This is such an interesting topic! I think everyone has been feeling the discrepancy between time as a phenomenological concept and time as an experiential construct since the pandemic began. It's great to see a study which grounds this sense in a semiotic reality. I look forward to hear more about this tomorrow!

Loved the presentation and the idea Stefania! It's so rare for researchers to gain insights into the privacy of the participants' homes, and your methodology and approach is ingenious. While I know online interaction is not the main point here, I particularly liked your description of video calls as a heterotopic space - never conceived it as such, but it really does encapsulate it very well. I look forward to hearing more tomorrow!

Great presentation! I was struck by how sociocultural this practice is - I don't recall encountering any handmade signs here in Korea, and I'm guessing public regulations don't allow putting them up to begin with. Great insights regarding community building efforts. Did you perhaps find any examples made in support of Asian-American communities (particularly given the rise in anti-Asian sentiments), or perhaps directly made by members of the community itself?

This was a pleasure to watch and listen to Susanna! I cannot overstate how much I like the methodological approach you developed here. I used something similar by approaching space as a hermeneutic cycle - i.e. conceiving the space-government-public as an interactive trifecta akin to the text-author-reader set - but CA is such a rich source for interpreting behavior and movement in space. This brought on many questions: how much of our behavior in space is guided, and how much is instinctive or culturally inherited? How does the overlap in talk and turn order sequencing translate into the negotiation of direction and placement of people in movement? Is the interaction with space silent? Spoken? Written? I don't expect you to answer any of these - just sharing the train of thought I had. Once again, a great presentation! Looking forward to hearing more on Friday!

Thanks for the feedback Janine! Yes, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, I also thought about whether I should classify this as a threat, but after consulting with a few of my Korean acquaintances who did not derive a threatening tone from it, I decided to mark it as a form of instruction. In the paper I compared it with non-smoking signs here, which act as informative signs regarding behavior in a particular space, and the actions which it allows. I believe the elision of a direct threat here is intentional in that sense - as in, the reader should simply take the fact that the bus cannot be used without a mask as a common sense instruction. This is why I also write that these signs are mostly placed on the outside of the bus, prior to boarding, whereas the more threatening signs can be found inside, where infractions carry more risks. Thank again for watching, and see you on Friday!

This is a very interesting take on recent changes in the linguistic landscape of Korea. I particularly like the division between fear-based and cuteness-based signage - I believe this dichotomy has potential to be used in other settings as well. Regarding cuteness-based signage which features community-focused (or at least nation-focused) messaging, I suggest looking at the signs in Itaewon and Hangangjin stations, which feature cartoon characters rooting for Korea and Koreans. I was also intrigued by your comment on the use of English as a decorative element. I admit I often had the same thought when looking at the landscape of Korea, but I do wonder what that says about who the target audience of these signs. I was struck by a lack of translation in public signage across the country, and I wonder how you interpret this in your study? Great study - looking forward to hearing more.

@Susanna Karlsson hi Susanna! Thanks so much for watching and for the feedback! Yeah, that was actually something I was thinking about as well. While for me it also sounds somewhat like an indirect threat, it differs sharply from actual signage which cites fines and uses legal discourse to warn passengers, so I treated it as an instruction rather than a threat. I think instructions do inherently entail a potential punshiment if violated, so in that sense I think it accounted for the implied tone on some of the posters. It's great to hear comparisons from other contexts - thanks so much! Looking forward to meeting you online this Friday!

@florence.mourlhon-dallies wow, that's interesting! I must admit I couldn't find a lot of sources on this topic from other countries, so hearing comparisons like this really helps! Thanks a lot, and looking forward to meeting you on Friday!

@Michael Chesnut thanks for the excellent feedback Michael, and for reminding me of the period of mask rationing. I didn't devote much attention to it because it occured early on and was driven by global uncertainty and quite a lot of fearmongering - although I guess it also supports the argument that Koreans act based on self-interest and self-protection, rather than a collective sense of responsibility. However, once people became better adjusted and the fear subsided, I think it was on the government to sustain the momentum and to ensure that people keep to the regulations. This is where the divergence occured - once the public self-interests started moving away from government's interests, the mask became a symbol of imposition and control. Of course, for some communities this was true from the get-go, and the protests staged throughout the pandemic were premised on the notion of government overreach. But I definitely see what you mean, and I'll do my best to expand on it in the paper. Looking forward to meeting you Friday!