{"title":"Vilnius memoryscape","authors":"I. Moore","doi":"10.1075/ll.18022.moo","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Through the lens of semiotic landscapes, I analyse here collective memory formation in the Baltic republic of\n Lithuania. A theoretical focus on power relation in “monumental politics”, the concept of memoryscape (Clack, 2011), Van Gennep’s 2004 sociological application of\n liminality, and a methodological approach that “treats space as a discursive as well as physical formation” (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010) are combined to examine the process of monument destruction, creation, and\n alteration in post-Soviet Vilnius. I argue that cultural landscapes represent not only relationships of power within societies but\n are also used as a tool of nation-building and power legitimation. I highlight a fourfold process: (1) razing – monumental\n landscape cleansing; (2) raising – the return of memory via the creation of national historical continuity symbols and of new\n lieux de mémoire (Nora, 1996) and the memorization complex (Train, 2016); (3) polyphonic memorial narratives of empty spaces; and (4) the memory limbo\n helix or recursive memories.","PeriodicalId":53129,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Landscape-An International Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Landscape-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.18022.moo","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Through the lens of semiotic landscapes, I analyse here collective memory formation in the Baltic republic of
Lithuania. A theoretical focus on power relation in “monumental politics”, the concept of memoryscape (Clack, 2011), Van Gennep’s 2004 sociological application of
liminality, and a methodological approach that “treats space as a discursive as well as physical formation” (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010) are combined to examine the process of monument destruction, creation, and
alteration in post-Soviet Vilnius. I argue that cultural landscapes represent not only relationships of power within societies but
are also used as a tool of nation-building and power legitimation. I highlight a fourfold process: (1) razing – monumental
landscape cleansing; (2) raising – the return of memory via the creation of national historical continuity symbols and of new
lieux de mémoire (Nora, 1996) and the memorization complex (Train, 2016); (3) polyphonic memorial narratives of empty spaces; and (4) the memory limbo
helix or recursive memories.