Mikolaj Sobocinski junior staff member English Department Casimir the Great University Bydgoszcz, Poland tel. (landline): 0048 56 475-45-55 e-mail: [email protected] web site: www.mikolaj.info title:

Towards the definition of metropolitan discourse and metropolis in respect of urban semiotics abstract: Each time 'discourse' is used as a term for a collection of interrelated texts there is a need for a specific unifying element like profession of users, their culture, or time and place of uttering particular phrases. In recent years cities have become the prime and combining factor for some discourses. Too often the place, a town or a city, is treated as a taken-for-granted entity, more or less homogenous in nature, as if enabling and ensuring the production of unified texts. However, demography cannot provide sufficient and coherent definitions of a town or a city, of those places which are at the root of urban discourse. Therefore this artile attempts at reaching a viable and consistent definition of metropolitan discourse stemming from semiotics and linguistics rather then demography, and on that basis explaining how to differentiate villages, towns, cities, and metropolis for future studies of urban semiotics. keywords: metropolitan discourse, metropolis, urban semiotics, sign, message, discourse, definition of a city article: Whenever urban signs are analysed there is a hidden dilemma concerning the type of a town particular signs or messages belong to. The problem arises from the difficulty in defining villages, towns, cities, and metropolis precisely so as to enable a proper comparative analysis of various urban signs and their environments. It may be assumed that if there was a satisfying description of towns and cities it would enable a much more worthwhile discussion about urban signs and would give ground to conclusions concerning urban semiotics and communication. The following article is an attempt at providing such a definition of a specific city type, namely a metropolis. However, it is claimed here that the definition cannot be supplied by demography and it will be reached through a proper understanding of metropolitan discourse which in turn will be supplied after discussing city functions. As a result a typology of city signs and a thorough understanding of various city discourses will be supplied giving ground for future discussions of urban semiotics. The first and major problem in urban semiotics is inherited from demography. It seems that it is virtually impossible to give one an satisfactory definition of either a town, a city, or a metropolis. As Daniela Szymańska points out in Urbanizacja na świecie (2008: chapter 1) there are dozens of various descriptions of towns and cities in all parts of the world. In some countries towns and cities are differentiated from villages on the basis of size, in others depending on the number of

dwellers; sometimes the reason is only historical, political or administrative, or owes a lot to recent technological and infrastructural developments. In short, as Szymańska concludes, it is impossible to give one definition of a town or city within the paradigm of demography. Maybe for this reason the definitions supplied by the Dictionary of Human Geography rather blur the picture by stating that a town is “an urban place, usually a settlement exceeding a prescribed minimum population threshold. No specific size range is generally accepted to distinguish a town from either a city or a village, however, and practices differ significantly” (2005: 843). To make matters worse the definition of a city is nothing more but a reminder of British history as it says “originally a British term for an urban settlement containing a cathedral and the seat of a bishop....” (84). Neither of these two definitions may be used in semiotic investigations into urban signs and their usage as it becomes impossible to establish which settlements belong to towns and which to the countryside. In a strong form of this argument one could even claim that the boarder between urban and nature is also vague and hamlets are also a kind of urban intrusions into the natural environment. Even though there is no description of a metropolis in the Dictionary still some clues may be found for instance in the American census system where Metropolitan Statistical Areas are mentioned. Unfortunately, the MSAs are based on the number of dwellers and simply cut administrative units into manageable areas of 50.000 inhabitants rather then distinguishing between nature and towns, or between villages, towns, cities, and metropolis as the name would suggest. So again there is no insight into the nature of towns and, hence, urban signs may not be properly attributed. Moreover, when human settlements are set agains the natural environment, and all signs of human habitats are called as urban there is still a tremendous group of areas to include in the discussion. Besides villages, towns, cities, and metropolises, if we will treat those as global cities as different from national or local cities, there are also various shanty towns. Although they may seem to be of no value or importance to urban semiotics they actually may house up to a million of inhabitants, e.g. Kibera in Nairobi, making them not only more populous but also more spacious then a majority of American, European or Asian cities. Claiming that those so called slums will ot bring anything of value into urban semiotics seems to be an overstatement. Even though they are collectively described as slums they still can be distinguished from one another on the basis of structure, development or transformation into “standard” towns. According to UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme) a slum is “a heavily populated urban area characterised by substandard housing and squalor”. Just as with previous demographic definitions this one again seems inaccurate as it may refer to various suburbs or even the whole downtown areas in some cases or even to some “standard” towns. If urban signs are to be analysed holistically or at least representatively some reference to such a large and diversified group of settlements should be given. Among those “smaller” or “lesser” towns best recognised and described are: campsite, colonia (along the U.S.-Mexican border, rural, unincorporated settlements lacking basic infrastructure and marked by poverty), Dignity Village (a city-recognized encampment of homeless people in Portland, Oregon, the USA), barrio (refers to lower-class neighborhoods with largely Spanish-speaking residents in the USA), trailer park (a derogative description of an area where travel trailers rest), ethnoburb (a suburban residential and business area with a significant concentration of a particular ethnic minority population), ghetto, mill town or company town (may fall into poverty and decline when the main owner and job provider becomes bankrupt), cortiço (in Brazil and Portugal, a town district where people live in large houses divided into small rooms per family, in conditions of poor hygiene and poverty), tent city (whether spontaneous or planned, may houses staggering numbers of visitors, workers, soldiers, or refugees for decades), villa miseria (in or around largest Argentinian cities, with water and electricity stolen from the city supply grid), favela (a Brazilian shanty town generally found on the edge of the city; constructed from a variety of materials, ranging from bricks to garbage; plagued by sewage, crime and hygiene problems; characterised by anomalous form of social life that diverges from mainstream culture), and pueblos jóvenes (vast shanty towns surrounding cities of Peru, many of which have developed into important and prosperous districts of bigger and richer cities). Each of those settlements, when treated as distinct from nature may be described as urban as they do poses some features of towns,

fulfill many town functions, and sometimes become “standard” towns in time. On the other hand treating them in the demographic sense in the same way as towns seems to be a mistake. Lacking administration and well developed service sector they are hardly urban in their usage of signs and messages. Still such a statemnet requires a support of hard evidence as it may be based on prejudice rather than data. What is of importance for the this article is the fact that the number and variety of city types is much greater than the original division village-city would suggest. It must be also stated that t is possible to distinguish between shanty towns, villages, towns, cities, and metropolis only in a particular country, a particular culture, or a chosen administrative paradigm, as those labels for different habitats are not used consistently around the Globe. The demographic and administrative definitions of various city types are usually limited to specific areas and time, and will never allow broader global comparisons. While more and more studies tend to take into account large areas, vast groups of people, and bridge various scientific fields some consistent and applicable definitios are required. Otherwise discussing such basic entities as signs when described as urban signs may become impossible due to a vague connotation of the descriptive locator 'urban'. Unless we agree that any human generated sign found in or near settlements may be called urban. A solution to this problem may be supplied by linguistics, which approach towns not from the perspective of administrative divisions or demographic definitions, but rather investigate functions and types of communication. Although demography cannot supply an adequate definition of a city, as it was presented so far, still it can describe quite accurately city functions as directed towards society, cultural development, infrastructure, industry, politics, and so on. On that basis a proper understanding of urban or more precisely metropolitan discourse may be achieved within linguistics, which in turn should enable a clear understanding of city-ness as distinct from properties of villages or shanty towns. As given in literature the functions of towns are numerous, complex and interwoven. It is difficult to provide a list of elementary and sufficient functions as depending on local, historical and cultural reasons towns have evolved differently. When such a list is presented it must be broad enough to encompass such varied human settlements as those found in Africa, both Americas, Europe or Asia, where different cultures shaped cities of numerous often opposing features. Among the most important, both for the development and proper existence of cities, the following functions of human settlements are mentioned most often (T. Markowski & T. Marszał , W. Maik , J. BeaujeuGarnier & G. Chabot, G. Węcławowicz, D. Sokołowski):          

aggrarian – planting and harvesting crops; although associated with villages many African, South American, and Asian towns and cities are still aggrarian to a large extant; sleep – one of the basic functions; providing shelter from weather and predators; today, there are districts, suburbs or even whole towns devoted to that purpose, e.g., bed towns; production – only in larger groups of people some products can be manufactured collectively or for a greater number of customers; industrial – many villages and towns evolved into cities due to the access to mineral resources or hunting and fishing areas; also providing raw materials for factories; trade – both internal, domestic, and regional, national, international, and finally global; colonial – providing raw materials or cheap workforce for the off-shore ruler; it seems to belong to the past, but some towns are strongly connected with foreign centers of power; transport – handling transportation for other towns or whole countries, especially in case of harbours and airports; hubs in the transportation of both goods and people; service – required in any human settlement, however, the larger the town, the more varied and specialised services it may provide, especially those connected to culture and leisure; work – towns provide work not only to its own inhabitants, but also to newcomers from the countryside and to commuters from other towns, e.g. bed towns; political – generally speaking, only the biggest cities dominating within a region may become seats of the legislative, administrative, and judiciary at the same time; they define the policy for the region or even the whole country; sometimes also for the continent or the





  



  



 

Globe; various diplomatic institutions, organisations, and embassies are placed in seats of cultural and political importance; administrative – similarly to political function, administrative divisions are also caused by historical development of regions and towns; the rank of a town usually depends on the seat of the authority; military – in history towns were a major place of defense and of storing supplies; nowadays city walls do not provide defence so the military function may be as well provided by smaller towns build around garnisons; law and order – the police and various types of neighbourhood nightwatch provide tranquility; the greater the town and its importance the more of law enforcing bodies; company seat – companies usually are placed in larger towns with workforce and customers, however, sometimes whole towns are created and owned by companies i.e. company town; educational – the greater the town and the more inhabitants and commuters it has, the bigger variety of schools it may provide; from nursery, primary, secondary, tertiary, to higher education, both general, vocational, and professional; scientific – usually dependant on the educational function, the scientific development is possible only after accumulating a large number of the educated who commit themselves to the development of knowledge, requiring specialised facilities and institutions; touristic – may depend on the historical or architectural features of towns, but also may be caused by the fame factor of abundant great cities; religious – both centers of pilgrimages, everyday mass attendance, and necropolis; also some annual celebrations of extra significance; leisure – a variety of entertainment from night clubs, cinemas, theatres, and concert halls, to sport centers, amusement parks, and hiking trips; in case of satelite towns, there can be a separate class distinguished, edge towns, providing entertainment to neighbouring cities; relaxation and health – usually this function opposes industrial and transport development, and agrees more with touristic and leisure functions; spa in a more general sense may provide either healthy climate or waters, but also tranquility and beautiful landscapes; medical – providing basic and specialised health care; may be scientific; metropolitan – sometimes given as a collection of previous functions or described as a newly acquired function thanks to reaching a certain level of development and size; very difficult to define within demography as metropolises differ widely between countries.

As can be seen from the above list, the number of functions towns fulfill may be very high. Some of them are mutually exclusive while others are interdependant. For the purpose of the discussion directed towards a better understanding of urban semiotics one should claim that each function of a town may be associated to at least one group of specialised signes, messages, or even whole discourses. Nevertheless, as the list may be enlightening it also is troublesome. Discussing these functions and various types of relevant signs would probably become too detailed blurring the general urban environment by breaking it into too many distinct pieces. However, after analysing individual town functions it becomes possible to make some generalisations about these which are more human oriented or socially significant, as it is such functions that are most likely to generate the greatest amount of urban signs. Taking a less demography oriented view and concentrating more on geopolitics and economy some of the above higher order functions may by analysed jointly under the descriptions of what a metropolis does provided by B. Jałowiecki and M. Szczepański (2002: 224-225):  

imports foreign investments, workers, goods, and services; exports its own investments, workers, etc. as well as socio-economic, cultural and scientific institutions; houses international companies, their seats or subsidiaries, banks, non-governmental organisations, scientific and educational institutions, universities with a significant number of foregin students, and embassies;

  

   

is linked with other countries by a network of highroads, railroads, and international airports and/or ports; there is a significant exchange of international post, telecomunication, and tourists; has a well developed service sector geared towards foreign clients: congress centres, top hotels and office buildings, international schools, international lawyer's chambers, international scientific centres; houses international publishers and broadcasters; regularly holds international meetings: congreses, music and theatre festivals, exhibitions, sporting events; houses recognised domestic and national authorities responsible for foreign affairs; local authorities and private companies have para-diplomatic ties with cities in other countries; belongs to various associations of twin towns and/or of metropolis, etc.

The two lists provided above seem at the same time too specific and too exclusive if a majority of these features should be present in a definition of a town or metropolis. Although a definition seems possible it also would appear to become unusable due to its complexity. For this reason, on the basis of demographic descriptions of functions of towns a linguistic insight may at the same time simplify the explanation and render it applicable to a wide array of studies. If we assume that the functions of towns are interwoven and the more of them characterise a settlemtent, the more it becomes a town, a city, a metropolis, then the quantity and the quality of those functions may become a starting point for a linguistic definition of city-ness. If next we agree that functions of towns are represented by various texts, whether signs, messages or complex discourses, refering to those functions, provided by some services or authorities for the general public, then it becomes possible to talk about an urban discourse. In a preliminary definition one might say that urban texts consitute a collection of interdependant and mutually relevant messages, both in form and content, which address particular human needs and city functions as listed before. In other words discourse should be understood as “a set of organized language means used in one single communicative act taking place between the participants under given conditions (in a given environment, as a response to a given stimulus and with a given aim in view) by means of a given communicative system (or, possibly, of several such systems)” (Krzeszowski 1997: 234). In order to distinguish city discourse from that of a village, town, or metropolis, one must list the necessary functions for each city type, the “given environment”, neglecting the demographically problematic quantitative, qualitative, or administrative examinations. It also seems viable to start discussing urban discourses from the most advanced one, from the metropolitan discourse, as it seems to encapsulate the greatest number of messages in respect of their size, structure, and functions. Every time a part of this postulated metropolitan discourse becomes missing or diverted it should be a clear indicator of the change of the city type. When some parts of the discourse cannot be found, when some sub-discourses are missing, then probably the investigated environment is not a metropolis, but a city, or a town, or a village, and so on. The less complex the urban discourse is, the fewer city functions it may address, the less of city-ness characterises the “given environment”. Hence urban signs can be easily proved to be not only urban in general but maybe also recognised as belonging to a particular type of towns and town discourses. One more reason for attaching such a great importance to discourse analysis when trying to understand urban signs themselves can be found in an explanation provided by A. Duszka in Text, Discourse, Intercultural Communication, who concludes that a discourse is a stretch of utterances depending on who is talking, to whom, in what type of situation and with what goal in mind (paraphrase 1998: 15). Or in other words, “before we can think about what we are reading we have to have a principle to tell us how to read it” (R. Scollon & S. W. Scollon 2003: 6). The only way to understand individual signs, their types, forms, and preferred meanings attached, comes from the general knowledge of the world and its discourses, from belonging to a discursive community of knowers. As a result any understanding of signs must come from comprehending the context, the “given environment” as a whole, and understanding of urban signs necessitates a very precise

definition of metropolitan discourse from which other city-type discourses and sub-discourses may be extracted. Hence, metropolitan discourse can be understood as a collection of signals, signs, messages, and texts, which are inherently combined and mutually related due to context, space and situations in which they are encountered by social actors entering various long and short-term interactions. Even more precisely, metropolitan discourse must be predominantly described by a one direction communication institution-recipient, as it is either impossible, difficult or unimportant what feedback, reaction or answer may be formed by recipients of urban signs. There usually is a formal and long way of communicating back to institutionalised senders of messages; however, the main aim of urban messages is not to begin any kind of conversation but to prepare and start interactions, which would assign appropriate social roles and behaviours between institutions and recipients of messages. Metropolitan discourse also creates a feeling of belonging and familiarity between the members of an urban community. It may also enhance the discursive discrepancies between the city dwellers and the country folk, but also a growing lack of understanding and the ability to navigate the spaces belonging to the other. In their book Discourses in Place Ron Scollon and Suzie Wong Scollon investigated what types of signs may be found in cities around the world. Afterwords they concluded that on the basis of their studies a list of typical city discourses may be provided. Taking into consideration their reasoning and examples, and the explanations presented above one might attempt to provide a more accurate definition or description of a discourse understood as a collection of signs and messages found in cities. In turn a joint demographic and linguistic approach may define metropolitan discourse as the one which has the following constituents: discourses (a revised version of Discourses in Place postulates) municipal regulatory (directed to the public) vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic public notices (e.g. from the town hall, the police, fire stations, etc.) municipal informative (direct to the general public, dwellers and tourists) public labels (e.g. Oak St, St James School, Regent's Park) questions directed to the public/community municipal infrastructural (directed to various town services and institutions) transparent notices of various city services (e.g., water or gas supply) commercial and institutional (non-municipal) advertising (from billboards to shop window notices) sector of goods or services provided, lifestyle promoted (e.g., entertainment, food, travel, religion or sets of values) shops, brands or products (e.g., Harrods, H&M, Adidas trainers) regulatory (e.g., staff only) informative (e.g., help desk) forbidding (e.g., do not touch items at display) transgressive (unlike in Discourses in Place treated as not inherent to any message) illegal aesthetic values against the general public values community or subculture specific These are only postulates of how metropolitan discourse should be analysed when various sign creators and sign functions are considered as central. There are other divisions possible but the categorisation presented above is believed to be most productive. Some may argue that the division of municipal discourse into three different categories is an exaggeration, but on the basis of author's study the number of municipal signs and messages by far outnumbers any other city discourse. By the same token it is the most varied group and for this reason dividing it into manageable sub-

discourses equal to the commercial and transgressive discourses seems justified. Although in many parts of cities the commercial discourse predominates it actually is much less varied than could be expected. There are only endless realisations of a very limited number of types of signs. Also the transgressive discourse itself is believed here to be as much a heterogeneous as an inescapable part of metropolitan discourse providing a substantial amount of each city's identity. One more reason for discussing metropolitan discourse as the starting point and later breaking it down into sub-discourses stems from the way signs are read when text types are recognised as a collective knowledge of city dwellers, a discursive community (after Anna Duszak Text, Discourse, and Interpersonal Communication). As J.C. Sager describes it “the most visible means of expressing intention is through the choice of conventional text types. (...) Regular repetitions of messages in particular circumstances have created expectations of recognisable structural and rhetorical features which condition our modes of reading a message. When we receive a message, we first identify the text type because it permits us to tune in to the appropriate mode of reception. (...) Since the meaning of the text type of a document is the first impact of a message on a reader, the recognition of a particular text type conditions the reader's response to the message” (Sager 1997: 30, 31). Depending on the discursive knowledge and discursive background of a community different texts will arise in a place. However due to the social and administrative organisations of cities, some town functions must always be fulfilled and particular signs and whole discourses must be present. The similarities and differences between discourses as well as their complexity is the very key to deciding about the cultural constitution of a city as well as about its city-ness. A town should be distinguishable from a city and metropolis on the basis of a visible lack of complexity in the discourse of various notices, messages, signs, and signals. By the same token, villages and other settlements should not be treated as towns not on the basis of administrative or historical decisions, but due to the lack of some discourses and oversimplification of others. Taking a reverse course one may conclude that if there are no signs referring to some human activities or town functions then there is no discourse for the whole sphere of life of a settlemtent, and hence the settlement in question is a hamlet or a village, and not a town or a city. Even when statistical or demographic data prove the oposite, the visible urban signs or their apparent lack should be judged as the more adequate to the humanities. No matter what hard evidence supports some claims, it is mental representations and semiosis that create reality around us. If users of a space cannot perceive or experience city-ness of the area, then for them their environment is a lesser type town despite any statistical data. Such an approach to cities as seen through the perspective of metropolitan discourse should also enable one more conclusion, much more substantial to urban semiotics. Before a proper understanding or a satisfactory defining of cities has been provided, discussing urban signs may be regarded as questionable as their city-ness is doubtful. After metropolitan discourse with its subdiscourses is described, and cities with other settlement types are defined in respect to their citizens' discursive practices, it becomes possible to present a typology of urban signs. Some of them may be still found in non-urban or non-town environments, but this time they are urban or not due to belonging to urban discourse. They may appear beyond cities, but as individual signs or messages, or may be part of “smaller” village or countryside discourses. Only when accompanied by other signs, when interconnected with other messages will they become part of urban discourse, and hence be urban in nature. By the same token, it is a collection of individual signs that creat villageness, town-ness, and any other intermediate step before reaching the metropolitan discourse. It seems that in order to decide if signs are urban one does not relate to the urban environment as such. At least not initially. First signs in a place must be collected, then assessed against discourses expected from a village, town, city, or metropolis. Only in the end is it possible to return to the initial sign, but this time with a certainty about its urban nature as well as with extra knowledge about particular types of signs present in the place. Thanks to this knowledge a more adequate analysis of urban signs will be possible as their structure and meaning must always be related to a particular place and people, to 'here-now-for me' features distinguishing signs and

communities. Without providing a detailed description and analysis of various types of signs present in metropolitan environment, a list of basic features of signs and messages may be given as follows: messages types of signs and messages, or their elements visual verbal non-verbal non-visual verbal non-verbal structure of messages verbal “pure” verbal verbal substituting non-verbal verbal and non-verbal key verbal elements accompanied by the non-verbal key non-verbal element accompanied by the verbal mutually relevant verbal and non-verbal elements non-verbal “pure” non-verbal non-verbal with a (possible to define) verbal counterpart non-verbal substituting verbal function informative (e.g. open from 9am to 5pm) phatic (e.g. customers are kindly asked to...) regulatory or directive (e.g. road closed) forbidding (e.g. no bikes allowed at the premises) community including-excluding / in-out group binding (e.g. skinheads rule) manipulative and propaganda (e.g. the only toothpaste you'll ever need) creating space (e.g. school) indexical and deictic (place, person, and/or time) (e.g. 'push' for door or entrance) The list provided above may of course be disputed and requires a longer explanation supported by examples for which there is no place in this article. Let it suffice to say that again the more complex discourse and the more metropolitan a settlement is, the more varied are signs, elements of messages, their structure, and number of fulfilled functions. Moreover there is just a handful of messages that retain “pure” qualities without having varied structure and numerous functions in more complex urban environments. The last point to make is bringing attention to indexicality of urban signs. In small and known environments signs creating space and pointing towards objects are only additional to what is already known and well recognised. In large and dense urban areas familiarity of places and architecture is not enough and for the ease of navigation and recognition places and objects must be indexed, pointed at, as otherwise they will not be recognised for what they are. In consequence places would lose their functionality not due to ome inherent characteristics but only because of improper or unskilled handling of indexical support provided for the sake of city-space users. Towards the end it should be repeated that for the sake of urban semiotics, but also discourse studies and linguistic pragmatics, reaching a consistent and applicable understanding and definition of city types seems paramount. Otherwise constant disputes about the nature of settlements, and city-ness of urban signs is unavoidable. The reasoning and explanations presented in short in the above article not only provide definitions of which demography is incapable, but also give insight into the nature of urban settlements, which becomes of primary importance when discussing

communicative behaviours of people interacting in urban environments. The author believes that the definition of metropolitan discourse, which may be postulated when following the reasoning provided here, will give rise to a detailed understanding of urban signs, their functions, structure, types, and urban communication as such. There also is a broader perspective to the discussion of metropolitan discourse and urban semiotics within all branches of humanities. According to recent calculations of UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme) and The Population Institute of Global Population Education the number of city-dwellers and the country-folk became equal at the beginning of the 21st century. However, by 2010 some countries will see the ratio as 9:1 in favour of townspeople, while before 2050 the global average will reach a staggering 2/3 out of 9 bln human beings populting the Earth. It means that in 40 years there will be as meany people inhabiting cities as there are all human beings altogether in every single stretch of land today. To put 6 bln people into one category of city dwellers without appropriate understanding of city-ness, city types, and metropolitan discourses, messages and signs will hinder not only discussions but also studies. New notions must be extracted from contemporary knowledge and not that far-way future reality. New definitions are required for urban semiotics if signs are to be addressed and studied properly in this new world of cities. Eventually, for the first time in history we should talk about Homo Urbanis who knows nothing besides cities, who communicates only within metropolitan discourse, and who is brought up around and is skilled in urban semiotics as never before. References: Beaujeu-Garnier, J. and G. Chabot. (1971). Zarys geografii miast [Traité de géographie urbaine]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne. Brown, Gillian and George Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. ([1978] 1992). Politeness – Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cialdini, Robert B. ([2001] 2003).Wywieranie wpływu na ludzi [Influence. Science and Practice]. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne. Cook, Guy. ([1989] 1999). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duszak, Anna. (1998). Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa [Text, Discourse, Intercultural Communication]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Goffman, Erving. ([1967] 2006). Rytuał Interakcyjny [Interaction Ritual]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Grabias, Stanisław. (2001). Język w zachowaniach społecznych. [Language in Social Behaviours]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Hall, Edward T. ([1966] 1990). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday. Jałowiecki, B. and M. Szczepański. (2002). Miasto i przestrzeń w perspektywie socjologicznej [City and Space from a Sociological Perspective]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR. Jay, Timothy B. (2003). The Psychology of Language. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Johnston, R. J. and D. Gregory and G. Pratt and M. Watts (eds.). ([2000] 2005). The Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th Edition. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. (1997). Angels and Devils in Hell. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Energeia. Leech, Geoffrey. ([1983] 1989). Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman. Levinson, Stephen C. ([1983] 1985). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maik, W. (1997). Podstawy Geografii Miast [Foundations of Urban Geography]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Markowski, T. and T. Marszał. (2006). Metropolie. Obszary metropolitalne. Metropolizacja [Metropolis. Metropolitan Areas. Metropolisation]. Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk.

Nęcki, Zbigniew. (2000). Komunikacja międzyludzka [Interhuman Communication] Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Antykwa. Pisarkowa, Krystyna (ed.). (2000). Językoznawstwo Bronisława Malinowskiego tom I i II. [Linguistics of Bronisław Malinowski vol. 1 and 2.]. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych UNIVERSITAS. Sager, J. C. (1997). Text Types and Translation. In Text Typology and Translation, Anna Trosborg (ed.), 25-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Scollon, Ron and Suzie Wong Scollon. (2003). Discourses in Place. Language in the Material World. London: Routledge. Sobociński, M. [in writing] Verbal Proxemics in Metropolitan Discourse. Sobociński, M. (2008). [in print]. Alice-in-Wonderland Pragma-semiotics. In Acta Semiotica Fennica. Global Signs. Proceedings from the ISI Summer Congresses at Imatra in 2003– 2006. Helsinki: Hakapaino. Sokołowski, D. (2002). Człowiek i jego miejsce na ziemi [Man and His Place on Earth]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Kurpisz. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. ([1986] 1988). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Szymańska, Daniela. (2007). Urbanizacja na świecie [Urbanisation around the World]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. van Dijk, Teuna A. (ed.). ([1997] 2001). Dyskurs jako struktura i proces. [Discourse as Structure and Process.]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN von Uexküll, Jakob J. (1998). Istota żywa jako podmiot. Łódź: Studio Wydawnicze KARTA. Węcławowicz, G. (2003). Geografia społeczna miast [Social Geography of Towns]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.