antinomies of semiotics in graphic design

28
ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DES IG N PETER STORKERSON Champaign, Illinois Storkerso n, 6-37 © Visible Languag e, 2010 Rh ode Island School of Des ig n Providence, Rhode Island 02903

Upload: illinois

Post on 09-Dec-2023

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DES I G N PETER STORKERSON

Cha m pa ign , Illin ois

Sto rke rson , 6-37

© Visib le Language, 2010

Rhode Isla nd School of Des ign

Provide nce, Rh ode Island 02903

ABSTRACT

The following paper assesses the roles played by semiotics in graphic design and in graphic design education, which both reflects and shapes prac­tice. It identifies a series of factors; graphic design education methods and culture; semiotic theories themselves and their application to graphic design; the two wings of Peircian semiotics and Saussurian semiology and their incon1patibilities; semiology's linguocentrisn1, its affinity to cultural criticisn1 and its seminal role in cultural and social anthropology, structuralism, poststructuralism and deconstruc­tion. It examines the uses and criticisms of sen1iot­ics and semiology in design, their use in graphic design education, and their operationalization within technical communication and hun1an factors as paths that might be applied to graphic design.

6 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

INTRODUCTION

This pa per reflects a n e ffort to unde rsta nd semiotics within graphic

des ign and graphic des ign educa tion and its ap parent lac!, of broad

vi s ibili ty. The re a re ma ny possible reasons including defec ts in

the theories , d iffic ulty in understa nding them or their obscure

te rmi nology, d iffic ul ty in apply ing them , or it could be that graphic

designers a re ave rse to semiotic theo ri es or theori es in general.

The hi story of semio ti cs in des ign indica tes th at there is no one

underlying problem , but a seri es of ant inomies or contradic tions.

Semioti cs is a young fi e ld and not well wo rked out. Semiotic

theo ri es have been separated in to the two schools of Pe irce and

Saussure. Saussure 's is a theo ry based on language, not visual or

senso ry communicati on. Pe irce can be applied to the broad range

of communication , but it is d iffi cul t to un de rstand , having a s trange

voca bulary. One might like to combine them , but there are some

th orn y incompatibilities be tween them. Peirc ian semiotics also

needs a bri dge to graphic deSign , but th ere is not the c riti cal mass of

people within graphic des ign to build it , and no one can build it fo r

th em. Graphic des igners a re la rgely ave rse to theo ry and the schola rly

publi cations that could cs tablish an d develop a semioti cs that would

be appropriate to graphic design .

Semiotics and semiology a re ve ry much a li ve and used elsewhere.

Semiology was a part of graphic des ign for much of the last

cen tury. It has provided a continuing critical base fo r social theory,

deconstruc ti on and " the in te rpretive turn " in the humanities.

Semiotics is used in technica l communication and semiotic concepts

a re used in human facto rs to decompose and analyze in terpretation .

Semioti cs ca n se rve as a framework to uni fy qui ckly developing but

sca tte red li te ratures in naturalistic thinking as they are relevan t

to des ign . The semioti c model of d iagrammatic thinking has made

poss ible a comprehensive understa nding not only of di agrams, bu t

th e prin ciples behind vis ual and spatial thinking. It demons trates

the profoun d importance of graphical comm u nica ti on in the human

leap fro m expe ri ences in the wo rld to the abili ty to think about those

experi e nces in abs tract te rm s: to make orde r of what is and imagine what could be (Stje rnfeld, 2007).

ANTI NOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 7

THE CULTURE OF GRAPHIC DESIGN EDUCATION

Graphic design has a longs tand ing and close relationship to the visua l

fine arts and the stud io/ateli e r tradition of instruction by apprentice­

ship as practiced eighty years ago at the Bauhaus and at the Schule

fur Gestaltung Basel, now the Basel School of Oes ign , which until

recently functioned as a "vocational level school" (Maie r, 1977 ; Visual

Communica tion Institute, 2009). Vocational and ate lier models share

a non-intellectual approach to education, in which the knowledge

acquired is largely tacit and not ava ilable for examination, even by

the knower (Polanyi, 1966) . As Dietmar Win kler has chronicl ed, the

Bauhaus worked to rationalize formal aspects of design to be more in

tune with industrial society, but in the ir own practice and teaching

they were trad itional.

Hans Meyer in 1928 and Mies van der Rolle in 1930, had been

steeped in the trade school tradition, w hich saw non-applied

research and intellectual pursuit as the dilettante activity Qf the

rich and aristocratic. Unfortunate ly, the Bauhausfaculty did not recognize the restTictions of their own straightjachet. (Winhler,

1997, 131)

Their design culture also "naively" perpetuated traditiona l class

structure through their pedagogical style and their paternalistic socia l

ou tlook, which inc reasingly made them out of touch with the use rs of

their des igns.

Although the school 'wanted to be perceived as having a democratic view of society, in fact, it imposed its ideo logy without consultation with or concern for those w ho had to live

with its experiments (Winhler, 1997, 131).

The Bauhaus became particularly influential in the US, es tablish ing

its distinctive design aesthetics a nd culture as many of its facu lty

immigrated to teach at Yale, Ill inois Institute of Technology, Ha rvard

and elsewhere.

8 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

Graphic des ign is s till sometimes taught outside of academia, in

dedi cated a rt schools, as well as in uni ve rsit ies. Pa rti cul a rly in the

United States, th e large majori ty of graphic des ign progra ms are

within la rge r visual fin e a r t depa rtments or schools of a rt within

universiti es. The design/fin e a rt ins titutional rela tionship has s teered

graphic des ign education towa rd the academic fine arts pedagogy and

culture , which itself is stud io based a nd non-academic (Storkerson ,

2008) . Te rmina l degrees have in des ign his tori ca lly been a t the

Mas te rs or Masters of Fine Arts leve l. The di spa rities be tween MFA

and PhD deg rees within academia are now being resolved by the

necess ity th a t design ed uca tors a Iso have Ph D degrees (Bonsiepe,

2004, 28). Pa r t icul a rl y in the UK, the re is a movement toward

es tabli shing a "practi ce based" PhD, which has proven controversial ,

because it does not conform to accepted sta ndards of schola rly

knowledge, which is ex plic it a nd discurs ive, rather th an tac it.

Advocates of the prac ti ce based Ph D have a rgued th a t schola rship and

kn owledge should be rede fined to accommodate it (Ca ndlin , 2000).

A particul a r issue is tacit kn owledge, (Polany i, 1966; Rust, 2007)

which cannot be explic itly ex pressed or de fin ed. Ex plic it , discursive

knowl edge is defined , communicable, open to examination and

supports in tegra ted systems of knowl edge with breadth a nd depth. It

is not surpri s ing th a t there is resistance to Ph D di sserta tions in which

kn owledge is cons idered conta ined implic itl y within a n object.

Fine a rts progra ms have grea tes t contac t with traditional

schola rship in art history in a rt history a nd aes theti cs, both of which

a re squa rely on th e hum a ni st a nd interpre tive side of CP Snow's two

cultures. Academic fin e a r ts cultures a re often both humanist and

deCidedly a nti- sc ience. lle re is one educato r's reaction not onl y to

semiotics, bu t to theo ry in genera l.

Semiotics is academic and a bstract. I would venture that fo r

m any studio in stnLCco1·s, the01}' i s simply beside the point.

Better CO discuss successftLl graphic design or the an canon w ith students and let them get to worh (Crisp, 2004).

ANTINOM IES OF SEM IOTICS IN GRAPHIC OESIGN 9

Profess ional graphic des igners are often Similarl y inc li ned . In fo rma tion

design is an exception , whe re user testing, expe rime nts CFrasca ra,

199 7) and benchmarking a re used, but not even eve ryo ne who

pract ices inform ation deSign , does so in thi s w~ly. For exa mple , the

Am erican Institu te of Graphic Arts' DeSign fo r Dellloc racy project

was begun after the US election debacle of 2000, whe re , in a very

close presidenti al e lect ion , one of the major facto rs deciding the

election was so-called vote r error, in which many voters we re unable

to deCipher confus ing ba llo ts . The project aimed at im proving ba llot

des ign and redesigning of election mate ria ls and the grap hic standards

that specified them CLa usen , 2007). The project leade r described the

oppos ing forces within the project as c rea ti vity and deco ra tion versus

clea r comlllunication :

What we're trying to clo with inj'(JTmation clesign has to clo with

legibility versus creativity, ancl it cel-tainly cloes cahe cl-eative

profession als to create better ballots, but that issues are n ot

{just] clecoration (Lausen , 2009).

The onl y empirical evidence fo r the efficacy of the graphic redes igns

appea red by chance: I met a fell ow at UIC [Uni versity of Ill inois ,

Chicago ] who was doing [h is] PhD on retention e lections, and he

brough t me this diagram and sa id to me, " .. . yo ll know you should have

this so you can toot yo ur own horn .... proof that this redeSigned ba ll ot

increased pa rtic ipation" CLausen , 2009).

Presuma bly, vote rs had found the older ba ilots so confus ing

that they were discouraged from part ic ipating, so the new ballots

were an improvemen t on tha t level, but that does not demonstra te

improved voter accuracy, which was the ini tiating goa l. T here was

no indication of which a ttributes of the redesign we re respons ible for

the improvement, which were unnecessa ry and which could still be

improved . Under th is so rt of regime , the client is expected to defe r to

presumed expertise which is the tacit, propri etary kn owledge Itale nt

of the crea tive professional. How much mo re effective and persuas ive would graphic des igners be if they made a habi t of testing and measuri ng to optimize th eir des igns and back-up the ir cla ims?

10 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

The lac k of in te llectual preparation among graphic design students

and the lac k of inte llectual content within design program s are well

kn own. In 1969, Print magazine published a n a rticl e eva luating the

then cu rrent sta te of design education that began as follows:

Stuclents, professionals and educato1's are convincecl that it is

time to tahe a new, hard looh at US design schools . What are they doing wrong;:l What, if anything are they doing right. And

is it enO'I./.gh to meet the n eeds Ql the 19 70s? (Dreyfus, 1969, 18)

Thus, there has long been , within graphic des ign and graph ic design

educa tion , a tension be tween the des ire to develop an intellectual

grounding for the field and res istance to doing so . In some senses,

cu ltural criti c ism has been offe red as a substitute , but its critique

e nds, not with constructive competence. Within graphic des ign the

meanings and methods are not di rectl y defined , but glossed over and treated implic itly as fo rmal decisions that "work better" or "resolve"

the des ign.

SEMIOTICS/ SEMIOLOGY

Give n the importance of "mea ning" to design and to the issues to

be addressed here, it is important to clarify what is meant by it.

The terms " mea ning" and "mea ning making" are often used here

because they a re familiar, but they a re not prec ise. "Signification "

and "in terpreta t ion" woul d be more spec ific, but there is no adeq uate

single te rm to use. Instead, these terms emphas ize different aspects

of the sa me phenomenon. "Signification" emphasizes how things

pOint to other thi ngs the wa y a picture of one's mother poin ts to

he r, or a broke n twig points to someone having recently wa lked the

tra il. " In terpretation" e mphasizes that the s ignification is not with in

the object but the person in terp re ting: to someone who doesn't lmow

the mothe r, the picture is ahou t a woman, or middle age, or her

hat (Ba r thes , 1982) and the twig is interpreted by a tracker as an

indicator of someone he is to capture or rescue. The te rm "meaning"

is com monly used in language, to refe r to sign ificat ions of words and

texts , and of the inte rpretive possibi li ties they a llow. In its popular use ,

"meaning" app li es to all of thcse, so it will be used in genera l, but more

precise terms will be used whcn they are needed.

ANTI NOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 11

Designers c reate meaning by visual, spatial and temporal means.

The hope for semiotic theory (semiotics and semiology) has been ,

as a theory of s ignification that might connect des ign moves to the

meanings they communicate.

Semiotics is the explicit hean of graphic design theory, just as i t

is the implicit (subconscious) engine in graphic design practice.

The central role of semiotics is then!/ore clem", as, j1-om this

perspective, eve1Y graphic design er is a semiotician (Shaggs,

1997, 5).

But sign theory has presented dilemmas. One is its bifurcation

into two somewhat incompatible branches: Peirce's semiotics and

Saussure's semiology. Semiotics is a ge neral theory of meaning

construc tion based on cognition . It is a philosophica l theo ry of logic

that is somewhat difficult to unders ta nd an d lac ks researc h methods.

Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotics is a way of understanding

how meaning making, in a ll of its aspects, worhs in the mind.

It can be applied to all types of communication including

behaVior, but, it is a philosophical system, not a research

cool. "Semiotics provicles not a methocl but a point of v iew .. ..

Semiotic arises .f1"Om the a ttempt to mahe thematic f the J grouncl

that is common to all methocls ancl sustains them" (Deely, 1990,

10).

Fernand de Saussure's semiology, in his Course in General Linguistics

(1920), intended to develop a researchable science of language. It is

a theo ry of language , not re la ted to visual, spatia l or tempora l aspec ts

of design. The two also use different s ign theories, Peirce's three part

theory and Saussure's two part theory, so semiology is not merely

a subset of semiotics, but a somewhat different formulation.

12 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

Peirce

Pei rce (1839-1914) was a mathematic ia n , chem ist , scientist and

a philosopher of a na lyt ical be nt. lIe was the founder of mode rn

pragmatism: the view tlnlt th ings a re what th ey do; they a re kn own

to people by how they affect people and how people can affect them.

In shor t if some thing cannot be sensed , a nd has no de tectable effects

on the things th a t ca n be sensed , there is no way to kn ow it ex ists.

Exper ience comes about through inte rac tion , a nd a ll kn owledge is

ultimately based in concrete expe rie nce. Lakoff and Johnson (1999)

demonstrate the ubiquity a nd necess ity of experientia l metaphors

in language , Gesta lt psychology demonstra tes basic visual concepts ,

a nd Pe irce's semiotics argues that this is a fundamenta l cognitive

principle underl ying experience and thought.

Pragmatism or pragmaticism . .. was thus Peirce's way of

insisting that abst1Twtions must give an account of themselves

ancl must clo it in terms 0./ concrete experience (Peirce, .1934, V).

Experi ences and objects, like a tree or a do ll a r as expe rienced are

represen tations or menta l interp re tations , objects not lite rally as

they a re, since there a re no trees or doll a rs in the head , but mental

objects s ignifi ed by ini t ial senso ry s ignals and dependent on how the

sensory s ignals a re in terpreted. Pei rce described this semiosis as a

three-part re lationshi p of representa men, object and intepretant. The

"rep resentame n," a lso ca lled a "sign vehicle" or "signal" is what comes

to the eye. The object or refe rent is what it is perceived or poin ted to,

such as "dolla r" and the "inte rpretant," "significance" or "meaning"

in the vernacu lar, is the notion of what a dollar is.

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 13

Peirce constructed a taxonomy of signs, s tarting with symbols, indices

and icons. Symbols are "a rbitra ry signs" in whi.ch the fo rm of the

sign is not rela ted to its s ignification and the s ignification is ass igned by convention. A stop s ign is a symbol: a set of marks which have

been assigned a significance, in this case, "stop here" also signifies. A

stop sign can range in size, or even be painted on a wa ll , as long as

its forms are recognizable. Words and street s igns are examples of

symbols. Indices are indicators-the angle of the sun , the shadows it

projects can be used as a clock. A train can be used as a clock if one

kn ows its schedule. Th ese are indices or natural signs. They refl ect

causal obse rva tions such as the movement of shadows. Icons function

by haVing a similarity of resemblance or ana logy. In a line chart, the

line that ri ses as it goes to the right is an icon ic s ignification of "rising

prices. " A religious icon is not a good example, because it is actuall y a

collection of symbols , like the halo, and codes of color, pose, clothing

and so forth, which have been aSS igned or encoded as s ignals to s ignify

the Virgin Mary.

Natural signs-indices and icons-very often point to cultural

meanings , such as getting to work on time, but they are cognitive

ra ther than cultural in the sense that the initial signifi ca tions a re

inferred rather than assigned by convention, as when the hour is

infe rred by the angle of the sun , ra ther than read from a digital clock.

They present the individual as in terpreting for him or herself, making

use of the environment in a parti cula r contex t. Recent psychology

studies have demonstrated the extent to which iconicities, too , are

innately cogniti ve and not learned through language. Por example,

Ramachandran (2004, 2006) describes s tudies in which given two

shapes , one "bulbous and amoeboid" and the other like "a jagged

piece of glass," and two words for them "kiki " and "booba," that the

vast majority of peo ple across different cultures in tui tively expec t the

bulbous shape to be a "booba " a nd the jagged shape to be a "ldld. "

This is a c ross-moda l iconicity linking s ight and sound.

14

Looh at the hi hi and looh at the sound hi/d. They both share

one property, the hihi v isua l shape has a sharp inflexion and

the sound hi hi representecl in YOW" aucliw1Y cortex, in the

hearing centres in the brain a lso has a sharp suclclen inflexion

of the souncl, ancl the brain pe1:fonns a cross-moclal synesthetic

abstraction saying the only thing they have in common is the

property ofjaggeclness. Let me extract thac property, tha t 's w hy

they're both hihi" (Ramachanclran, 2003).

VISIBLE LANGUAGE

Not onl y that, it is possible to isolate the cognitive a rchitecture

behind such "c ross modal" icon ic ity. The abstracti on of sharpness

takes place in a distinc t site in the brain , and if that s ite is damaged,

persons "cannot do this cross-modal associations even though they're

.fluent in conversation, theY'l'e intelligent, they seem normal in other

l-espects " (Ramachandran , 2003). Thus, these iconic iti es do not come

from la nguage or culture but wiring, and they a re fo rmed in tuitively,

below consciousness. The appca rance of iconi city, he re sharpness as

an independent third element , demonstrates Peirce's idea that the

emerge nce of a s ignification as something new and independent, that

can be cons ide red in its own right, makes poss ible the emerge nce

of abstract thought. It is an im portant find ing fo r anyone who

communicates us ing sensory, experientia l modes . Such cogni tive and

neural studi es a lso hinl at how semiotics can be made resea rchable

a nd usefuL

Saussure

Saussu re's sem iology has been e normously in fluential in lingu istics ,

philosophy and hum anist thought in ge ne ral including soc ia l,

cu ltu ra l and politi ca l thought. By concentrating on language systems

as prima ry constituents of cul tural meanings, it enabled language to

be viewed as th e pri mary source of meaning, rathe r than just a

carrie r, a nd through that, it he lped to shape twentieth-century

phi losophy, he rmeneu ti cs, anthropology, SOCiology, cultural studies

and , e nabled struc turalism, pos t structuralism , deconstruction and th e "lingui stic turn."

As the medieval philosophers would have it, the 'way things

are (ordo essendi) shapes the 'way we perceive things (ordo

cogitandi) and this gets expressed in the way we specd~ (onlo

loquendi). Especially since the 'linguistic turn' in philosophy

and social science, this has been more or less reversed, It is now language, the way we spea/z, that is considered to shape w hat

things we see and how we see them (Crotty, .1 998, 88).

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 15

Saussure's semiology uses a two part model in which a mark, object

or sound is a signal tha t is ass igned a meaning, unrelated to its

physical a ttributes. 'Words a re prime exa mples, except whe re they

a re onomatopoetic (Saussure, 1986,69). Wh ile s igns are the a toms

and molecules of language, it is the language as a system, its gram mar

and syntax, that dominates and de te rm ines thei r meaning. Barth es

ca lls th is system a language , or "langue, " "language wi thout speech"

(Barthes , 1967, 14) , a value system that expresses itse lf in what can

and cannot be sa id . A language is a "coll ec tive contract. " Between

langue and signs a re paroles (words) , wh ich are the things that are

expressed within the language's sanctioned possibiliti es.

In short, with in semiology rea li ty re fl ec ts language. The language

is a collective object tha t encapsula tes cul ture. This primacy of

language and the lack of s ignifica ti on as an independent entity,

la rgely bypass cognitive fun cti on and the individual as ac tor. In

Peirce's semioti cs meaning can be de te rm ined by individuals . Within

sem iology, the emphas is a nd power to cl e te rmine meaning are in ves ted

in the collective. The diffe rences be twee n Pe irce and Saussllre

refl ect the diffe rent inte res ts of logic ians and linguists, and they

a lso reflect d iffe re nt political c ul tures . Pe irce's sem iotics projects

an autonomous ind ividual who thinl{s fo r him or her self, whi le

in Saussuri an sem iology power is coll ec ti ve and systemic, and the

individual is surrounded by and integral to the culture and its va lues

as opera tionali zed in systems of ru les . The his tory of semiology's

association with culture theory a nd c riti c ism sugges ts th a t some of its

persuasiveness is deri ved from its socia l and poli tica l affi nities tha t

gave human ities new politi cal relevance (Flyvberg, 2001).

Later developments

The te rm "semioti c" is often used to cover both semioti cs and

semiology and to hybridize the m in a way tha t semiotics is invoked

to claim a ra ti onal grounding, for a semiologica l content, without fully

recognizing the differences between th e two models. Fo r example,

Umberto Eco (1979) descri bed semioti cs and semiology as a div is ion

of labor. In his wa tergate model, Eco described a system fo r regul a ting

wa ter flow in which a se ries of lights se rve as a rb itra ry s igns ind icating

th e fl ow and level of wate r according a code . He demonstra ted tha t

given such a code, it is possible to in fe r meanings outside of those defin ed by the code . The indexica l sign, like the tra in tha t is used as a clock, is wrapped around the coded arbitra ry s igns. Eco uses the same

method in reverse orde r to describe recognizing a ca t.

16 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

Suppose 1 am crossing a darh street and glimpse em imprecise

shape on the side,[Dalh. Until 1 recognize it, J w ill '[vonder '\ vhat

is it?" But this "''[vhat is ie" may be (and indeed sometimes is) translated as "what does it m ean:>" When my attention is better

adjusted, and the sens01:y data have been better evaluated, J

fina lly recognize that it is a cat. J recognize it because J have

already seen other cats. Thus J apply to an imprecise ji,eld of

sensory stimuli the cultural unit «cat». / can even translate the

experience into a verbal interpretant (/ 1 saw a cat/) (Eco , 1979,

165) .

Peirce's mode l is used ln perception as semios is, seeing the shape

as a ca t , whil e once we get to the sign ification , "ca t" is a culturaV

linguisti c objec t, under the purview of semiology and the coll ective

institution of language , This combining created a hos t of confusions

and contradictions, as noted by Tomas Maldonado (1970 , 119-123).

More recently, Skaggs and Shank (1997) began work on a more useful ,

analytical approac h to integrat ing semiotics and semiology for des ign

purposes.

Semiology presents obvious difficulti es for graphic design as it

lacks sensory dimensions, whil e images have distinct orga ni zational

characte ri stics, they do not corres pond to th e formal , systematic,

syntactic structures of language , but to the visual and spatial aspects

of experi ence. JVloreover des igners depend on intuiti ve, unconscious

levels of reception, in additi on to learned la nguages , Organi zationa l

devices (location , se paration , contrast, clustering, openness,

conta inment, etc .) for example , may be formulated as conventions,

but a re also rooted in cogniti on , as described by Gestalt theo ry

(Wertheimer, 1923/1958; Koftla, 1935). In many respects , then , what

dist inguishes des ign as a fi e ld is its use of natural, ex periential signs

in addition to conve ntio nal ones to communicate and associate

experience and concept. This has been parti cul a rly obvious in the

des ign influenced by the Bauhaus , Ulm and Swiss modern deS igners,

who have foc used on abstraction , rather than descriptive illus tration .

ANTINOMIES OF SEM IOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 17

INFLUENCES OF SEMIOLOGY AND SEMIOTICS

Despite its linguocentri sm , semiology was highly influential in

twentieth-century design and became integral to the graphic designer's

identity as it was applied metaphori cally to graphic design. In 1986,

Abraham Moles summed this up , he described the graphic des igner

as one who gives "legibility" to an artificial , man-created world , in

which the natural relationships of human to environment have to be

deliberately created , which is to say enginee red .

Thus, we can anticipate the promotion of the role played by

the graphic designer, into that of a sign engineer w ho precisely

designates the symbolic aspects of the envimnment to prepare

us for real actions. It is this app lication to the unive1-se of that

general principle of graphic design which allows us to achieve

correspondence Q/ the 'l'iJorld of signs with personal l~/estyle-to

connect the symbolic aspects of successive landscapes or

ideoscenarios, w hichfonn part of each individual's vital

trajectory towm·d a tentp01-my destination within the prQject

pursued (lVlo les, 1986, 44).

Within the a rtific ial but "real" spaces of the human built environment

and the virtual spaces of the page, the designer is cha rged with

"assembling signs into s::ymbols and ... symbols into space [to create}

an ecology of signs" (Moles, 1986,45). In this art ific ial environment,

the designer engineers i nforma tion, propaganda, social consciousness ,

consonance of actions with goals and an autod idactic function , though

"the gTCtphic designer is not responsiblefor the content of a m essage,

which is always imposed by others, but, rathe1~for a style and its social consequences " (Moles , 1986, 47).

The influence of semiology and semiotics can be seen in a numbe r of

a reas :

• Appli cation of "language" and lingu istic concepts to visua l communications ; the use of rh etori ca l tropes within visual

communication.

• Application of linguistic concepts to systematize the construc ti on of

sign systems and visual languages.

• Iconicity in logotype and symbol design: based not on object­

to-object resemblance , but on semantic iconicity, which is often

cross-modal.

18 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

Some of th e influences were direc t, as, for example, Moles , Bonsiepe,

Maldonado and other coll eagues at the Ulm School of Des ign , in

the 1960s, were investigating semiotic theories and working to

apply discurs ive kn owledge to design. But, many graphic designers

seem to have had littl e or no inte rest in theory pe r se, so semiotic

or semiological ideas influenced th em indirectly as the ideas were

popula rized and ga ined prominence in the soc ia l culture, and as

des igners observed each othe r's wo rk. Used metaphorically these ideas

could point at what could be done , leav ing the designer to resolve how

to do it by familiar methods.

?vlodernist design

In the twentieth century, first in Europe , then in America , graphic

design turned away from illustra tion , to a more abstract method

of communication. As an idea l type , within illustration , a class or

concept is Signi fi ed by a member, drawn in such a way that many

individual aspects are taken as unimportant (summer is a sun bather

on the sand), while in design the tendency has been to indicate the

concept or c lass without refe rence to individuals (summer as bright

yellow, blue and white). Exercises of the la tte r so rt have been a staple

of foundati on studies in graphi c design (Maier, 1977 , 323-354). It was

applied to abstract forms such as logos, in which the sign is iconic ,

not as a pictogram , resembling its refe rent, but by embodying largely

semantic cha racteristics tha t the viewer will impute to the referent.

For example, Frutiger describes hi s i\P logo for the i\eroport of Paris

as follows:

The main image is .. that of the initials AP In deciding the

choice, the legibility of the letters is the 1Twin argument. The

shape of the A recalls the protective roof Qf a house, but at the

same time an arrow pointing tahing.flight. Pfor Paris is like an

abbreviated recollection Q/ the town (Frutiger, 1980, 100).

ANTINOMIES OF SEM IOTI CS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 19

The semantic suggestions of protection and ta king fligh t is an

oblique method of com munication, in which the ini tia ls "i\P" are a

conventional sign or symbol signifying Aeroport Pa ris as its refe rent

or object, while the semanti c inflections of form icon ically s ignify an

interpretant, so that Ae roport Paris, s ignifies safety and flight. \Vhi le

thi s mode of communicati on was based on notions of semiotics and

semiology, it also remained firml y within the aesthe tic practice of

graphic design and could be approached by the des igner in a non­

theoretical way.

SIGN SYSTEMS AND VI SUAL LANGUAGES

The development of visual s ign systems was encouraged by

internationali zation , and the increasing use of technologica l sys tems,

leading to the need for s tandard ized visua l sign systems. Martin Krampen (1965) traces road-warning signs to 1909 (we ll before

Saussure's semiology) and four pictographic s igns that were adopted a t

an international congress in Pari s.

Otto Neurath's Isotype , des igned by Ce rd Arn tz and Erwin Bern a th ,

is the first well known modern example of a language based on

pictograms. Neuratll was a membe r of the Vienna Ci rcle of pos itivist

philosophers who had some contact with semiotic ian Charles Morri s

(1938) , but Isotype was des igned without the apparent influence

of sign theory. It was not des igned as a "visual language" so much

as a speciali zed tool for communicating propaganda: to educate

populations about their socie ti es. According to Marie Neurath:

20

From the very beRinninR it was clear to Otto Neurath that w hat

he 'wanted to create and introduce 'was not a new international

language of the type of the Chinese script, but an educational

tool to mahe selective statements. He diel not want to get riel of the usual printed text, but wanteel an auxiliary tool for better communication (Neumth, 1 974, 145-146).

VISIBLE LANGUAGE

The visual aspects of Isotype refl ect thc influences of German expres­

s ionism , constructi vism and soc iali st realism rathe r than semiotics or

semiology. The pic tograms we re simplified c haracte ri za tions of social

roles and s itua ti ons rmhe r th an visuali za ti ons of concepts, and they

were brought togethe r in images that make brief narrati ves, such as

a docto r ta king notes, sitting ac ross from a patient. rts language was

editori al and expressive ra ther than coo l.

Othe r sys tems we re influenced by semiology, both directly and indi­

rectl y, as it provided tools for the developme nt of sys tems of arbitrary

and quasi-arbitra ry s igns or "glyphs" which became an increaSing

focus of graphic design up to the 1970s. These included both histori ­

cal s tudi es of glyphs (e.g., Frutige r, 1978/1989) and the systems of

symbols used fo r purposes ranging fro l11 road warnings to wayfinding,

and s igns for specific areas of activity such as agriculture, religion

and home economics (Dreyfus, 1984). The November-December

1969 issue of Print magaz ine was devoted to international signs and

symbols, as a major initi a tive of ICOG RADA, the International Coun~i1

of Graphic Design Associations. It included an articl e by Marga ret

Mead (1969) on the anthropological conside rations of intern ational

glyphs or symbols, pointing out that there we re no universa l symbols,

then offe ring a taxo nomy of glyphs, their limi ta tions in comparison to

languages , and ways in which glyphic sys te ms can be built.

oecg~00 No

vehicles

Figu re 1 Imenwciollal road sigw;

No entry

No No No No parking stopping restrictions speed limit

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 21

The glyphic systems des igne rs created , whether arbit ra ry or CJuas i­

pic tographic, also made use of Saussurian notions of grammar, and of phonemes (fundamenta l units of sound) and morphe mes (fundamental

units of meaning such as root, prefix and suffix), by using s tro kes

and simple fo rms in an analogous way. Compared to ]so type, these

systems are more language like. The ir fo rms te nd to be visuali zations

of concepts rather than abs tracted cha racterizations, they are cool

and in formati ve , largely without editori al conte nt, and whe re needed,

there were systematic ways to combine signs. The language LoCos,

invented by Yukio Ota in 1964, for example, uses a dot to indicate

now, a dot fo llowed by a dash to indica te the pas t and a das h followed

by a dot to indica te future. It uses a c ircle open at the top to indica te

a man, which , with a dot in its cen ter, means "me," with an airplane

or e nvelope inscribed becomes pilot or mai lman (http://www. ta mabi.

ac.jp/Soumu/gailhojo/se ika/2002/kyoudou-ota .pdf). LoCos is currentl y

being investiga ted as a possible visual language fo r cell phone "texting"

(Ma rcus, 2007).

Fisherman that

figure 2

--...

will

/"'oCos: ThcaJish ermCUl w ill return wdoyj;-olll rh e seo.

22

today return

VISIBLE LANGUAGE

from sea

DESIGN EDUCATION

Sign theo ry is also c redited with the development of the noti on of

"visua l rheto ric ," the application of rheto rical principles and tropes

with origins in oral to visua l represen tat ion. At !-lfG mm , Bonsiepe

(1965) systema ti ca lly analyzed vi sua l semantics and rhe toric,

particularly in advertis ing (Ulm , 14/15/16) . [-lis rhe tori cal figures

included visual/ve rbal comparison ("s harp ideas" depicted by sharp

pencils) , visual/ve rbal analogy (" refu eling" depicted by hummingbird

feeding on a fl ower) , visual/ve rbal me tonymy ("precise" depicted as a

ca li per measuring th e globe) , ve rbal specification (image with titlc),

visual subs titution (computc r "greedy colla r" depicted as a punch

ca rd curved and fo lded to resemble a co ll a r), visual/verbal paralleli sm

(abu ndance of a ir indicated by an a rea of light gray) and associative

medi a tion ("Ta ke a holiday from eve ryday drinks! " with sunse t and a

ca lm sea vi ewed through a po rth ole).

Whi le Bonsiepe's examples we re largely of text-image juxtapos itions,

Ha nn o Ehses demonstrated the use of rhetori c as a teaching

method to ge ne rate grap hic images (Ehses, 1984). Students could

be assigned to utilize diffe rent tropcs to produce a variety of

solutions. 1\ se ries of student poste rs on Shakespeare's Macbeth show

diffe re nt tropes: metaphor (a lion-like rende ring of Macbeth 's fa ce),

a ntithes is (Macbeth's face and c rown split in half to show loya lty

and malignancy), irony (Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as sty lish and

"amiable"), personificati on (bleeding a rmor), meton ymy (crown and

blood fo r king and carnage), synecdoche (eyes for man) , periphrases

(the ba ited trap facing Macbeth), pun (three witches pictured on the

diadem of hi s c rown), and hyperbolc (a tiny king staggering unde r th e

we ight of a huge crown) .

A recurre nt theme in the exa mples from pictograms to artific ial

languages and visual rheto ri c is the cata lytic role of sign theory in

c rea ting o r promoting ways of approac hing communication . Once

those wa ys of approaching communication are es tablished , they can

develop independe nt of the und erl ying theo ry. For exa mp le, while

class ica l rheto ric is based on oratory, an instructor needs only to

present the tropes and examples to demonstrate their meaning. As vi sual rheto ri c itsel f demons trates, the tropes re fl ect underlying cross-modal ico ni c iti es tha t ca n link language with image. Similarl y,

th e application of lingu istiC te rms such as phoneme and morpheme to

graphic gestures of stroke and shape , ca n be fit into a logica l puzzling

out of how to modula rize th e construction of abstract signs and

languages.

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 23

In 1979, Thomas Ockerse and Hans va n Dijk described a system

of instruc tion based on Peirce, in use a t the Rh ode Island Sc hool

of Des ign (Ockerse, 1979). It decomposed sign production in to the

Peircian triad of sign vehicle , object and interpretant (sign ificance)

and the larger ca tegories of syntactics or grammar of fo rm (e .g., gestalt

principles) , semantics (representation of object and inte rp re ta n t)

and pragmatics (the rela ti on to user and sende r). Ockerse and van

Dijk , described a num ber of exe rcises in which these va ri ables were discretely manipula ted.

Some of the projects eleal w ith equivalencies at the structural

or sem an tical level as i11fluenceel by processes of substitution.

In other projects, contextual m anipulation eletennineel eleg1-ees

oj significance. Some projects (su ch as the score) m ainly con cerned w ith sign -object 1-elations and rules of logical

fo n nation in the end become super sign s [w ith multiple

simultaneous interpretantsJ (Ocherse and van Dijh, 1979, 363).

The approach taken by Ockerse and van Dijk is expli c it in its

integration of semiotic concepts and principles into the making of

graphic objec ts ranging from p ictographic and abstract way fi.nding

signs to word- image communications and visual scores represen ting

complex sequences or actions . Th is meth od , li ke tha t of I-Ianno

Ehses, a ttempts to link the tac it knowledge of making with discursive

me takn owledge , to enlarge the deSigner's c rea tive scope . The

Ockerse-van Dij k method , furthe r locates the discursive knowledge

in a ge neral framework that is relevant to graph ic des ign as a whole .

In the meth ods of Ehses and Ockerse-van Dijk, expli c it concepts are

used in th e conte nt of instruction to li nk tacit knowledge to d iscursive

Im owledge, developi ng the des igner's abil ity to concep tualize and to

apply concepts across media and modes of cOllllllunication. These

are just examples . There h ave been and there a re certa in ly otbers working in this area . It is not poss ible to know how many, because des ign educators do not generally publi sh their syllabi and teaching

techniques . That re ticence does not bode well for the transm iss ion

of such pedagogy. It is more consis tent with the loss of content over

time as pas t exercises a re repea ted while the pedagogica l con tent is

forgotten.

24 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

RECEPTION OFTHEORIES

Whatever influence semiotics a nd semiology have had in practice , th ey

havc becn viewed as problematica l theo ries for des ign. In contrast

to the Bauhaus , th e fa cul ty of the IIfG UIm took a strong inte rest in

theory and the application of knowl edge to design but they were also

awa re of the limits of rat iona li zation. They looked for a middle road:

Hence, on th e one hanel, the Ulm m ethoelology - or w hat is

consielereel to be the Ulm m ethoelology - has given rise to a

resistance 'Lvhich even r eiTI,/oTces the romancic atciWcle cowarels

elesign. On the other hanel, ic has broughc about an a ltogetheT

ineliscriminate, and often U11iouneleel hope in elesign uneler the

scientl/ic aegis " (J\!/alelonado anel Bonsiepe, 1964, 11).

They looked with in discursive kn owledge for new wa ys to think and

stressed that techniques shou ld be seen pragmaticall y, according

to " the ir instrumc ntal \'alue." (19). IGauss I<.ri ppendorff ca lled this

"scie ncc for design" (I<rippendorff, 2006, 73-74) Distinct from science

of des ign or des ign science, sc iencc for des ign operates within prac ti ce

as a way to c reative ly make use of lmowledge.

M.a ldonado and I<rippe ndorff, both criti c ized semio ti cs in a number

of wa ys . Ma ldonado argued that:

The attempt to mahe use of a semiocic sec of ieleas to elescribe

communicative (anel even aesthetic) phenomena in chefielels

(~f aTchicecture, urbcmistics , anel "inclustria l clesign" have n ot

y ieleleel the results that m any expecteel, fOT m any reasons,

but above a ll fOT the lach of maturity in the semiotic itse!l"

(J\!/alelon aclo, 197011972, 119).

This "lac k of ma tu rity" was re fl ectcd in th e semioti cs-semiology

spli t and th e d iffe ring inte rpre tat ions of Pe irce by later theorists ,

but pa rti cul a rl y, the prob lem of ope rationa ll y applying semioti cs :

The semiotics (or the sem iolo,gy) (~f' architecture scill remains at the m etaphorical level. It woulel seem th a t, up to lW'LV, a ll

eJfrn-ts have been directecl exclusively tow m-cl a sllbsciwtion

(~/ the termin ology (~r another, anellictle more (Malelonado,

197011972, 123).

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC OESIGN 25

Visuals can be class ified according to this taxo nomy. Images a re on

an axis with directives (pointing a t what they show) at one e nd and

decora tives (evoking e motions) at the o ther. Icons, sLi ch as, diagrams,

charts and tables ca n be placed in the fi e ld acco rding to an orth ogonal

axis with image at one end and informative language a t the oth er,

ta bles being the most language li ke. Images "lac k 1) c lea r con tras ts, 2)

filte rs for deta il and 3) reli able ge nerali za ti ons" whil e diagrams, which

a re close r to informati ve language provide all of these.

Ethi cs represents ope ra ti ona li za tion , that is, the re lationships

between specifi c choices of mea ns (whether to use a n image , di agram

or tex t) and goa ls (how a communica ti on is understood). The authors

invoke Pe irce's concept of e thics as deli berate action with respec t

to a goal.

Ethics is the study of w hat ends of action we are de liberately

prepared to adopt. That is r ight action 'l..vhich is in C011j'cn-rnity to

ends w hich we are prepared deliberately to adopt (Peirce, 1933).

The technical communicator has ethi ca l ob ligations to thc audience

to provide "tnu/1fu l an d accurate communications" (STC, 1998).

This requi res a "correct identification of com municative goals shared

by p1"eSen te1" and audience alihe" (STC, 1998, 197) .

Technical com.mu nicators are ethically obliged to be awm"e Q/ w hich i11/on nation-design strategies are e1f'ective an d w hich are

not, and u nder w hat Ci1"CUmstances (STC, 1998,207) a nd Th.ose

·who use clu ttered an d complicated graphics simply becau se

they lihe cluttered and complicated g1"aphics may commit an

ethical breach .. . if their goal to satisfy them selves does not tahe

into account the audience goal of complete understanding.

l!onest communication requires that decoratives , indi ca ti ves and

in fo rma ti ves be controll ed to promote comprehens ion , representing

the informati onal con tc nt and d irecting the audi cnce towa rd tha t content rather than away from it. "No visual is inhc rently ethi ca l or none thi ca l. Rheto ri cal e thiL:s is always de te rmined in matc hing the

authorial goa ls to audi ence goa ls" (STC, 1998,208).

This exa mple illustra tes both how Pe irce's semiotics ca n be applied

to the des ign of graphics, and how the appli cation of theo ry ca n cla rify

a fi eld in ways tha t a re useful in both practice a nd instruc t ion . Such analyt ica l too ls wo uld he vc ry hc lpful to des igners in cnabling the m, on a prOject-by-p rOject bas is, to better spcc ify the ir goa ls a nd thc

meth ods.

28 VIS IBLE LANGUAGE

Semiotics as a fram eworh for research in psychology: th e lens model

Fina ll y, Pe irc ian semioti cs ca n se rve as a framework within which to

make use of cognitive resea rch for des ign purposes. There is an increas­

ing lite ra ture in psychology on experi enti a l thinhing, which does not

have a good fra mewo rk in psychology to make it usa ble. Egon Brunswik's

lens th eory shows a way to analyze in te rpre ta tion th a t fits well within a

semioti c frame a nd ca n link it to the construction of designs. It does not

provide a se t of rules for how to des ign , but supports research tha t can

provide knowledge that is applica ble to graphic constructi on .

Brunswik's frame is pragmatic. The orga nism (a human or an y other

crea ture tha t ac ts in the world) seeks to act appropria tely with the

environment for the furth erance of its goals (To lman , 1951 , 13) . This

is the objecti ve leve l a t which th e orga nism succeeds or fails-it stops

at the cli ff or fa lls off. To sll cceed and survi ve, it needs an internal

representa ti on of its environme nt that fun ctionally co rresponds to

th a t environme nt. The orga ni sm's cogni t ive job is to use "proximate"

sensory informati on as indices , s ignify ing objects and events comprising

the "dis ta l" enviro nment to mal{e that environment predic table. This is

diffi cult in na tural environments , because a cause in the environment

can have a numbe r of e ffects and an effect can have had any of many

causes. The organism rece ives sensory inform ati on in diffe rent modes

(S ight, sound , touch) and from diffe rent organs (eyes, ears, skin). There is ofte n redundancy be tween senso ry inputs (see ing and hea ring the

hamme r hit the na il ) and the organism integra tes and weighs those

va rious indica tors in order to come up with a reli able pic ture of what is

happening to what. Put s imply, by we ighing many senso ry s ignals, any of

which ca n be in error, a ve ry high degree of re liability is possible. People

re ly on th eir senses to perce ive their environments, and their senses are

gene rally highl y re li able .

Brunswik' c rys tali zed this approach in his "lens model" of perception ,

below. It mode ls the functi onal co rrespondence be tween the environ­

ment and the orga nism's representa tion of the environment. The initial

focal va ri able, which is the dista l objec t, is ava il able to the orga nism

through a se ri es of mediat ing senso ry Signals or signs, which Brunswik

ca ll s "cues" along with spurious noise and errors . The organism's

achievement of a "stable relationship" or fun ctional correspondence of

the te rminal foca l va riable with respec t to the environme nt, is effected

through "vicarious process ing," in which the orga ni sm decides which

s ignals to pay a ttention to and what they signify. What thi s means is tha t

we human beings , for example, do not ac tua lly expe rience the proximal light on our re tinas (the initi a l foca l va ri able). We see the di stal scene

ANTI NOM IES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPH IC DESIGN 29

of objects around us (final focal va riab le), and we see them as the

same objects ("stable re la tionsh ip") under wielely d iffe ring conditions

of light, distance and angle . This is an achi evement of pe rceptual

in terpreta tion , in wh ich many diffe re nt "cues" a re we ighed , so that we

spontaneously see the clock on a distant church tower as bigger than

the ala rm clock un the night table next to us .

Vicarious mediation (family-hierarchy

Functional arc (probabilistic stabilization of cues, habits) Feedback

0/

Stray causes

Fi.~I,I,.e 4

o o o 0··. o o

The Lens model: composire picl1l re of lhe fiw c tiolla/ !lIiit of behavior. In I::. Bnlns'{~ih : .. Ti,e CO licepllIn/ F'rClme'worh Qf" PsycllOlo,~y 1952. 20. © 1952, Uni'VcT.';icy qf Chicago Pres . ..;. Adapccd 'w ich pcnnissioll.

.~

Stray effects

30 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

variable

A :Weather :model

The lens mode l ca n be scaled , e laborated and extended fo r situa­

ti ons of varying complex ity, a nd for action as well as perception . It

addresses how humans process proximal signs, to make judgments

about the dista l environment. It analyzes how judgments funct ions in

practice, in ways that are help ful to des igne rs.

Application of the lens model

Stewart and Lusk (1990) adapted and applied the lens model in an

experim ent s tudying judgme nt in weathe r fo recasting of microbursts,

rapidly occurring s trong downdrafts , th at pose a serious threat to

aviation.

The lens model shows th e phases of forecas ting. The ex periment

conce rns phases C through F, tha t involve forecasters. At each step

th ere a re judgme nts in whic h what is presented is inte rpreted, and

th a t interpre tation serves as a s ign or "cue" for the next s tep:

1\) Visua l s ignals from thc di splays th a t a re meant as cues to signify

the data that s ignifies the current state of the weather.

B) The forecas ter's perception of the displays is what the forecaster

takes visual signals to s ignify.

C) The forecas te r must "vica riously process" his or her

inte rpre tation of wh at th e displ ays signify as cues indicating

"precursor cues," th a t a re predictive of a developing microburst.

D) The forecas te r processes the precursor cues in making a fi nal

prediction of the likelihood of a microburs t.

: c. D. F. : Objective : Forecaster Microburst • radardata : pe rception forecast

o = Forecaster interpretations

Figtlre 5 5 Sec/Hcllce (!f phoses ill lIIieroiJllrt>rioreCaSlill.!!. /" /.,Ilsh ec at. ,/rldj!1Hc1Il (mel Decisio ll Makill~ ;11 DYlimnie Tasks: Th e CfI,"a: qj'Fo1"('ca''';(i:l,4 fhe Mic mbllrSf. © 1990. America n M ccerolo,4 ica / Soviet,\'.

ANT INOMIES OF SEM IOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 31

The re can be problems a t each step.

C) Th e visual signals may show incorrec t or Ollt of date data.

D) Th e forecaster may n Ot be able to sec the screens properl y

or may m isread the m beca use they are ill egibl e or a mbiguous.

E) The fo recas te r may inte rpre t c ues d iffe re nt ly es pec ially whe n ma iling a CJua li tat ive

interpreta tion, b~lsed on quantitati ve in fo rmation.

F) Th e in te rpretar ion of "precursor cues" to ma ke the ti nal pred icti on are affected

by all the prev ious steps, and the fo recaster's vica rio lls process ing of all of the

precursor cues.

This processing re fl ects forecas ter va ri ables (e .g., bias towa rd

predicting a high or low likeli hood) of a microburst.

Thus, from the sta ndpoint of the fo recas ters , the process can be

decomposed into three se ts of inte rpreta ti ons, each invo lving vicari ous

processing of senso ry inpu t (signs) and or judgments based on those

inputs to interpre t a re mote dista l e nvironmen t. At each s tep, s igns

can be experimentall y changed so th at the vicari ous processing ca n

be detected as the rela tive weight and s ignificance assigned to cues

in di ffe rent situations. Forecaste rs can be compared as indicators of

different training me thods and othe r human vari ables. Us ing hi stori ca l

data, it woul d be poss ible to measure the actual throughput accuracy

of the fo recasting including the theo retica l weather model a nd

methods of measure ment, corresponding to the "objective" level of

fo recas t-environment co n-espondence .

32 VISIBLE LANGUAGE

REr8RENCES

Ba rthes, R. 1964. Elements q/ Semiology. New Yo rk , NY: lIill and Wang.

Bonsiepe , G. 1965. Visual/verba l rh e to ri c . Ulm , 14/15/16,23 -40.

Bonsie pe, G. 2008. The un eas~' re lat io nship between Design and Design Resea rc h. In Mitche l, R. Design Hesem-ch Now. Basel, SW: BirIJ1a user,: Springe r, 25-39

Brunswik , E. 1952. The Conceptual Frameworh q/Psychology. Chicago , IL: Unive rsity of Chicago Press.

Ca ndlin , F. 2000. Pract ice-based Doc torates a nd Questions of Academic Legitimacv. International Journal qlArt and Design Education, 19. 1, 96-101.

Cri sp, D. 2004. Book review of visible s igns: a n introduc tion to semioti cs a nd th e fu nda menta ls of creative des ign . Print, 58.2,34.

Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Hesearch: meani11g and perspective in the research pmcess. Thousand Oaks , CA: Sage Publications.

Deely, J. 1990. Basics ofSem:iotics. Bloomington, IN: Uni ve rsi ty of Indiana Press.

Dreyfus, P. 1969. Des ign ed ucation today: turm oil and transiti on. Print, 23. 5.

Dreyfu s , H. 1984 . Symbol Sourcebooh. New York , NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold .

Eco, U. 1979. A TheolY of Semiotics. Bloomington , IN: Ind iana Unive rsity Press.

Ehses , II. 1984. Representing Macbe th: a case swdy in visual rhe toric. Desi,gn Issues, 1.1 , 53-63 .

Fl yvberg, B. 2001. I'vfald11g social science mC/.t tel-: w hy social inquiry fai ls and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Ca mbridge Uni ve rs ity Press.

Frascara , J. 1997. User-centered Graphic Design: mass communications and social change. Lo ndon: Taylor and Franc is .

Frutige r, A. 1978/1989. Signs and Symbols: their design and m.eaning. Lo ndon: Studio Ed itio ns .

Fru tige r, A. 1980. Ty pe Sign Symbo l. Zurich : Editi ons ABC.

Kinross , R. 1986. Se miotics and design ing. 171f'onnation design journal, 4.3 , 190-1 98.

Koft'ka , K. 1935. PrinCiples ql Gescalc Psychology. New Yo rll, NY: Harcourt , Brace a nd World .

Krampen , M. 1965. Symbols in graphi c communica tion. Design Quarterly, 62 , 1-31.

Krippe ndorff, K. 2006. The Semantic 11ml: a new J'oundati.on.!'ol- design . London, UK: Taylor and Franc is.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New Yo rk , NY: Basic Books .

Lausen , M. 2007 . DesignJ'or dem ocrctCy: ballot and election design. Chicago , I L: Unive rsity of Chicago Press.

La usen , M. 2009. Des igning Change. Design Matters. Urba na, IL: Unive rSity of Illinois, (Accessed June 24 , 2009) http ://des ignmatters.art . uiuc.eduN ideos/marc ia- lausen-21

Lusk, C. 1990 . In Judgment and Decis ion Ma king in Dyna mic Tas ll s: The Case of Forecasting the Microburs t. Weather and Forecasting, 5.4 .

Maier, M. 1977. Basic design principles: the .foundation pmgram at the School qlDesign, Basel. New YO rll , NY: Va n Nos tra nd Re inhold Publishers.

Ma ldonado, 1'. 1970/1972. Nature, design and revolution: coward a critical ecology. New Yo rk , NY: Il at'per a nd Row, Publishers.

Maldonado , 1'. and G. Bons iepe. 1965. Sc ience and DeS ign. ULM, 10/11 , 10-]6.

Mm1I1ing, A. and N. Amare. 2006. Visual-rheroric e thics : beyond accuracy a nd injury. Technical communicacions, 53.2, 195-211 .

Marcus , A. 2007. m-LoCos UI: a uni ve rsa l visible la nguage for global mobile communication. In Jako , J ., edito r. J-[wnan-comptuer inteTCtCtion , Pa rt III , He ll 2007 , LNCS 4552. Berlin: Springer, 144-153 .

ANTINOMIES OF SEMIOTICS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN 35

Mead, M. 1969. Anthropology and Glyphs. Print, 23.6 ,50-53.

Moles, A. 1986. The legibi lity of th e world: a project of graphic des ign. Design Issu es, 3 .1,43-53.

Morris, C. 1938. Foun dations Qf the The01Y Qf Signs. Chicago, IL: Univers ity of Chicago Press.

Neurath , M. 1974. Isotype . fn stnwtional science, 3.2 , 127-150.

NeuratIl , 0. 193 7. BASIC by l sotype. London: Kegan Paul, Trench , Trubner & Co.

Ockerse , 1'. and H. va n Dijk. 1979. Semiotics and graphic des ign educa tion. Visible Language, 13.4, 358-78.

Pe irce, C. 1934. Pragmatislll and Pragmatic ism. In Hartshorne, C. and P. Weiss, editors. The collected papers of ChaTles Sanders Peirce Vol. V. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni versity Press.

Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension . New Yo rk , NY: Doubleday and Co.

Ra machandran , V. 2003. Purple numbe rs and sharp c heese . BSC Reith Lectures 2003: the emerging m ind. BBC Radio 4. (Accessed J une 1, 2009) h ttp:// www. bbc.co. ul\/ radi04/re ith2003/lec ture4.shtm l

Ra machandran , v. , E. Hubbard , P. Butche r. 2004. Synes thes ia, Cross-Activa tion, and the Foundat ions of Neuroepistemology. [n Robertso n, L. and N. Sagiv, edi to rs. Synesthesia: Perspectives from cognitive neuTOscience. Oxford , UK Oxford UniverSity Press, 14 7-190.

Ramachandran, V. and E. Hubbard. 2006. Synesthes ia : what does it te ll us about the emergence of qualia, metaphor, abstract thought, and language? In van Hem men, J. and 1'. Sejnowsld , editors. 23 Problem s in System s Neuroscience. Oxfo rd , UI\: Oxford Un ivers ity Press, 432-473.

Rust , C. 200 7. Unstated contri buti ons-how artistic inquiry can inform in te rd iscip li nary resea rch . fnten lCLtional Journal of Design, 1.3,69-76.

Saussure, F. de 1966. Course in General Lingu·iscics. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Skaggs , S. and G. Shank. 1997. Codifi ca tion, infe rence and specific ity in visual communication des ign. Zed, 4,54-59.

Skaggs , S. 1997. Introduction. Zed, 4 , 8-9.

Siess, D. Design Philosophy. COlll lllu nica tion Resea rch Institute of Australia . (Accessed J une 23 , 2009) http://www.com munica tion .org.a u/ ds blog/?p:43

STC. 1998. STC e thical principles fo r commmunica to rs. Soc ie ty for Technical Commun ica tion. (Accessed July 5 , 2009) http :// www.s tc.org/about/policy_ethicaIPrinciples.asp

Stje rnfe ldt, F. 2007. Diag1'ammawlogy: an investigation on the b01'de1'lines Qf phenom enology, on tology, and semiotics. Berli n: Springe r.

Storkerson, P. 2008. Is d isc ipli nary resea rch poss ible in commun ica tion des ign? Design 1'esearch quan eriy, 3 .2, 1-8. (Accessed July 15, 2009) www. drsq.org

Tolman, E. 1951. Purposive behavior in m an and anim als. Berkeley, CA: Univers ity of Ca liforni a Press .Visual Comm unica tion Ins titute. 2009. (Accessed J uly 15, 2009) http ://www. baselschoolofdes ign . chi

We rtheimer, M. 1923/1958. PrinCiples of e rceptual orga ni za tion. In Wertheimer, M. and M. Bea rdslee, ed ito rs. Readings in Perception . New York, NY: Van Nostrand.

Winkle r, D. 199 7. Design practice and education : Illoving beyond the Bauhaus mode l. In Frasca ra, J. , edito r. Use1'-centered Design: mass com munications and social change. London: Taylor and Francis .

36 VISIBLE LANGUAGE