(4), 429-458. 25 26 Macken-Horarik, M. (2004). Interacting with the multimodal text: Reflections on image and 27 verbiage in ArtExpress. Visual Communication, 3(1), 5-26. 28 Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. 29 Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of 30 discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 31 32 Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London 33 New York: Continuum. 34 Martin, J., & Stengling, M. (2007). Materializing reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a 35 transcolonial exhibition. In T. Royce, D. & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the 36 37 analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 215-238). Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence 38 Erlbaum. 39 Martin, J.R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. 40 Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 41 Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London 42 43 & New York: Routledge. 44 Purser, E. R. (2000). Telling stories: Text analysis in a museum. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Discourse 45 and community: Doing functional linguistics (pp. 169-198). Tübingen: Gunter Narr 46 Verlag Tübingen. 47 48 Ravelli, L. (1996). Making language accessible: Successful text writing for museum visitors. 49 Linguistics and Education, 8, 367-387. 50 Ravelli, L. (1998). The consequences of choices: Discursive positioning in an art institution. 51 In A. Sánchez-Macarro & R. Carter (Eds.), Linguistic choice across genres: Variation 52 in spoken and written English (pp. 137 – 153). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John 53 54 Benjamins Publishing Company. 55 Ravelli, L. (2006a). Genre and the museum exhibition. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 56 2(2), 289 – 317. 57 Ravelli, L. J. (2006b). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. London and New York: 58 Routledge. 59 60 61 62 63 64 17 65 Stenglin, M. K. (2004). Packaging curiosities: Towards a grammar of three-dimensional space 1 (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 18 65 Table 1 Table 1. Issues to be considered in museum texts – adapted from Ravelli (1996, p. 376) Issue Corresponding linguistic analysis Text organization Theme development Cohesive patterns Text complexity Nominal groups structure Clause density and intricacy Representation of reality Ideational concurrence Technical terms Interpersonal relations Mood Attitudinal lexis Table 2 Table 2. Knowledge code vs. knower code orientations Knowledge code orientation Knower code orientation Epistemic emphasizes legitimate art knowledge downplays hierarchies between the relations (ER+) institution and its public (ER-) (ER) conveys art knowledge explicitly conveys art knowledge implicitly (ER+) (ER-) Social downplays visitors’ personal is inclusive of a variety of visitors relations experience (SR-) (SR+) (SR) downplays visitors’ preferences facilitates visitors’ connection with (SR-) the exhibits (SR+) values visitors’ experience and preferences (SR+) Table 3 Table 3. Distribution of texts collected museum text format distribution Musée d’Orsay museum mission statement screen-based verbal text accessible from Musée d’Orsay children’s’ website Les Petits M’O. https://www.petitsmo.fr/ children’s interpretive texts screen-based verbal texts accessible from Musée d’Orsay children’s’ website Les Petits M’O. with visual reproductions of exhibits https://www.petitsmo.fr/les-petits-mo available in French interpretative texts from the screen-based verbal texts Catalogue des Œuvres. catalogue of works with visual reproductions of exhibits www.musee-orsay.fr/fr/collections/catalogue-des-oeuvres/recherche-simple.html available in French and in English children’s interpretive texts print full-colour 8-page leaflet available from the information desk with supplementary interpretative texts for adults available in French and visual reproductions of exhibits Sales gosses family discovery trail print full-colour 10-page booklet available from the information desk Parcours famille available in French Musée en Herbe museum mission statement screen-based verbal text accessible from Musée en Herbe’s website http://www.musee-en-herbe.com/ children’s’ interpretive texts wall texts within exhibition children’s’ discovery trail wall texts within exhibition interpretative texts from the brochure handed out to adults at exhibition entrance catalogue of works available in French Monstres, mangas et Murakami children’s discovery trail print full-colour 12-page booklet handed out at exhibition entrance Livret du petit chasseur de monstres available in French or in English Monster Hunting Booklet children’s discovery trail print full-colour,12-page booklet handed out at exhibition entrance Black book available in French or in English N.B. At the time of visit, the catalogue of works for the Black book exhibition was not available yet. The analysis is based on the French texts. Figure 1 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 1.docx Figure 1. Musée d’Orsay’s children’s website Figure 2 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 2.docx Figure 2. Musée en Herbe’s website Figure 3 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 3.docx Figure 3. Claude Monet’s La pie Figure 4 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 4.docx Figure 4. Children’s text, Monsters, mangas and Murakami exhibition, Musée en herbe Figure 5 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 5.docx Figure 5. Claude Monet’s Régates à Argenteuil Figure 6 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 6.docx Figure 6. Directing young visitors to do something, Musée en Herbe Figure 7 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 7.docx Figure 7. Subcategories of ATTITUDE (adapted from Martin, 2000)