Shared Territory: an investigation of bilingual letterforms as an instance of Bakhtinian dialogism
Soheil Ashrafi
A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
UNSW, Art and Design
August 2014
Table of Contents Page
Acknowledgment………………………………………………………………………………………………..i Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii
List of figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………iii List of images……………………………………………………………………………………………………xi
Chapter 1. Statement of Topic
1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 1.2. Thesis overview…………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1. The Theoretical Literature of Typographic Bilingualism………………………………..7 2.2. Practice‐Oriented Literature of Typographic Polyphony……………………………...13 2.2.1. Two‐dimensional monolingual works……………………………………………………14
2.2.2. Two‐dimensional bilingual works………………………………………………………….17 2.2.3. Three‐dimensional monolingual works………………………………………………….21 2.2.4. Three‐dimensional bilingual works……………………………………………………….25
Chapter 3. Towards a Theory of Letterforms
3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………28 3.2. The question of fundamental structure of letterforms…………………………………28
3.3. Research design and methodology……………………………………………………………...31 3.4. Exposition of the fundamental structure of letterforms……………………………….34 3.5. Examination of the general arguments: the theoretical grounds for the morphological primitives………………………………………………………………………………....48 3.6. Farsi letterforms………………………………………………………………………………………..69
Chapter 4. Towards a Dialogic Coding System (DCS)
4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………79 4.2. Dialogic integration……………………………………………………………………………………80
4.3. Experimental demonstration of the general principles………………………………...97 4.4. Spatial de‐integration………………………………………………………………………………115 4.5. The DCS at sentence level…………………………………………………………………………124
4.6. Exhibition………………………………………………………………………………………………..137
Chapter 5. Towards a General Theory of Dialogue
5.1. Aha and Oho moments: two dialogic frames of experience…………………………164
5.2. Exposition of the Category of Relation………………………………………………………166 5.3. The problem of form, material and colour in the DCS………………………………...179
5.4. The formal‐material structure of letterforms…………………………………………….180 5.5. Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic……………………………………………………………….181
5.6. The issue of legibility……………………………………………………………………………….184 5.7. Formal discourse analysis of letterforms…………………………………………………..186 5.8. Discourse analysis of the architectonic forms of the DCS……………………………189
5.9. Subject’s competence and the architectonic forms…………………………………….193 5.10. Asymmetric dualism of letterforms………………………………………………………...194
Chapter 6. Conclusion
6.1. Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………..196 6.2. Communicative implications……………………………………………………………………197 6.3. Cultural implications……………………………………………………………………………….198
6.4. Political implications……………………………………………………………………………….201 6.5. Final remarks: A failed yet still prospective project…………………………………..202
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………..cciv
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………..ccxi
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Dr. Michael Garbutt, you have been a great mentor for me. I owe a very important intellectual debt to you for encouraging my research and for allowing me to explore creatively the research issues. Your advice on both research as well as on my writing have been priceless. I would like to thank the school of Art and Design, UNSW, for providing me with fabulous research facilities in the past four years. I am also thankful to the members of the scholarship committee for awarding me scholarship without which this research would be impossible. At the end, words cannot express how grateful I am to my mother and father for all of the sacrifices that you have made on my behalf. I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my beloved fiancé Rahil Abedini for her generous support and encouragement throughout my long preoccupation with this research.
i Abstract
This thesis addresses the gap in both the theory and practice of bilingual typography by extending Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism and its aesthetic principles to the domain of letterforms. Rather than linguistic content, which may constitute an obstacle to communication, the thesis focuses on the formal-material structure of letterforms as a shared territory of bilingual discourse. This approach allows for developing a formal-material system of relations through which bilingual letterforms are dialogically integrated such that the readers of both languages can simultaneously experience a dialogic moment. This proposed ‘Dialogic Coding System’ (DCS), is explored and demonstrated with reference to two culturally and formally disparate sets of letterforms, namely, English and Farsi. The development of the DCS requires an exposition of the fundamental structure of letterforms in order to determine the elements of integration. Through the method of analytic induction the thesis develops a general theory of letterforms: ‘The Theory of Letterform Genome’ (TLG), which sheds light on the letterforms’ morphological commonalities and the dialogic potential across writing systems. The DCS is instantiated by a gallery installation featuring English and Farsi integrated forms. This permits a discussion of the theoretical implications of the system by analysing the formal-material structure and processual nature of the dialogic experience. An ontological-semantic account of the category of Relation is proposed that includes dialogue to distinguish between the concepts of plurality, polyphony, and dialogicality, which are frequently used interchangeably in the interpretation of Bakhtin’s dialogism. In consequence, the study itself serves as a dialogic point of encounter at which Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism and the theory and practice of bilingual letterforms are mutually informed and extended.
ii List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Letter A in its typographic (1) and calligraphic (2) variations 7
Figure 2.2: Tam, 2012, Bilingual typography: Hong Kong Case Studies 9 (Slideshare.net)
Figure 2.3: Rubin, 1915, Rubin Vase 13
Figure 2.4: di Sciullo, 2001, Mon beau pays 15 (di Sciullo, 2003, p. 25)
Figure 2.5: Hofstadter, 2001, Light is a wave/particle 16 (Introspections.org, 2008)
Figure 2.6: Kim, 1981, FALSE/true 17 (Seckel, 2004, p. 140)
Figure 2.7: Kim, 1997, Elise Esther Diamond 18 (Kim, 1997)
Figure 2.8: Kim, 1988, Origami 18 (Kim, 1988)
19 2002 ,العربیه :Figure 2.9 (CNN Arabic)
Figure 2.10: Lozano-Hemmer, 2006, Third Person 20 (Lozano-Hemmer, 2014)
Figure 2.11: Egan and Thomson, 2010, It’s a point of view 21 (designboom | architecture & design magazine, 2010)
Figure 2.12: di Sciullo, 1997, approche 22 (di Sciullo, 2003, p. 25)
Figure 2.13: Ashrafi, 2009, time is money 23
Figure 2.14: A closer view of time is money, letters ‘t’ and ‘i’ in the word ‘time’ can be seen from the vantage point 24
iii Figure 2.15: A closer view of time is money, letter ‘m’ in the word ‘time’ can be seen from the succeeding vantage point 24
Figure 2.16: Kisman, El Mir, and Youssef, 2010, StoryLine 25 (Najielmir.com, 2014)
Figure 2.17: Kisman, El Mir, and Youssef, 2010, In The Shade (Najielmir.com, 2014). The English words ‘in the shade’ can be seen in the farther blocks, and the the Arabic translation of ‘in the shade’) in the closer blocks in) ’فی الظل‘ Arabic words the image 26
Figure 3.1: Relational contrast between letterforms in print (1) and the DCS (2) 29
Figure 3.2: Typeface variations of letter ‘A’ 29
Figure 3.3: Superimposition of the variations of ‘A’ 30
Figure 3.4: Letter ‘A’ 35
Figure 3.5: Pattern-plane analysis of ‘A’ 36
Figure 3.6: Three possible definitions of letter ‘A’ 37
Figure 3.7: Common typeface variations of ‘A’ (1); and graphically altered variations of ‘A’ (2) 38
Figure 3.8: Analysis of the form inside and outside the word structure 39
Figure 3.9: Counter-forms of the variations of ‘A’ 40
Figure 3.10: Analysis of the form and counter-form of ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ 41
Figure 3.11: Characteristic arguments denoting the fundamental structures of ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ 41
Figure 3.12: Analysis of ‘E’ 42
Figure 3.13: General characteristic argument 42
Figure 3.14: Characteristic arguments of the uppercase letters composed of enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces 43
Figure 3.15: Analysis of ‘F’ 44
iv Figure 3.16: Characteristic arguments of the uppercase letters whose fundamental structures composed of line segments 44
Figure 3.17: General argument 1 45
Figure 3.18: General argument 2 46
Figure 3.19: General argument 3 46
Figure 3.20: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic variations of letterforms 47
Figure 3.21: The extension of the form’s outward contour and its glyphic character 49
Figure 3.22: Analogical resemblance of the relation between the letterform’s form and counter-form, seen in figure (21), to a building’s façade and interior space 49
Figure 3.23: Topological transformations in contrast to tearing and glueing 51
Figure 3.24: Three interconnected sets of properties constitutive of a letterform 52
Figure 3.25: The relationship between fundamental structure and glyphic surface through geometric expression 53
Figure 3.26: The significance of geometric expression in determining the form’s variations 54
Figure 3.27: Linear organisations of ‘O’ and ‘D’ 55
Figure 3.28: Linear organisations of ‘N’ and ‘H’ 55
Figure 3.29: Linear organisations of ‘U’ and ‘V’ 56
Figure 3.30: Linear organisation of ‘L’ and ‘I’ 56
Figure 3.31: Qualitative dichotomies 57
Figure 3.32: Derivation of the qualitative dichotomies from the basic shapes 58
Figure 3.33: Parallel and convergence: two ends of a geometric continuum 58
Figure 3.34: Quantitative parameters 59
v Figure 3.35: Rotation, translation and reflection, the three coordinate organisations of morphological primitives 60
Figure 3.36: Coordinate organisations of ‘M’ and ‘W’ 60
Figure 3.37: Coordinate organisations of ‘Q’ and ‘P’ 61
Figure 3.38: The general characteristic argument 62
Figure 3.39: The general paradigmatic argument 62
Figure 3.40: The general homeomorphic argument 63
Figure 3.41: The general syntagmatic argument 63
Figure 3.42: Analysis of lowercase Helvetica 64
Figure 3.43: Analysis of lowercase Lucida Calligraphy 64
Figure 3.44: Analysis of exceptional cases of ‘a’, ‘g’, and ‘t’ 64
Figure 3.45: Characteristic arguments of lowercase letterforms, letters ‘a’ and ‘g’ are shown in their two common forms 65
Figure 3.46: Morphological significance of a line segment’s coordinate organisation 66
Figure 3.47: The elements of the Theory of the Letterform Genome 68
sin) in its four positional forms 69) ’س‘ Figure 3.48: Letter
Figure 3.49: Farsi words as complex strokes 69
Figure 3.50: Farsi isolated letterforms 70
Figure 3.51: Counter-forms of Farsi isolated letterforms 70
Figure 3.52: Diacritic and structural functions of line segments 71
Figure 3.53: Morphological functions of diacritics in Farsi 71
Figure 3.54: Nastaliq hand 72
vi kaf) in Naskh and Nastaliq 73) ’ک‘ Figure 3.55: Morphological distinction of
Figure 3.56: Characteristic arguments of Farsi isolated letterforms 74
Figure 3.57: Initial, medial, and final forms of Farsi letterforms 75
Figure 3.58: Counter-forms of initial, medial, and final forms of Farsi letterforms 75
Figure 3.59: Analysis of counter-forms in Farsi words 76
Figure 3.60: Morphological analysis and characteristic arguments of Russian letterforms 77
Figure 3.61: Morphological analysis and characteristic arguments of Hebrew letterforms 78
Figure 4.1: Accidental co-occurrence of words 79
Figure 4.2: Three formal-material relations between two forms 81
Figure 4.3: Geometric congruence between ‘PP’ and ‘PR’ 83
Figure 4.4: Schematic units denoting the spatial divisions of uppercase letterforms 84
Figure 4.5: Variations of sectional congruence 85
Figure 4.6: Qualitative dichotomies 85
Figure 4.7: Classification of uppercase letterforms based on qualitative dichotomies 86
Figure 4.8: Sectional congruence between letterforms of the same linear- qualitative classes 86
Figure 4.9: Six possible correlations between morphological primitives 87
Figure 4.10: The rotation of catheti/parallel-based units at 90-degree intervals. E: Enclosed space, and SE: Semi-Enclosed space 88
Figure 4.11: Sectional congruence between ‘E’ and ‘A’ 88
Figure 4.12: The rotation of convergence-based units at 90-degree intervals. E: Enclosed space, and SE: Semi-Enclosed space 90 vii Figure 4.13: Sectional congruence between ‘CG’ and ‘OQ’ 91
Figure 4.14: The rotation of curvature-based units at 90-degree intervals. E: Enclosed space, and SE: Semi-Enclosed space 91
Figure 4.15: The rotation of curvature-based units at 90-degree intervals. LS: Line Segment 92
Figure 4.16: Analytic propositions representing the correlation between sectional congruence and coordinate organisation with respect to morphological primitives 92
Figure 4.17: Catheti/parallel-based units, the optimum geometric units in the determination of sectional congruence 94
Figure 4.18: Transformation of convergence-based units into curvature- and catheti/parallel-based units 94
Figure 4.19: Sectional congruence between geometric units of enclosed and semi- enclosed spaces 95
Figure 4.20: Sectional congruence between straight and non-straight line segments 95
Figure 4.21: Sectional congruence of enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces with line segments 96
Figure 4.22: Examples of the first mode of sectional congruence 97
Figure 4.23: Examples of the second mode of sectional congruence 98
Figure 4.24: Examples of the third mode of sectional congruence 98
Figure 4.25: Dialogic integration of ‘CG’ and ‘CO’ 99
Figure 4.26: Dialogic integration of ‘EF’ and ‘DI’ 100
Figure 4.27: Dialogic integration of ‘WV’ 101
Figure 4.28: Dialogic integration of ‘EH’ and ‘EU’ 102
Figure 4.29: Dialogic integration of ‘AB’ 103
Figure 4.30: Dialogic integration of ‘TA’ 104
viii Figure 4.31: Dialogic integration of ‘ZP’ 104
Figure 4.32: Dialogic integration of ‘BX’ 105
Figure 4.33: Dialogic integration of ‘NZ’ 106
Figure 4.34: Classification of lowercase letterforms based on qualitative dichotomies 107
Figure 4.35: Dialogic integration of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’ 107
Figure 4.36: Five-steps process of dialogic integration 108
Figure 4.37: Classification of Farsi isolated, initial, medial, and final letterforms based on qualitative dichotomies 110
(goftogou) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.38. Schematic units of ‘Dialogue’ and 112
Figure 4.39: Three modes of selection 111
Figure 4.40: Two modes of selection between the letterforms of ‘Dialogue’ and goftogou) 113) ’گفتگو‘
’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.41: Sectional congruence between the words ‘Dialogue’ and (goftogou) in two modes of selection 114
’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.42: Two possible dialogic integrations of the words ‘Dialogue’ and (goftogou) in two modes of selection 114
Figure 4.43: Three spatial relations between two sets of letterforms 116
Figure 4.44: The momentarily spatial alignment of a point in constant motion with another two points in coordinate system 117
Figure 4.45: Form de-integration of the hybrid form of ‘A’ and ‘B’. N-Sh: Non-Shared parts, and Sh: Shared parts 118
Figure 4.46: A close view of non-shared parts between ‘A’ and ‘B’ 118
Figure 4.47: Spatial de-integration of the hybrid form of ‘A’ and ‘B’ 119
Figure 4.48: Side and front views of the 3-D extension of P1 and P2 in the coordinate system 120
ix Figure 4.49: Form de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’ 121
Figure 4.50: Spatial de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’ 121
Figure 4.51: Views from four privileged vantage points 122
’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.52: Form de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘Dialogue’ and (goftogou) 122
’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.53: Spatial de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘Dialogue’ and (goftogou) 123
Figure 4.54: Views from six privileged vantage points 123
Figure 4.55: Dialogic integrations of ‘All’, ‘human’, ‘beings’, ‘are’, ‘born’, and ‘free’ 126
Figure 4.56: One-with-two method of integration at sentence level 127
Figure 4.57: Dialogic integration of ‘A’ and ‘LL’ 128
Figure 4.58: Dialogic integration of ‘All HUMAN BEINGS’ with ‘are born free’ 129
Figure 4.59: The literal translations of the first article in Farsi and English 130
Figure 4.60: Directional conflict between English and Farsi writings 131
Figure 4.61: Linguistic correspondence between English and Farsi sentences 131
Figure 4.62: The first panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level 133
Figure 4.63: The second panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level 134
Figure 4.64: The third panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level 135
Figure 4.65: The fourth panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level 136
Figure 4.66: Plan view of the gallery space 139
Figure 4.67: Axonometric view of the gallery space 140 x Figure 4.68: The monolingual (M1, M2) and bilingual (B1, B2, B3, B4) panels 143
Figure 4.69: The first monolingual panel (M1) 144
Figure 4.70: The second monolingual panel (M2) 146
Figure 4.71: The first bilingual panel (B1) 148
Figure 4.72: The second bilingual panel (B2) 151
Figure 4.73: The third bilingual panel (B3) 154
Figure 4.74: The fourth bilingual panel (B4) 156
Figure 4.75: An interaction trajectory for a monolingual visitor 160
Figure 4.76: An interaction trajectory for a bilingual visitor 161
Figure 5.1: The ontological-semantic system of Relation 169
List of Images
Image 1.1: Hasell and McLachlan, 2001, Federation Bells, public installation, Melbourne 1 (Federationbells.com.au, 2014)
Image 4.1: Spatial distribution of the panels in the gallery. Note the floor markers and the instructions to the right of the door 141
Image 4.2: Spatial distribution of the panels in the gallery (view from reverse angle) 141
Image 4.3: A closer view of B1 145
Image 4.4: A closer view of B1 149
Image 4.5: A closer view of B1 150
Image 4.6: A closer view of B2 152 xi Image 4.7: A visitor interacting with B2 152
Image 4.8: View from behind the panel (B2) 153
Image 4.9: A closer view of B3 (note the photographer’s shadow cast on the panel) 155
Image 4.10: Visitors interacting with B2 and B3 155
Image 4.11: A closer view of B4 157
xii CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF TOPIC
1.1. Introduction
Consider ‘Federation Bells’ in Birrarung Marr, a city park in Melbourne. This computer-controlled public art installation by Anton Hasell and Neil McLachlan was built in 2001 to celebrate the centenary of Australia’s federation. The installation consists of thirty-nine upturned bells of varying shapes, sizes and sounds that can be found in certain Asian and European bell-making traditions (Federationbells.com.au, 2014). Computer-controlled hammers programmed to play MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) strike the bells twice a day. Most of the bells are harmonic but seven are polytonal tuned to play more than one pitch with each strike (ibid.). The musical pieces are created by local and international composers using an interactive website that provides technical support.
Image 1.1: Hasell and McLachlan, 2001, Federation Bells, public installation, Melbourne (Federationbells.com.au, 2014) (With kind permission of Federation Bells)
The work embodies an intercultural combination of signs interfacing outside of their original cultural contexts. Such a combination brings about a perception of 1 pluralism, multi-voicedness and mutual differences to members of the public who themselves may belong to different ethnic groupings. In a culturally diverse society such as Australia’s, which includes various languages, religions, traditions, and value systems, the Federation Bells creates an intercultural space for a certain kind of dialogue. This dialogue results from the semiotic structure of the work. On the one hand, the sound of each bell, alongside its formal and material properties symbolically signifies the culture in which the given bell was made. On the other hand, the sound is in harmony with those of the other bells within melodic lines. Apart from their spatial contiguity the bells are brought together and function as an integrated system of signs in melodic lines. Nevertheless each bells retains its characteristic distinctiveness, communicating its own cultural and historical values while contributing to melodic lines. In short, as independent and distinctive signs unified within an integrated system of melodic lines, the bells demonstrate a formal-material analogue of polyphony, a harmonious unification of independent voices (von Helmholtz, 2007, p. 244). The polyphonic unity of the bells is characteristic of a dialogic interaction of the kind elaborated in the works of the Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975). Although the defining features of polyphony concerning dialogue remain equivocal in Bakhtin’s observation (Morson and Emerson, 1990, pp. 231-4), his analogy of polyphony ([1929], 1984, p. 22) as counterpoints of interdependent voices provides a formal framework for understanding dialogic interactions of this kind. In Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Bakhtin sets out to analyse the formal design of Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novels, which he characterises as: [a] plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully valid voices is in fact the chief characteristic of Dostoevsky’s novels (emphasis in original, ibid., p. 6). By “independent and unmerged voices and consciousness” Bakhtin means the autonomous ideological positions of characters vis-à-vis the authorial position of Dostoevsky rendered by the polyphonic form of novel. For Bakhtin the polyphonic form creates an axiological space in which the artistic distinctiveness of an aesthetic object lies in its moral values, such as independent social voices that “co-exist”, “interact” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 28), and 2 more importantly are mutually “consummated” while taking part in the higher unity of the novel (Bakhtin, 1990), as are the bells in the Federation bells. In Bakhtin’s dialogism the concept of “consummation” in artistic works implies the complementary participation of parts directed towards one another and the creation of a particular whole simultaneously (Holquist, 1990, p. 150). The mutual consummation of the parts (voices) is enabled and achieved within the contrapuntal form of polyphony that constitutes the ground of discourse upon which the semantic content unfolds and is understood. Although Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism was developed in the context of literature with specific reference to Dostoevsky’s works, it has provided a fecund theoretical framework for the exploration and understanding of dialogic interactions in contexts where diverse sociocultural voices are present and differences are of a particular value. In addition to providing a key to works such as the ‘Federation Bells’, the methodological application of Bakhtin’s dialogism can be found in a wide range of fields including the study of sociocultural ideologies in contemporary Marxist theory (Bernard-Donals, 1994; Clark and Holquist, 1984; Emerson, 1997; Morson and Emerson, 1990); social work practices (Irving and Young, 2002); the relationship between therapists and clients (Garbutt, 1996; Gonçalves and Guilfoyle, 2014); the interaction between the message and its surroundings and a viewer in advertising (Karimova, 2011, 2012); narrative studies (Owen, 2011); the dialogical self (Hermans et al., 1992); diversity and multiculturalism (Evans, 1998; Sidorkin, 2002); and the philosophy of education (Matusov, 2007; Chen Johnsson, 2013). In the same way the present study aims to apply the theory to the field of experimental typography by exploring the formal-material polyphony of letterforms in the context of written bilingualism. To this end, it sets out to answer the following questions: Could two sets of bilingual letterforms such as Farsi and English be integrated in such a way that one cannot be read without the other? More specifically, could a formal-material system of dialogic relationships between letterforms be generated through which readers of both languages experience a ‘dialogic moment’ that is a fleeting experience of mutual and recurrent consummations of bilingual letterforms? 3 Unlike the harmonies of the Federation Bells or the dialogue of characters in a novel, which draw on pre-existing semiotic systems, the integration of two distinct sets of letterforms requires the development of a dedicated dialogical letterform system, which I will refer to as a Dialogical Coding System (DCS). The proposed DCS must be understood in the context of Bakhtin’s thought. In his early formative years, Bakhtin was influenced by Neo-Kantianism, the dominant academic school of philosophy between 1860s and the First World War (Holquist, 1990, p. 17). The central focus of Neo-Kantianism was Kant’s mind- world relation and the transcendental synthesis of sensory data and a priori concepts in mind, the two ends of the axis of understanding. Bakhtin, influenced by Marburg school of Neo-Kantianism and Herman Cohen in particular, was concerned with the material properties of the world (ibid.); in other words, he posited language as the medium of ideology in its material reality. The Marxist strand of Bakhtin’s thought, explicitly evident in Bakhtin/Voloshinov’s disputed Marxism and The Philosophy of Language (1929), places great emphasis on the formal-material structure of verbal sign and its ideological charge in terms of production relations and sociopolitical order (Voloshinov, [1929], 1973, pp. 20- 21).1 The proposed DCS thus aims to extend Bakhtin’s model of dialogism and its sociopolitical implications to letterforms—written signs—as the ubiquitous material basis of ideologically expressive written signs in culturally heterogeneous contexts.
The DCS makes four significant contributions to scholarship. First, it extends Bakhtin’s dialogism to the formal-material structure of written bilingualism where the linguistic content of interaction is often an obstacle to the emergence and experience of dialogue. This provides an objective ground for a better understanding of the formal-material structure of the dialogic moment in Bakhtin’s theory. In so doing, the system offers a method for producing an ideological critique of letterform relations and values in an increasingly
1 Ironically for a scholar who investigated the dialogical, multi-voiced character of all texts, there is considerable uncertainty about the authorship of some works associated with Bakhtin and his colleague Voloshinov. For the purposes of this thesis it is the concept of dialogism itself rather than its authorship, which is of concern. Citations and authorship attribution therefore follow standard scholarly convention. 4 heterogeneous world dominated by the formal-material discourse of Latin letterforms. Second, it fills a gap in the theoretical literature of written bilingualism whose main focus is centred on linguistic content rather than the formal-material structure of letterforms. Third, a dialogic integration of letterforms presupposes a sound theoretical knowledge of letterforms. The question of what letterforms are composed of at the most fundamental level precedes the question of how letterforms can be dialogically integrated. The development of the DCS thus requires an exposition of the fundamental structure of letterforms in order to determine the elements of integration. This results in a general theory of letterforms: ‘The Theory of the Letterform Genome’ (TLG) which advances our knowledge of letterforms and sheds light on their morphological commonalities and the dialogic potential across writing systems. Fourth, it contributes to the practice-oriented literature of written bilingualism. The development of such a system belongs to a long tradition of cultural practices (e.g., bilingual dissemination of information since the Rosetta Stone (Copper, 1993); fusion genre in music (Fellezs, 2011); musical polystylism (Adamenko, 2007); and bilingual ambigrams in typography (Prokhorov, 2013) that evoke intercultural dialogue by stressing the common objective form of mediums, which underpins our common understanding (Cassirer, [1929], 1997, p. 202). Finally, since the model of structure proposed in the Letterform Genome can be applied to the investigation of any written text, it provides design practitioners and theorists with a powerful tool for the description and interpretation of typefaces and calligraphic works.
5 1.2. Thesis overview
Following this introductory introduction, the second chapter of this thesis explores the DCS with a critical review of the theoretical literature of written bilingualism from both stylistic and typographic perspectives, and identifies the gap which the DCS addresses. This is followed by the analysis of the formal-material structures of typographic systems, which are deemed to have a polyphonic character. The review of the practice-oriented literature will show that there is no typographic system that can fulfil a dialogic integration of letterforms. Chapter three develops the research on the DCS with respect to two formally and culturally diverse sets of letterforms: English and Farsi. It begins with an exposition of the fundamental structure of English and Farsi letterforms and proposes ‘The Theory of the Letterform Genome’ (TLG) that attempts to account for all other writing systems. Chapter four presents the DCS as a set of formal-material principles governing the relationship between letterforms, instantiated by a gallery installation featuring English and Farsi integrated forms. Chapter five discusses the theoretical implications of the system by analysing the formal-material structure and processual nature of the dialogic experience. This chapter also proposes an ontological-semantic account of the category of Relation that includes dialogue to distinguish between the concepts of plurality, polyphony, and dialogicality, which are frequently used interchangeably in the interpretation of Bakhtin’s dialogism. The conclusion discusses the communicative, cultural and political implications of the DCS and suggests how the coding system could be extended beyond letterforms to other forms of communication.
6 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. The theoretical literature of typographic bilingualism
Written bilingualism concerns the ways two languages encounter each other for historical, social, cultural, or economic reasons, or simply because one of the languages has become a dominant source of communication (Hodgson and Sarkonak, 1987). Whether engraved on a Mesopotamian clay tablet or displayed on a digital screen of an international flight, written bilingualism can be understood in terms of two unified categories of discursive value, which I characterise as ‘linguistic content’ and ‘formal-material structure’. Linguistic content refers to the primary reference of letterforms to speech signs and underlies the semantic and syntactic organisation and stylistic form of text. Formal-material structure2 refers to the morphological and physical properties by which letterforms are realised and distinguished from speech signs—calligraphy and typography are two technical variations of the formal-material structure of letterforms (figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Letter A in its typographic (1) and calligraphic (2) variations
The question of polyphonic form and dialogue in written bilingualism can be explored and resolved by reference to either the linguistic content or the formal- material structure of letterforms or both. While the study of the linguistic content is the task of linguistics and literary criticism, the theoretical literature of
2 The realisation of form is inextricably dependent on material, which bears extralinguistic meaning. In chapter three, I will discuss that how the linguistic content of letterforms is solely grounded in form. 7 typographic bilingualism has been frequently preoccupied with the discursive value of the linguistic content of letterforms and more precisely with its semantic, syntactic and stylistic products at the expense of its formal-material structure. One common approach can be found in studies published in two special issues (1987, no. 1; 1993, no. 1-2) of the journal Visible Language3 devoted to bilingualism. The first issue focuses on the sociopolitical tensions and the problem of typeface design in bilingual context of communication that can include the bilingual typography in Welsh and English in Wales; in English and French in Canada; and in English and Spanish in the United States (Crawford, 1987; Hodgson and Sarkonak, 1987). Despite the fact that these studies are published under the dedicated title of typographic bilingualism, they focus on the linguistic content rather than the formal-material structure. In the second issue, in Seeing In-Depth- The Practice of Bilingual Writing Sarkonak (1993) examines the stylistic form of bilingualism in literary texts and the issue of bilingual readership. In his study of written bilingualism in Hebrew texts Lubell (1993) discusses the history of Hebrew bilingual texts and the present day strategies in the production of bilingual Hebrew texts from the standpoints of typesetting and translation. These studies are characteristically preoccupied with the linguistic content of written bilingualism and the issues of readership and production associated with linguistically disparate scripts such as Hebrew and English appearing in a single textual space. More recently, the Multilingual Typography Research Group in Geneva in Koexistenz der Zeichen–Multilinguale Typografie (The Co-Existence of Signs– Multilingual Typography) (2012) presented a series of studies on the coexistence of typographic signs. The research project provides a descriptive framework for the study of the formal-material structure of bilingual letterforms. Among the authors Tam (ibid., p. 40) offers an important schematic account for the graphic and spatial attributes of English and Chinese letterforms in the bilingual context of Hong Kong. In his analysis of typographic bilingualism he gives a concise picture of
3 An independent scholarly journal published continuously since 1967 with a focus on typography in conjunction with social and human sciences. 8 three modes of typographic bilingualism, which include “parallel”, “code-mixing” and “code-switching” (ibid., see figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Tam, 2012, Bilingual typography: Hong Kong Case Studies (Slideshare.net)
This apparently formal-material account of typographic bilingualism is grounded in the formal structure of stylistic devices of bilingualism that Grutman (1993, p. 210) refers to as “allusion”, “translation” and “commentary”. To illustrate the stylistic underpinning of Tam’s schematic modes Grutman’s descriptions of the stylistic devices are helpful. These stylistic devices, as Grutman argues, are used by the writers who intend to communicate within the confines of a monolingual readership (ibid.). Grutman speaks of an allusion “when the language of the narrated “story” (i.e., what really happened) does not reach the more explicit level of the literary “discourse” (i.e., the text we read)” (ibid.). Grutman offers the following passage from Joyce’s Ulysses as a sample of allusion:
“Is it French you are talking, sir? the old woman said to Haines. Haines spoke to her again a longer speech, confidently. Irish, Buck Mulligan said. Is
9 there Gaelic on you? I thought it was Irish, she said, by the sound of it” (emphasis in original, ibid.).
Gaelic one of the two branches of insular Celtic languages (Borsley and Roberts, 1996, p. 2) is integrated in the process of representation, and the reader does not necessarily need to have knowledge of that (ibid.). It is a minor deviation from the reader’s monolingual competency. The code-mixing mode of typographic bilingualism is only another term for the stylistic device of allusion; indeed, they are one and the same since formal-material structure of letterforms is entirely outside of the stylistic form of the bilingual text. In the case of translation Grutman refers to an extract from Waverley (1814) by Sir William Scott:
“Why, you know, Tacitus saith “In rebus bellicis maxime dominatur Fortuna,” which is equiponderate with our own vernacular adage, “Luck can maist in the mellee” (emphasis in original, ibid., p. 211).
In the stylistic device of translation the novelist gives the reader freedom of choice either to read or block out the Latin quote. Translation has been a common stylistic form in the history of bilingualism. The Rosetta Stone and Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) are two well-known examples of translation in which two or more writing systems appear on the same material support without any didactic theme. The schematic mode of parallel in Tam’s analysis is equivalent to translation. The third device termed by Grutman as “commentary” lies beyond referential meaning and rests upon cultural connotations of the words uttered in the second language (ibid., p. 211). An example provided by Grutman is an extract from Women in Love (1920) by D. H. Lawrence where in response to Ursula Brangwen, who calls dominant male behaviour “a lust for bullying—a real Wille zur Macht Rupert Birkin responds:
“I agree that the Wille zur Macht is a base and petty thing. But with the Mino, it is the desire to bring this female cat into a pure stable equilibrium, a transcendent and abiding rapport with the single male. Whereas without him, as you see, she is a mere stray, a fluffy sporadic bit of chaos. It is a
10 volonté de pouvoir, if you like, a will to ability, taking pouvoir as a verb” (ibid., emphasis in original).
Although the utterances “Wille zur Macht”, “a volonté de pouvoi”, and “a lust for bullying” or “a will to ability” convey to a great extent the same meaning, one must take into account the metalinguistic potential of each utterance. As Grutman (ibid., pp. 211-12) puts it “while the harsh German sounds suggest violence, the French language confirms its well-known penchant for rhetorical niceties, as Ursula stresses in her reply” “Sophistries!” Much like code-mixing and allusion code-switching is simply another term for stylistic device of commentary. In Tam’s analysis the terms parallel, code-mixing and code-switching only allude to bilingual letterforms but do not account for the formal-material structure of letterforms, the very characteristic distinctiveness of letterforms vis-à-vis speech signs and their discursive contribution to the bilingual text. In short, Tam’s account of typographic bilingualism is essentially a schematic rearrangement of Grutman’s stylistic account. A closer observation of the formal attributes of written bilingualism highlights the need for a different approach. The presence of two languages, or “polyglot nature of a given work”, Grutman argues, (ibid., p. 212), can create the illusion of bilingualism, for “the polyglot nature of a given work is not so much a matter of quantity as of quality…” The characters in Grutman’s extracts communicate with one another in the predominantly monolingual context of authorial discourse. There is no bilingual exchange taking place, and these stylistic devices, as Grutman (ibid., p. 224) maintains, merely represent “a kind of double monolingualism.” The juxtaposition of two languages in a textual space in the form of stylistic devices does not necessarily produce a bilingual text. In terms of Bakhtin’s model, it can be argued that true bilingualism lies in the polyphonic form of discourse in the dialogic unity of bilingual characters and not in the mere presence of two languages. In terms of letterforms the mere presence of two languages in one and the same textual space falls within the category of linguistic content (two languages) and not formal-material structure, as the dialogic character of the Federation Bells lies in the polyphonic form of the melodic lines and not in their spatial contiguity.
11 In his analysis, Grutman addresses the question of bilingualism by referring to a twelfth century poem Domna, tant vos ai preiada (1190) composed by Raimbaut de Vaqueiras. In the poem a romantic conversation takes place between a Provençal minstrel and a Genoese countrywoman. The conversation is a bilingual interaction, for the characters speak their respective languages, which “are deemed to be mutually comprehensible to the speakers” (Forster, 1970, cited in Grutman, 1993, p. 215). Two autonomous bilingual voices are hence combined into a single system and produce a dialogic counterpoint. Here bilingualism is not defined in terms of an arrangement of two languages in a uniform direction of one single voice but rather in a polyphonic direction of two responsive voices. As Grutman’s study demonstrates, there is stylistic evidence of polyphonic bilingualism in which two languages are not merely juxtaposed in the lines of a discourse; rather they represent an axiological space in which two social voices semantically respond to, and complement, each other. In the movie Ulysses’ Gaze (1995) directed by Theo Angelopoulos, a spoken manifestation of this stylistic counterpoint of two languages within the unity of a dramatic event is found when the protagonist, a Greek-American filmmaker, named ‘A’, meets his friend Nikos in Belgrade. ‘A’ speaks in English and Nikos replies in Greek, notably, when they recall their past dreams and intellectual life while wandering through streets. Such a formal account of bilingualism further challenges Tam’s schematic account of typographic bilingualism. None of the schematic modes refer to a bilingualism of this kind, but rather a double monolingualism for, as Grutman observes (ibid., p. 224), “each language holds its ground with little contamination” and the reader can pass over the redundant second language. Such a model of bilingualism is not only rooted in the linguistic content but also found in the fully independent formal-material structure of bilingual letterforms in the schematic modes of parallel, code-mixing, and code-switching. That is, bilingual letterforms lack any formal-material unity and remain as it were indifferent towards one another; in other words, their connection depends solely on the fact that they share the same material support.
12 Thus in stylistically-oriented typographic bilingualism, there is no formal- material structure equivalent to a polyphonic form of written bilingualism. The schematic modes draw their bilingual character solely from the spatial contiguity of two languages and, as such, only coincide with double monolingualism. By definition they fall short of generating or actualising polyphonic bilingualism. Polyphonic bilingualism can be achieved by a coding system that creates a space in which despite their likely linguistic barrier the reader finds the foreign code as an integral part of her own native code. The formal-material structure of letterforms serves as a counterpoint in which their mutually consummating co- existence becomes essential to the understanding of their linguistic content. In short, dialogism appears to be the only possible mode of communication.
2.2. Practice-oriented literature of typographic polyphony
Various degrees and forms of polyphonic dialogicality can be found in linguistic and non-linguistic objects of perception. An equivocal object of perception such as the Rubin Vase depicts a degree of dialogicality in that it communicates two interrelated yet distinctive meanings simultaneously (figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3: Rubin, 1915, Rubin Vase
The dual cognitive effects or the consummated unity of the profile and vase rests upon the formal-material structure of the object. The shared contour yields the consummated unity between the objects such that one simultaneously produces and is produced by the other. However, the experience of the
13 consummated unity of the objects, despite their cognitive dimension, remains largely independent of the observing subject’s spatial involvement; in other words, their consummated unity is finalised and leaves no room for the observing subject’s participation in the course of their becoming co-being and in their dialogicality. As Holquist (1990, p. 150) noted, “consummation is always to be understood as a relative term: in Bakhtin, consummation is almost literally in the eye of the beholder in so far as it is always a function of a particular point of view”. Thus the mutual consummation of parts is grounded in the subject’s spatial position and involvement. But being in space is always grounded in time, since space and time are ineluctably interwoven (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 84). The experience of the one is not only coupled with but also conditioned by that of the other such that the subject’s participation through the mutual consummation is always spatially-temporally directed. To discuss the gap in the theoretical literature of typographic bilingualism, I will analyse the formal-material structures of typographic works that rely on close interactions between letterforms. This analysis will be carried out within four experimental categories of two-dimensional monolingual, two-dimensional bilingual, three-dimensional monolingual and three-dimensional bilingual works. The analytical criteria are the aesthetic principles of dialogicality: the consummated unity of the observed object’s parts of which the subject’s spatial- temporal involvement is integral.
2.2.1. Two-dimensional monolingual works Textual multistability: ‘Mon Beau Pays’
In ‘Mon beau pays’ (2001) designed and produced for AFFA (the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs), French typographer Pierre di Sciullo presented the text ‘Mon beau pays’ (‘My beautiful country’) in lower and upper case at once. In this work the lowercase letters constitute the counter-forms of their respective uppercase letters.
14
Figure 2.4: di Sciullo, 2001, Mon beau pays (di Sciullo, 2003, p. 25) (With kind permission of di Sciullo)
By doing this di Sciullo created a textual figure-ground inversion that enables the viewer to read the text in both lower and upper case through a perceptual shift. However, the two sets of letterforms are to a great extent independent; that is, their unity is purely based on a graphic superimposition and their separation has no effect on their formal-material structures. This composition is different from Rubin’s Vase in which the profile and vase are entirely interrelated and consummated by virtue of their shared contours. Although the lowercase letters function as the counter-form of the uppercase letters, their linguistic contents originate entirely from their own formal-material structures. In other words, di Sciullo’s experiment of stereo writing illustrates a monological co-existence of the two sets of letterforms.
Ambigrams: ‘light is wave/particle’ and ‘False/True’:
A dialogic co-existence of letterforms comes closer in the ‘ambigram’, a term coined by Douglas Hofstadter (1987) who defined it as “a visual pun of a special kind: a calligraphic design having two or more interpretations as written words”. Seckel (2004, p. 138) defines an ambigram as a visually elaborate written word that allows readers to read the word in more than one way, or from more than a single vantage point such as right side up or upside down. Here I focus on a
15 particular mode of ambigram involving so-called perceptual shift—also called oscillation (Prokhorov, 2013, p. 35)—that stands close to the objects of perceptual ambiguity. ‘Light is WAVE/particle’ (2001) is a perceptual shift ambigram designed by Douglas Hofstadter that references quantum level duality of particles. The words ‘WAVE’ and ‘particle’ are merged into one word by sharing the same elements constitutive of their letterforms. In other words, the two words are unified insofar as one without the other is seemingly impossible. But on closer observation it becomes evident that the letters of ‘particle’ are independent of those of ‘wave’. In fact, the perceptual combinations of the letters of ‘particle’ give rise to those of ‘WAVE’; the letters of ‘wave’ are the product of modified tracking (letter-spacing) of those of ‘particle’ and therefore the ambigram only achieves a one-sided or monological relationship between the words.
Figure 2.5: Hofstadter, 2001, Light is a wave/particle (Introspections.org, 2008) (With kind permission of Hofstadter)
Similarly, in the ‘FALSE/true’ (1981) ambigram by Scott Kim, ‘true’ appears in red lowercase and ‘FALSE’ in black uppercase. The word ‘true’ constitutes a part of the ‘FALSE’ to the extent that the elimination of ‘true’ renders ‘FALSE’ illegible, but not vice versa. In other words, there is a unilateral relationship between the words.
16
Figure 2.6: Kim, 1981, FALSE/true (Seckel, 2004, p. 140) (With kind permission of Kim)
In conclusion, although the ambigrams ‘WAVE/particle’ and ‘FALSE/true’ have a polyphonic form, they fall short of dialogicality, since only one set of letterforms functions as an essential part of the other, but not vice versa.
2.2.2. Two-dimensional bilingual works
Bilingual Ambigrams: ‘Elise Esther Diamond’, ‘origami’, and ‘CNN Arabic logo’:
Bilingual ambigrams stand closest to the objectives of the present thesis since they present two closely related sets of letterforms within the unity of one formal- material structure and yet communicate two sets of linguistic contents. In designing the logo ‘Elise Esther Diamond’4 Kim placed the Hebrew word inside the English word ‘DIAMOND’. As the logo shows the Hebrew (אסתר) ’Esther‘ letters of the word ‘Esther’ harmonically represent both the word ‘Esther’ and four English letters ‘A, M, O, N’ of the word ‘DIAMOND’, although an extra stroke has .’Taw) to the ‘M) ’ת‘ been added in the middle of Hebrew letter
4 The logo was commissioned by Kim’s mother in honour of the Bat Mitzvah of Elise Diamond, a piano student of Kim’s mother (Kim, 1997). 17
Figure 2.7: Kim, 1997, Elise Esther Diamond, (Kim, 1997) (With kind permission of Kim)
Despite its bilingual organisation the logo is quite similar to ‘FALSE/true’ where there is a unilateral relationship between the words. That is, the Hebrew word ‘Esther’ is self-contained and remains legible and independent of the word
‘DIAMOND’ if it is removed from the logo, whereas ‘Diamond’ becomes illegible. In a similar project, Kim was commissioned to design a logotype for ‘origami’ in both English and Japanese (Kim, 1997). The outcome is a vaguely Chinese- looking English logotype that contains Chinese characters presented by the letters RIGA in the word ‘origami’. In terms of the architectonic relationship between bilingual words ‘origami’ is no different from ‘Elise Esther Diamond’.
Figure 2.8: Kim, 1988, Origami, (Kim, 1988) (With kind permission of Kim)
Both ‘Elise Esther Diamond’ and ‘origami’ are oscillatory bilingual ambigrams and in both cases the second languages, Hebrew and Chinese, are self-contained and independent of English. In the internationally renowned CNN Arabic logo, developed by TBWA/RAAD Middle East/Dubai under the supervision of James Rammal (Blankenship, 2003, p. ,(’Al-Arabia‘) العربیه of the Arabic word (بیه) CNN constitutes the second part .(62 despite the reversed directions of English and Arabic.
18
(CNN Arabic) 2002 ,العربیه :Figure 2.9 (The image of CNN Arabic logo has been removed due to CNN copyright policy. The logo can be seen at the following link: http://arabic.cnn.com/)
However, similar to the Hebrew and Chinese words in ‘Elise Esther Diamond’ and ‘origami’ CNN is independent of the word of which it is a part. Thus, the removal of the CNN logo has no effect on its self-contained formal-material structure. In summary, the three designs discussed in this section only realise a kind of monologism since in all cases one of the two encountering words continues to retain its formal-material autonomy while functioning as part of the other. In order to be dialogically integrated the formal-material structures of two sets of letterforms must be interdependent such that removing one would render them mutually illegible.
The inertia of letterforms in print can change into interactive digital screens wherein letterforms are animated and organised in the form of moving pixels. Yet the principles of dialogicality can still apply and explain the formal-material relations of letterforms in motion.
Digital interactive arts: ‘Third Person’: In recent years interactive digital artworks have produced new opportunities for dialogical encounters. A wide range of texts, images and sounds can be deployed and transformed into one another in every computer-mediated interaction. For instance, Hemmer’s high-definition interactive display, ‘Third Person’, featured all the verbs of the dictionary (Bitforms Gallery, New York City, 2006). The display reflected the viewer’s shadow as a silhouette constructed out of hundreds of tiny verbs of the dictionary that were conjugated in the third person (Lozano Hemmer,
19 2014). The viewer was free to choose and display the verbs in English, French or Spanish, or even a combination of the three languages at once. Sandra Ban (ARTnews, 2007) described Third Person as a miscellaneous combination of words, emphasising the significance of language in shaping human experience and perception.
Figure 2.10: Lozano-Hemmer, 2006, Third Person (Lozano-Hemmer, 2014) (With kind permission of Lozano-Hemmer)
Third Person has a polyphonic character in that it projects multilingual signs that constitute the image of the viewer’s face. At a distance, they are perceived as light dots and collectively constitute an image of the viewer’s face at the expense of their linguistic contents. The words can only be read in close proximity.5 Although they are simultaneous and spatially congruous, the words are and remain independent of each other. In their visual function they lose their linguistic content and in their linguistic function they are most likely to be sequentially read as separate signs. Hence, Third Person presents an organised juxtaposition of independent words by a digital interface but does not constitute a dialogical encounter according to the aesthetic principles of dialogicality.
5 For this reason ‘Third Person’ can be considered as a digital interactive version of ‘concrete poetry’, which is an iconic composition of words that exerts influence on the textual meaning. 20 2.2.3. Three-dimensional monolingual works Anamorphic typography: ‘It’s a point of view’:
Three-dimensional works highlight the second aesthetic principle of dialogicality: the spatial and temporal involvement of the observing subject. An observing subject is able to relate to the work from various perspectives, which stresses the spatial and temporal aspect of experience. In an anamorphic experiment entitled ‘it’s a point of view’ Joseph Egan and Hunter Thomson (2010) explored the existing and possible relationship between text and architecture through anamorphism. Egan and Hunter’s work encouraged the viewer to walk into and around the text, resulting in a spatial experience of reading in contrast to the conventional relationship of reader with print (ibid.). From any location except for the one privileged vantage point (figure 2.11-3) the text would appear as distorted or abstracted forms.
1 2 3
Figure 2.11: Egan and Thomson, 2010, It’s a point of view (designboom | architecture & design magazine, 2010) (With kind permission of Egan and Thomson)
Such architectural presentations alter the observer’s understanding of space. The physical fragmentation and instability of the text or what Readings (1991, p. 19) describes as “radical heterogeneity of quality, a different kind of seeing at the margin of vision” render anamorphism double forms of the reading of space, of the “co-presence of curved and geometric space.” In other words, the double forms of reading are a dialectical polyphony caused by the contradiction between the 21 observer’s two senses of place (i.e., the spatiality of the architecture and the illusive flatness of the text when seen from the privileged vantage point). The dialectical polyphony is reinforced by the synthesis of the scattered parts into the higher unity of the text. But, although, the parts constitute the text, they lack any element of consummation within their formal-material relations; the parts are and continue to remain what they are irrespective of one another.
Three-dimensional texts: ‘approach’, and ‘textography’:
Figure (2.12) shows an installation project ‘approche’ (approach) (1997) also designed by Pierre di Sciullo.
Figure 2.12: di Sciullo, 1997, approche (di Sciullo, 2003, p. 25) (With kind permission of di Sciullo)
In this project di Sciullo designed the letterforms of approche (approach) with red and yellow stripes, all of equal width, suspended from the ceiling. The red vertical stripes were placed one metre in front of the yellow horizontal stripes. This spatial arrangement and suspension of disconnected parts required the viewer be spatially involved with the installation. The viewer was able to walk around and find the vantage point from which the parts perceptually merged to reveal the word approche.
22 Closely related to di Sciullo’s installation of approche was my own experiment (Ashrafi, 2009) to design interdependent structures, which laid the foundation for the theoretical and practical exploration of dialogism in the present study. The project entitled ‘Textography’ was part of my final dissertation in a Masters of Design program. It was an attempt to design an interactive coding system of text that enabled an observer to participate in the creation of the text. The working text was “time is money” and resulted in a double-layered structure consisting of a transparent layer, which was placed above an opaque layer of paper (figure 2.13). The letters were dissembled into pieces, which were equally distributed on the two layers in such a way that they would be dissolved and read only from certain privileged vantage points.
Figure 2.13: Ashrafi, 2009, time is money
23
Figure 2.14: A closer view of time is money, letters ‘t’ and ‘i’ in the word ‘time’ can be seen from the vantage point
Figure 2.15: A closer view of time is money, letter ‘m’ in the word ‘time’ can be seen from the succeeding vantage point
The interdependent structure of Textography reinforced the centrality of the observer’s spatial relation to the alignment of the letterforms’ elements on the two planes. This realised a partial polyphonic form within monolingual letterforms, yet there was no consummation between distinct letterforms but within formal- material structure of individual letterforms. Much like di Sciullo’s installation of ‘approche’, Textography only goes so far in achieving a polyphonic form. Its interdependent structure is limited to individual monolingual letters, although it requires the observer to be actively involved as the letters unfold instead of being readily available in the course of reading, as occurs in print.
24 2.2.4. Three-dimensional bilingual works Typographic Matchmaking in the City:
Synchronisation and homogenisation of glyphic and geometric features are often conceived as a solution to bridge the gap between formally disparate written languages such as English and Arabic. The Khatt Foundation in Amsterdam, for example, has set out to advance Arabic typography in a cross-cultural network of communication and dialogue (AbiFarès, 2010). In 2009 the Foundation introduced an experimental program titled ‘Typographic matchmaking in the city’. The programme was a partnership between Dutch and Arabic designers to relate Latin and Arabic types harmoniously (ibid.). One of their projects ‘StoryLine’ (2009) illustrates the prevalent trend of bilingual synchronisation. This project included two-dimensional and three-dimensional renderings of type design, which I consider here together. Max Kisman, Naji El Mir, and Hisham Youssef worked together to make a harmonious distribution of black and white spaces between Latin and Arabic types by giving the two types equal size and weight.
Figure 2.16: Kisman, El Mir, and Youssef, 2010, StoryLine (Najielmir.com, 2014) (With kind permission of Khatt Foundation)
25 The experience of dialogue through the glyphic-geometric synchronisation of two sets of letterforms is vague since the principles of dialogue and more importantly the correlation between dialogue and glyphic-geometric synchronisation of the letterforms is unclear. In StoryLine the glyphic-geometric resemblance of the Latin and Arabic types might draw one’s attention from one to the other. This does evoke typographic bilingualism in some measure but does not amount to a polyphonic form since the autonomous operation of one’s own language can shut the other language out. There is no formal-material responsiveness between the languages’ constituent parts; they are fully self- contained and independent of each other.
The glyphic-geometric synchronisation of bilingual letterforms can also be seen in the typeface design projects ‘Frutiger Arabic’ and ‘Neue Helevetica Arabic’ by Nadine Chahine (Khatt.net, n.d.), ‘Insan Fonts’ by Ihsan Al-Hammouri (ibid.), and ‘Miresal typeface’ by Rana Abou Rjeily (Rjeily, 2011). These typefaces focus on the harmonious co-existence of letterforms in order to serve the aesthetic ends of bilingual publications, or to resolve the issue of legibility associated with the calligraphic orientation of Arabic, resulting in the Latinisation of Arabic letterforms.
Figure 2.17: Kisman, El Mir, and Youssef, 2010, In The Shade (Najielmir.com, 2014). The English the Arabic) ’فی الظل‘ words ‘in the shade’ can be seen in the farther blocks, and the Arabic words translation of ‘in the shade’) in the closer blocks in the image (With kind permission of Khatt Foundation)
26 ‘In The Shade’ a three-dimensional demonstration in a public area created an interactive space in which observers could physically approach large blocks set up to communicate the glyphic-geometric features of the letters designed in StoryLine. Nevertheless, the formal-material correlation between the two sets of letterforms remains at issue from the standpoint of dialogism as their spatial contiguity lacks internal unity. There are two sets of letterforms designed according to the same glyphic-geometric rules and their separation does not result in the loss or alteration of their linguistic contents. In conclusion, despite a wide range of practices alongside an expanding intellectual framework and an increasing determination to tackle the issue in multilingual communities, bilingual typography remains situated within the formal-material boundaries of monological systems. In short, managing the graphic collision or contact between two writing systems, whether triggered by communicative necessity or the creative impulse of a designer, at most leads to the design of more compatible typefaces. No typographic system has been able to realise a polyphonic form from the standpoint of the formal-material structure of letterforms. To attain a mutually consummated unity between two sets of letterforms in the sense of Bakhtin’s model, the dialogic integration of letterforms requires an analysis of the fundamental structure of letterforms, which is the focus of the next chapter.
27 CHAPTER THREE TOWARDS A THEORY OF LETTERFORMS
3.1. Introduction To justify the need for developing a new theory the present chapter begins with the problematisation of current scholarship specialising in the anatomical and semiotic studies of letterforms. It will be followed by the development of the theory of letterforms, the first phase of the research. In order to develop the theory of letterforms two sets of letterforms including the English uppercase and lowercase and Farsi letterforms will be examined in detail. A series of propositional statements expressing the general laws that govern the consistent and unified structure of letterforms will be formulated. In the second phase the theory of letterforms and the principles of dialogicality will be brought together and underlie the development of the Dialogic Coding System (DCS). In other words, the theory of letterforms will provide necessary logical propositions for the realisation of the principles of dialogicality.
3.2. The question of fundamental structure of letterforms Having established the limitations of the typographic systems that attempt to relate two different writing systems, I will now propose a set of coding principles that can construct a dialogical relationship between two sets of letterforms. This Dialogic Coding System (DCS) is focused on the formal-material possibility of mutual consummation between letterforms (figure 3.1-1) rather than individual letterforms in isolation (figure 3.1-2). In such a process a letterform moves outward from its concrete, self-contained set of properties, and enters a dynamic relationship where it completes and is completed by another letterform.
28
Figure 3.1: Relational contrast between letterforms in print (1) and the DCS (2)
First, I will define the elements that make up letterform systems and which will, therefore, determine possible relations between systems. This is complicated by the obvious fact that letterforms appearing in many different formal and material guises (e.g. Arial, Helvetica, Times New Roman; ink, digital pixel, neon, to name just some of the numerous range of variables), none of which constitutes an ultimate or definitive form, as the seven typefaces in figure (3.2) show. Each form of A has a different typographic character yet is identifiably an uppercase A. Hence, every particular choice of a typeface for developing and testing a system of integration seems to be arbitrary, which is methodologically problematic.
Figure 3.2: Typeface variations of letter ‘A’
To avoid this arbitrary choice, the prototypical image (Rosch and Lloyd, 1978) or ‘the fundamental structure of letterforms’, which lies behind the typeface variations, has to be examined. The fundamental structure of ‘A’ underlies the cognitive perception, discrimination and comprehension of the linguistic content of ‘A’, which must be therefore retained when it enters into a dialogical relation with another letterform. One might argue that an ‘average’ image of a letterform’s diverse formal- material manifestations can portray its fundamental structure. In figure (3.3), for example, the superimposition of the seven forms of ‘A’ (shown in figure 3.2)
29 reveals certain characteristics, such as a closed triangle space and two legs, or three connected lines. But such an awkward superimposition of letterforms does not provide us with an understanding of the invariant structure of ‘A’; each definition is limited since it cannot account for all variations.
Figure 3.3: Superimposition of the variations of ‘A’
We are in a bind. We can only search for the prototypical image through the actual instance of letterforms, so we must devise a more adequate description of the morphological resemblances, which can account for all instances of ‘A’. However, this alone is only the starting point, since the examination of individual letterforms does not address the holistic nature of morphological resemblance across an entire letterform system. Parts need to be examined in relation to the whole. The separation of parts from the whole fails to give a cohesive account of the fundamental structures of letterforms. This is evident in the dominant ‘anatomical’ approach to the study of letterforms, which is preoccupied with the featural analysis of individual letterforms (Lawson, 1990; Lupton, 2004; Graham, 2005; Cullen, 2012; Coles and Seddon, 2012). These studies produce a list of fragmented features (e.g., stem, bowl, serif, final, spine, etc) constituting parts of individual letterforms. Every ‘A’ will be defined uniquely, bringing us no closer to an understanding of its fundamental structure. A recent alternative approach is represented by the work of visual communication and typography scholars (Stöckl, 2005; van Leeuwen, 2006; Nørgaard, 2009) in the form of a semiotic analysis of typographic signs as a
30 relatively autonomous sign system. Here too, however, the separation of parts from the whole is apparent. The focus shifts away from the individual letter to the features, which characterise the system as a whole. For example, in his semiotic account of typography Stöckl (2005, p. 81) noted four categories of typographic properties that communicate certain meanings while constructing a text. The smallest unit, according to Stöckl (ibid., p. 82), refers to “the design of fonts and individual graphic signs” termed “microtypography”, for which van Leeuwen (2006, p. 151) suggested a list of featural qualities such as weight, expansion, serif, curvature, etc. In Stöckl’s account (2005, p. 82) the second category includes properties such as word spacing or leading (line spacing) and termed “mesotypography”. The third category termed “macrotypography” refers to “indentations and paragraphing”, for example, and the forth category termed “paratypography” is devoted to material attributes of medium. The semiotic analysis of letterforms has focused on the formal-material meaning potential6 of text including glyphic-geometric features of typefaces and their configurations in the textual space. This approach has made a major contribution to our understanding of typographic systems qua systems, but does not resolve the question of the fundamental structure of letterforms.
3.3. Research design and methodology The need for a theory of letterforms inevitably locates the researcher in a qualitative research paradigm. As Merriam (2009, p. 15) explains, qualitative research is relevant once “there is a lack of theory or an existing theory fails to adequately explain a phenomenon.” According to Creswell (2003, p. 132) in the qualitative research paradigm the end point is a theory that comes through “an inductive process of building from the data to broad themes to a generalised model or theory.” Such a paradigm includes grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1965), the phenomenological method (Husserl, 1970), and analytic induction (Znaniecky, 1968). The process of theory building and the choice of a pertaining device can be
6 The extralinguistic meaning that can be construed from the formal-material features of a given typeface. For a discussion of meaning potential of typography see the Peircean model proposed by Stöckl, (2005) and Nørgaard (2009), and also the Hallidayan model developed by van Leeuwen (2006). 31 informed by the ontological and epistemological position of the researcher towards the subject matter. The present research regards letterforms as objects of knowledge with an observable single reality. Rather than interpret the subjects’ engagement with the object, the research considers letterforms as a purely external reality, as if they are the objects of physical or biological studies. The proposed approach locates the study within applied scientific ontology. As Jacquette (2002, p. 5) puts it “[a]pplied scientific ontology is tasked with explicating a system of categories of existent entities.” As such, theory building in this instance is informed by an analysis of the unified totality of letterforms, an account at global level (categories) and a set of properties at local level (subcategories) and their relations independent of the experience of observing subjects. The reason to take a realist approach and avoid interpretivist positions toward the object of study can be justified by the hypothesis of the present study. It assumes that the consistent operation or the shared experience of an extremely varied object with respect to a large number of subjects is caused by an objectively unified structure of, or an inherent single reality to, the given object. This positivist convergence of objectivism in principle contradicts the subjective divergence of interpretivism. Positions such as subjectivism and constructionism, as subsets of interpretivism (Collins, 2010, p. 39), emphasise multiple realities due to the uncertainty and variations of the subject’s perception (Crotty, 1998, pp. 8-9). Analytic induction is the most promising methodology for capturing the reality of letterforms in accordance with objectivism. Analytic induction was derived from physical and biological sciences and adopted to social sciences by Polish philosopher and sociologist Florian Znaniecky (Robinson, 1951). As Znaniecky (1968, p. 237) argues, the aim of analytic induction is to induce “laws from a deep analysis of experimentally isolated instances.” That is, analytic induction is a systematic objective study, which provides “exhaustive knowledge” (Robinson, 1951, p. 812) of the phenomenon under survey, “so that further study will not and cannot reveal anything new” (ibid.). This refers to characteristic positivism of analytic induction, which can be noted in Robinson’s reading of Znaniecky: “He [Znaniecky] holds that analytic induction gives us universal statements, of the form “All S are P,” instead of mere correlations to which there are always 32 exceptions”(ibid.). According to Pascale (2011, p. 41) such knowledge could be acquired, as Znaniecky considered, “by studying the essential features of a social phenomenon.” That is to say, analytic induction is a method for exploring underlying principles according to which invariant properties of an object are formed and related. Although analytic induction shares some procedures with grounded theory, the latter is more interpretive, since it is grounded in the information collected from participants (Creswell, 2003, p. 133). Grounded theory primarily seeks “concepts to emerge” (Lapan et al., 2012, p. 185), it is “broadly explanatory but unverifiable” (Pascale, 2011, p. 47). For this reason, grounded theory does not provide an appropriate methodological framework for the objectivist study of the fundamental structure of letterforms. The systematic approach of analytic induction and its positivist phenomenological orientation is relevant for the objectivist grounding of this research. Although the object of the study is not a social phenomenon, analytic induction can pave the way for an account of what all forms of, say, letter ‘A’ are (all ‘A’ are x). But what methodological procedures would allow the researcher to achieve a definitive account? Although Znaniecky did not give details of his methodological procedures (Robinson, 1951, p. 812), Cressey (cited in Lapan et al., 2012, p. 185) explicitly defined the necessary steps as follows:
Define the phenomenon Hypothesise an explanation Study one case to see if it fits the facts Modify the hypothesis or the definition in light of this fit Review further cases
In the following the given methodological procedures has been restated in accordance with the question of the fundamental structure of letterforms.
Define the phenomenon of the fundamental structure of letterform Hypothesise an explanation of this fundamental structure Study an isolated case, such as the English uppercase letter ‘A’ to determine
33 whether the hypothesis fits the case, and modify if necessary. At this point “practical certainty may be attained after a small number of cases [more letterforms of the same case] have been examined” (Robison, 1951, p. 813). Review further cases The proposed theory is developed through these procedures.
3.4. Exposition of the fundamental structure of letterforms
Definition of the phenomenon: According to Oxford Dictionary (Stevenson, 2010, p. 709) the word ‘fundamental’ means: “forming a necessary base or core, of central importance”, and the word ‘structure’: “the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex”, and as a verb: “give a pattern or organisation to” (ibid., p. 1767). Such primary definitions are of great value here as they help define the fundamental structure of letterforms as follows: the necessary formative parts of entities or structures, which are arranged or related on the basis of given patterns. On the basis of this general definition we can specify that the fundamental structure of letterforms is composed of those necessary parts and their relations that underlie a potentially unlimited number of forms.
Hypothesise an explanation:
Although the formal-material structure of letterforms is a physically bound system of properties, the fundamental structure of a given letterform lies in an invariant and irreducible set of morphological properties within the formal structure of the letterform and provides the necessary code for deciphering the letterform’s linguistic content across its all possible formal-material variations.
Study an isolated case: The English uppercase letter ‘A’:
To avoid the inevitable cognitive interplay between the linguistic content of a single letterform and those of the adjacent letterforms in the context of a word the
34 analysis of letterforms must be entirely oriented towards single letterforms in isolation. Reading is a cognitive act and informed by the linguistic competence of the reader. A distortedly illegible letterform finds its expression or evokes its prototypical image with reference to sufficiently legible letterforms adjacent to it within the word structure (Rawlinson, 1976). Words function in fact as phonetic frames of reference that inform the reading process and, as such, the morphology of letterforms. Thus, the present study considers letterforms as individual objects in isolation. Consider again the English uppercase letter ‘A’ in figure (3.4). The selected letter is set in a relatively simple sans serif typeface (Helvetica).
Figure 3.4: Letter ‘A’
Broadly speaking, two objects can be observed in figure (3.4): a white ‘plane’ and a black ‘pattern’7. The boundaries of the black figure are clear and, as such, define the pattern’s objective totality, whereas the white plane is set out arbitrarily and is bounded only by the image frame. However, such objective arbitrariness of the white plane is to some degree restrained by the black pattern so that it becomes part of it, the relationship being emphasised if the plane is compressed as in figure (3.5-1). Of course, the whiteness of the plane and the blackness of the pattern are arbitrary in that they merely serve to demarcate the boundaries of both objects. Their inversions are objectively ineffectual (figure 3.5-2). Note also the Gestalt
7 I refer to the form of the letter A in its general sense as a ‘pattern’ and I reserve the term ‘form’ as a more specific term for the analysis of the pattern’s structure. 35 figure-ground dichotomy is irrelevant to the present study due to the inherent uncertainty of perceptual multistability, though the pattern-plane dichotomy is of critical relevance to the structural analysis I will propose.
(1) (2)
Figure 3.5: Pattern-plane analysis of ‘A’
However, the inversion of whiteness and blackness in figure (3.4) helps analyse the surrounding plane further by studying its parts, which are characterised in terms of their relations to the pattern ‘A’, (figure 3.5). As shown, the parts of the surrounding plane are either exterior to the pattern, lying outside and sharing outward contours with the pattern or interior to the pattern, lying inside and sharing inward contours with the pattern. In fact both exterior and interior parts are closely related and constitute the pattern. Nevertheless, from an objective perspective (i.e. not a perceptual-cognitive perspective) the exterior parts, two mirrored triangles, bear no morphological resemblance to the letter (pattern), whereas the interior parts, both as separate parts or a unified whole, constitute the morphological counterparts of the letter. The sides of the interior parts are identical to inward sides of the pattern; indeed they are one and the same. As a result, we can discard the exterior parts form our analysis. Ruder (1981, pp. 44-5) describes the interior counterparts noted above as the “counter-form” of letterforms in contrast to the “form”, explaining the integration of form and counter-form in letterforms as follows:
“Typographical symbols printed on paper capture, activate and regulate light; they can be comprehended only in conjunction with the unprinted areas. The printed value evokes its counter-value and the two together determine the
36 overall form. The unprinted area is not an undefinable vacuum but an essential element of what is printed” (ibid.).
Broadly speaking, therefore, letterforms are made of two formative categories: the ‘form’ and the ‘counter-form’. The form is an independent variable and the counter-form is dependent; there is a cause-and-effect relationship between them. Once the form exists, its counter-form emerges but as the name indicates, the reverse is not the case.
Sub-categories of Form and Counter-form: The form is objectively indeterminate both quantitatively and qualitatively, due to the virtually infinite number of possible variations (typefaces). And it is undefinable due to lack of certainty in our analytical criteria. For instance, in the case of letter ‘A’ it could be defined as three connecting lines (figure 3.6-1), or as one chevron (an inverted V) in conjunction with a crossbar (figure 3.6-2), or as a triangle and two legs (figure 3.6-3). The three accounts are equally representative of letter ‘A’ and none is more veridical than the others.
Figure 3.6: Three possible definitions of letter ‘A’
In figure (3.7) the first set (1) illustrates a few commonly used typefaces and the second (2) set presents graphically altered variations, which are easily identifiable forms of ‘A’, but which do not however conform to the definitions given above.
37
Figure 3.7: Common typeface variations of ‘A’ (1); and graphically altered variations of ‘A’ (2)
The counter-form, too, is objectively indeterminate but only in quantitative dimension due to variations of the form. For example, in figure (3.7- 1) the upper counter-form of Lucida black letter has four sides while Lucida calligraphy has only three. However, both sets of counter-forms can be characterised by their spatial qualities. The counter-form is the area either partially or fully enclosed by the form. For example, the counter-form of ‘A’ consists of two spatial elements, which I refer to as ‘morphological primitives’: one ‘enclosed space’ (the upper interior space) and one partially enclosed or ‘semi-enclosed space’ (the lower interior space).8 The two morphological primitives and their vertical adjacency result in the particular spatial quality, which I refer to as the ‘spatial division’ of letter ‘A’. The given spatial division is common to all forms in figure (3.7), including those in the second group in spite of their fragmented forms or their plane and form inversions. Although the form produces such spatial division, it is an integral part of the letterform. All forms of isolated letter ‘A’ exhibit, and are identifiable by, such a spatial division. For example, although a chevron is identifiable as an ‘A’ in a text (figure 3.8), it is not identifiable as such in isolation, demonstrating that a chevron form per se is not a defining element of the form.
8 In figure (3.7-2) one might object that there are narrow channels connecting the upper and lower counter-forms. Such an objection will be dealt with through the discussion of the abstract nature of counter-forms (page 55) 38
Figure 3.8: Analysis of the form inside and outside the word structure
Despite the indeterminate objectivity of the form, the spatial division is the only invariant qualitative property that exists consistently across the varied forms of letter ‘A’. Analysing various cases of the given letter into their forms and counter-forms shows that the spatial division recurs consistently. Figure (3.9) illustrates the counter-forms of the letters in figure (3.7). In fact, the elements of the spatial division, an enclosed and a semi-enclosed space, manifest themselves as diversely as the forms of the letterform—due to its quantitative interconnection with the form.
Figure 3.9: Counter-forms of the variations of ‘A’
In other words, the letter ‘A’ can be defined as a system of diverse forms whose morphological resemblance is underlain by a specific spatial division.9 In summary:
9 The space between two letterforms, known as ‘kerning’, could potentially construct a third letterform due to corresponding forms of the two letterforms. For instance, if two uppercase ‘A’s were positioned next two each other without any space in between (AA) the resultant complex could create the counter-form of ‘V’. However, such a contingent perceptual quality is ineffective in 39 1. A letterform can be objectively divided and studied in terms of two broad categories: form and counter-form.
2. Form is the letterform’s contour and counter-form is the area partially or fully enclosed by the form.
3. The counter-form is (spatially) equivalent to the form: (CF ~ F)10.
4. Form is quantitatively indeterminate or variable, whereas counter-form is qualitatively invariant.
5. The counter-form is made of two morphological primitives: an enclosed and a semi-enclosed space and their positional relationship,11 which result in the spatial division of the given letterform.
Such an analysis now needs to be tested with other letterforms. Five more English uppercase letters, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, and ‘F’ will be examined, first to identify other morphological primitives constitutive of letterforms, if any exist, and second, to show the consistent recurrence of the spatial division in the given letterforms.
The English uppercase letters ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’:
The analyses of the letters B, C, and D are presented in figure (3.10). The analytical model consists of three parts: inversion, exterior plane, and counter-form. The inversion is generated by a rectangle that adheres as closely as possible to the letter contours and highlights the counter-form, the exterior plane of which (as figure 3.5 shows), bears no morphological resemblance to the form and therefore has no analytical value, and can be discarded; and the interior counter-form, which constitutes the morphological primitive.
the articulation of the fundamental structure of letterforms and merely arises from particular joint- occurrences of letterforms, alluding to the perpetually generative quality of kerning.
10 CF: counter-form, : equivalent, F: form. The rationale behind the use of symbolic propositional statement will be discussed on page 43.
11 The positional relationship between morphological primitives will be discussed on page 62.
40
Figure 3.10: Analysis of the form and counter-form of ‘B’, ‘C, and ‘D’
The counter-forms can be described as follows: letter ‘B’ is made of two enclosed spaces, letter ‘C’ is made of one semi-enclosed space (the small red line on the right side of the counter-form indicates its openness or partial enclosure in figure 3.10); and letter ‘D’ is made of one enclosed space. In each case the spatial primitive(s) is/are equivalent to the form. By adopting the mathematical forms of logical arguments (i.e., propositional statements) of symbolic logic, we can establish a set of ‘characteristic arguments’ presented in figure (3.11).
Figure 3.11: Characteristic arguments denoting the fundamental structures of ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’
The counter-form of letter E is made of two semi-enclosed spaces (2SE), which are spatially generated by the form and as such are equivalent to it (figure 3.12). The red lines show the direction of the semi-enclosed spaces.
Figure 3.12: Analysis of ‘E’ 41 A ‘general argument’, presented in figure (3.13), denotes the probable common morphological primitives of the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’. It is that a variable number (x) of the probability (P) of either of the individual morphological primitives, enclosed space (E) and semi-enclosed space (SE) or their joint occurrence () is equivalent (~) in each case to the form (F). Although, the joint occurrence is not the case in the given letters, as a general argument it has to be accounted for.
Figure 3.13: General characteristic argument
This logical argument enables us to avoid the potential formal bias inevitably associated with specific letterforms. For example, ‘C’ is ‘C’ as a result of its semi- enclosed space, not the roundedness of its form. ‘C’ could equally well appear as a rectilinear object. In fact, the abstraction of logical arguments is in harmony with the abstraction of the fundamental structure of letterforms.
The general argument (figure 3.14) can account for the English letters ‘H’, ‘K’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘R’, ‘S’, ‘U’, ‘V’, ‘O’, ’W’, ’X’, and ‘Z’.
Figure 3.14: Characteristic arguments of the uppercase letters composed of enclosed and semi- enclosed spaces
42 As the reader will have noted, the letters ‘F’, ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘L’, ‘P’, ‘Q’, ‘T’, and ‘Y’ are not included in figure (3.14), as they cannot be adequately described by the general argument because they generate morphological primitives other than semi- enclosed and enclosed spaces.
Exceptions of the general argument and generalisations:
Examination of letter ‘F’ in figure (3.15) illustrates the issue. In figure (3.15-1) the exterior plane has been conceived as a small intermediate area between upper and lower areas and the counter-form has been considered as two partially enclosed spaces. However, the two semi-enclosed spaces are not equivalent to the form, for the lower counter-form has been extended beyond its supporting form; it is open at two sides as marked by the red lines. That is, the form does not even partially enclose the lower space; rather it lies at, touches the sides of, the given space. Letter ‘F’ then helps define the semi-enclosed space more precisely: it is a space enclosed by the form with only one open side. By assuming the lower space as a part of the exterior plane, the counter-form is still not equivalent to the form; there is a part missing in the category of the counter-form (figure 3.15-2). The only remaining part to be referred to is then the lower part of the letter’s stem as shown in figure (3.15-3). That is, the form does not only produce spatial primitives, rather as a ‘line segment’ it may constitute a formal primitive of the letter. Therefore, the characteristic argument of letter ‘F’ is that one joint occurrence of a semi-enclosed space (SE) and a line-segment (LSF)12 is equivalent to the form.
12 A line segment LS is an element of the form and, therefore, it is denoted as (LS F). 43
Figure 3.15: Analysis of ‘F’
Figure (3.16) presents the analyses of the letters ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘L’, ‘P’, ‘Q’, ‘T’, and ‘Y’ and their characteristic arguments. For ‘J’, it might be argued that its bottom semicircle creates a semi-enclosed space. However, this is a typeface-specific character of the letter and in its other manifestations (e.g., ‘J’, ‘J’, etc.) it appears as a quadrant, which is a minor deviance in the straight line segment. For this reason, the fundamental structure of ‘J’ is considered as a line segment.
Figure 3.16: Characteristic arguments of the uppercase letters whose fundamental structures composed of line segments
In the examination of the exceptions of the general argument, the research indentified the third morphological primitive, the line segment, which is an
44 element of the form. By including the third primitive, the first general argument (i.e., explaining every English uppercase letter) can be re-stated: an invariant number of the probability of either individual morphological primitives or their joint occurrences is equivalent to one particular form of a given letter (figure 3.17). In other words, both sides of the first general argument, essential primitives (premise) and the form of letter (conclusion), are invariant. For example, the joint occurrence of an enclosed and a semi-enclosed space represents letter A.
Figure 3.17: General argument 1
The first general argument refers only to a particular form of a given letter. But a letter appears in a variety of forms; it is objectively indeterminate, in other words, it is variable. The variable forms of a single letterform change an invariant form (F) into variable forms (Fs) signifying a given letter. This is the second argument (figure 3.18), in which the premise is invariant (an invariant set of morphological primitives), whereas the conclusion (variable forms of a letter) is variable.
45
Figure 3.18: General argument 2
These two general arguments refer to the fundamental structure of a given letterform and the variations of that structure respectively. The variations of the form do not exist only across variable manifestations of a particular letterform’s fundamental structure, but also between letterforms. To account for such fundamental variations of the form, the premise of the second argument needs to be changed from invariant to variable (figure 3.19). In the third argument, both premise and conclusion are variable. For example, letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ result from two different sets of morphological primitives (figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19: General argument 3
46 To summarise, the general argument 2 (GA 2) accounts for an invariant set of morphological primitives of the variations of a letter and shows paradigmatic variations of letterforms. The general argument 3 (GA 3) accounts for variable set of morphological primitives of different letterforms and shows syntagmatic variations of letterforms (figure 3.20). An alphabet results from the paradigmatic and syntagmatic variations of form. In other words, it is a bounded system of letters (GA 3) and each letter itself is an unbounded network of diverse forms (GA 2). The general arguments 2 and 3 refer to two distinct categories, “each of which generates a certain class of values” (Saussure [1916], 2013, p. 123). The paradigmatic argument (GA 2) refers to the geometrically equivalent values of the variable forms within a letterform and syntagmatic argument (GA 3) refers to geometrically inequivalent values of the variable forms across letterforms.
Figure 3.20: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic variations of letterforms
The general arguments are significant, first, because the given arguments put the indeterminate form of letters in three major modes: a particular form signifying a given letter, variable forms signifying a given letter, and variable forms signifying different letters. Second, the shared elements of the three modes (i.e., the individual morphological primitives and their joint occurrence), from a holistic point of view, elucidate the consistent operation of letters. Having established the three general arguments, there are still questions as to their truth-value. In the GA 1 and GA 2, what factors underlie variable yet true conclusions, which are not included in their invariant premises? In other words,
47 what are the empirical grounds for the recurrence of a set of morphological primitives in variations of a particular letter? And in the GA 3, having variable premises, how can the recurrence of a set of morphological primitives (invariant premises) result in distinct letterforms, for example, letters ‘N’ and ‘H’, which are both made of two semi-enclosed spaces? There are in short distinct letterforms along syntagmatic axis whose characteristic arguments are accounted for by the GA 2 and not by the GA 3. The objective examination of letterforms in this section unfolded the invariant morphological primitives of letterforms at global level. The dyadic system of the form and counter-form provided a point of entry into the study of letterforms but it needs further development. To answer the questions raised above we must examine variable properties of form at a local level beyond the generic morphological primitives.
3.5. Examination of the general arguments: the theoretical grounds for the morphological primitives It has been argued that letterforms can be studied on the basis of two interconnected, yet analytically discriminable categories: form and counter-form. The contributions of both categories to the morphological existence of letterforms at global level were defined by three morphological primitives, and general arguments about the fundamental structure of letterforms were made. In order to tackle the form’s indeterminate objectivity, it was conceived of as an invariant set of qualitative properties. Hence, the variable properties, namely, the glyphic and geometric features embedded in the structure of the form (discussed by Stöckl, 2005; van Leeuwen, 2006; Nørgaard, 2009) remained entirely outside the scope of the examination. In this section, I will attempt to incorporate these features into the morphological model of letterforms and ground the model in a topological- geometric account of patterns and planes.
48 Geometric expression and glyphic features
Consider the two forms of the English uppercase letter ‘A’ in figure (3.21). These are two illustrations of each letter; one presents the form and the other projects the counter-form surrounded by a red contour. These illustrations demonstrate the extension of the form beyond the counter-from. The red outlines emphasise elements such as serifs and apices, which are attached to the counter-forms. That is, the form is more than a mere frame for the counter-form; it is a structure from which glyphic features project. In other words, the inward contour of the form frames the counter-form and its outward contour develops freely in a variety of ways to express the counter-form. The distance between the inward and outward contours, the thickness of the form—commonly referred to as the letter’s stroke— is part of the glyphic character of the outward contour.
Figure 3.21: The extension of the form’s outward contour and its glyphic character
The inward and outward contours of the form are analogous to the interior and exterior of a building (figure 3.22). The counter-form is a compartmentalisation of the form, and the outwards contour metaphorically stands as the façade of the form.
Figure 3.22: Analogical resemblance of the relation between the letterform’s form and counter- form, seen in figure (21), to a building’s façade and interior space 49 However, it is important to note that the glyphic features are extensions of the interior contour of the form, indeed from the variable geometric features of the morphological primitives. A definition of geometry is useful here. According to Flegg (2001, p. 1) traditionally, geometry is the study of certain properties of a figure within “Euclidean space” such as its “angles”, “lengths” and “the number of sides”, “the separation of plane” into “inside” and “outside” areas by the perimeter, “the length of its perimeter” and “the area enclosed by its perimeter”. All the given geometric properties cited by Flegg can be observed in the counter-forms of two variations of letter ‘A’ in figure (3.21). The Euclidean space is the plane divided into interior and exterior areas to define the counter-forms (as in the analysis of letterforms in the previous section) and the counter-forms can be distinguished by their angles and lengths of sides. In fact, the indeterminate objectivity of the form is a geometrical phenomenon. The geometric properties are in various degrees constitutive of the form but need to be explicitly formulated in relation to the particular objects of study, letterforms. The glyphic features can be studied on a continuum spanning the less prominent interior contour and the more prominent exterior contour typically associated with the form. The glyphic features include distinctive features such as weight, slope, connectivity, orientation, expansion, serif, etc (van Leeuwen, 2006). As shown, the geometric expression of the morphological primitives constitutes the core of the glyphic character of a letter, which may develop onto the ‘surface’ of the given letter as non-essential features. The geometric expression has a double function both for expressing the morphological primitives and also the glyphic features. It is a mediating category lying at the intersection of the other two categories.
Topological content
Despite the objective proliferation of the form and glyphic features of letterforms, the morphological primitives are qualitatively invariant, remaining unchanged despite geometric transformations of the form. Such an invariant phenomenon can be observed through the theoretical lens of topology. Topology is a mathematical discipline concerning the properties of spaces or their configurations invariant 50 under continuous transformation (Joshi, 1983, p. 72). The morphological primitives are in fact topological properties of letterforms, which are preserved under glyphic and geometric transformations of form. For this reason, the morphological primitives can be referred to as the ‘topological content’ of letterforms. The topological content can be further explicated by reference to the morphologically equivalent forms, which denote distinct letters (i.e., the third syntagmatic argument, page 48). In Boltjanskij and Efremovic’s (2001, p. 5) account of the topology of letterforms, the letter is conceived as a system of continuous line segments. In this sense those letters that can transform into one another without “tearing up” or “glueing” (figure 3.23) have been referred to as “homeomorphic letters” (ibid.). In such a ‘linear’ account of homeomorphism a line segment and a semi-enclosed space are equivalent and, as such, letters ‘C’ and ‘I’ are homeomorphic.
Figure 3.23: Topological transformations in contrast to tearing and glueing
However, such a linear account of homomorphism is limited to particular forms of letters. For instance, if the letter ‘C’ were made of three disconnected lines it would no longer be equivalent to ‘I’. Due to the glyphic proliferation of the form the linear account is limited and contradicts the definition of topology as the properties of spaces or their configurations invariant under continuous transformation. In this analytical framework, therefore, those letters that share an identical set of morphological primitives are characterised as homeomorphic. The homeomorphic English uppercase letters are then as follows: ‘N’ and ‘H’ (made of two semi-enclosed spaces); ‘E’ and ‘Z’ (made of two semi-enclosed spaces); ‘I’, ‘J’ and ‘L’ (made of one line segment); ‘M’, ‘K’ and ‘W’ (made of three semi-enclosed spaces); ‘C’, ‘U’ and ‘V’ (made of one semi-enclosed space); and ‘D’ 51 and ‘O’ (made of one enclosed space). In sum, the concept of the topological content implies an invariant set of morphological primitives constitutive of variable forms of a given letter; it is grounded in the premises of the general arguments (see pages 46-8).
Fundamental structure and glyphic surface:
A letterform exists as an abstract object, which is rendered concrete as it is written or printed. As an abstract object it is a prototypical image of all concrete variations of the letterform. The prototypical image is composed of two sets of abstract properties: topological content (a set of morphological primitives) and its associated geometric organisation. In a given form of a letter there are three integrated sets of properties. The core is topological, the intermediate structure is geometric, and the surface is glyphic. I refer to them as ‘topological content’, ‘geometric expression’ and ‘glyphic features’ of the letter (figure 3.24). They form a unified whole through the double functions of the geometric expression, which expresses both the topological content and its associated geometric organisation of the prototypical image, and appears as the structure and as an integral part of glyphic features at once.
Figure 3.24: Three interconnected sets of properties constitutive of a letterform
The fundamental structure is a concrete structure composed of topological content and its associated geometric organisation. It is expressed by the geometric expression. The integration of geometric expression and glyphic features results in
52 the given form of a letter, which I call ‘glyphic surface’. The concrete geometric and glyphic form of a letterform must be in accord with the letterform’s abstract prototypical image to the extent that its topological content and geometric organisation are identifiable. For this reason, minor deviances in the geometric expression have no significant effect on deciphering a letterform.13 The fundamental structure is in fact the concrete counter-part of the abstract prototypical image.
Figure 3.25: The relationship between fundamental structure and glyphic surface through geometric expression
The fundamental structure includes one invariant subcategory (the topological content) and one variable subcategory (the geometric expression); the glyphic surface includes two variable subcategories: the geometric expression and the glyphic features. In other words, the geometric expression realises one invariant and one variable subcategory. These two disparate extremes of the morphological continuum upon which plural glyphic surfaces (forms) of the letter appear, enable us to resolve the logical issue of the paradigmatic argument. The reader will recall the challenge of accounting for the fact that the same sets of morphological primitives can generate either different forms of the same letter (the paradigmatic argument) or different letters (the syntagmatic argument). The analysis shows that variations in the glyphic features and geometric expression can realise glyphic surface variations of the same morphological primitives. In fact, the invariant premise of the symbolic logical argument is rooted in the topological content and its variable conclusion stems from the geometric expression and/or the glyphic features of the letter. To illustrate this, consider
13 This issue was raised in the analysis of letter ‘A’ (figure 3.9, page 39).
53 figure (3.26), where three forms of letter ‘A’ are shown. Although the geometric expressions of the first and second forms are identical (indicated by red lines), their glyphic surfaces are different due to their distinct glyphic features, which extend their geometric expressions into the exterior plane. However, the morphological distinction between the third and the first two letters is based on both disparate geometric expression and glyphic features of the given letters. The analysis of the given cases shows that the disparity of the geometric expression leads to a more fundamental variation of the form.
Figure 3.26: The significance of geometric expression in determining the form’s variations
The Geometric Expression of Homeomorphic Letters: In this section, I explore local variables of the geometric expression that create different letterforms from the same topological content. The case studies will be the English homeomorphic uppercase letters. The geometric expression of the homeomorphic letters can be studied as geometric organisations of the topological content: the linear organisation by which the morphological primitives are fixed and framed, and the coordinate organisation that defines the relative positions of the morphological primitives within the coordinate system.
Linear Organisation: Homeomorphic letters ‘O’ and ‘D’: Consider homeomorphic letters ‘O’ and ‘D’ in figure (3.27). Both letters are made of one enclosed space denoted by the characteristic argument in the pink box. The morphological distinction between the given letters results from the varied linear
54 organisations of the enclosed spaces (indicated by red lines). In letter ‘O’ the enclosed space is bounded by a circle, whereas in letter ‘D’ the perimeter includes two right angles. In fact the morphological distinction results from the contrast between a circular perimeter of O and a semi-circular perimeter fused with a half- square of D. I will draw on this analysis later in the section (see pages 60-2).
Figure 3.27: Linear organisations of ‘O’ and ‘D’
Homeomorphic Letters ‘N’ and ‘H’:
Figure (3.28) shows homeomorphic letters N and H are made of two semi-enclosed spaces denoted by the characteristic argument. The morphological distinction between the given letters results from the varied linear organisations of the semi- enclosed spaces. The semi-enclosed spaces in letter N are framed by a triangle’s convergent perimeter and those of H are framed by a square’s perpendicular perimeter (indicated in red).
Figure 3.28: Linear organisations of ‘N’ and ‘H’
Homeomorphic Letters ‘U’ and ‘V’: Figure (3.29) shows the homeomorphic letters ‘U’ and ‘V’ are made of one semi- enclosed space denoted by the characteristic argument. The morphological
55 distinction between the letters results from particular linear organisations of the semi-enclosed spaces. The sides of the semi-enclosed space in letter U are parallel, whereas they converge in letter ‘V’. The very morphological distinction between the letters results from parallel sides of ‘U’, which is the geometric characteristic of a square, and the convergent sides of ‘V’, which is the geometric characteristic of a triangle.
Figure 3.29: Linear organisations of ‘U’ and ‘V’
Homeomorphic Letters ‘L’ and ‘I’:
The next homeomorphic cases to be considered here are letters ‘L’ and ‘I’. Both letters are made of one line segment as denoted by their characteristic argument (figure 3.30). The morphological distinction between the given letters originates from the geometric-linear characteristics of the line segments. The line segment of letter I is straight and that of letter L is non-straight.14
Figure 3.30: Linear organisation of ‘L’ and ‘I’
14 The generic quality of non-straight line accounts for other forms of letter L such as curved ones.
56 Generalising From Homeomorphic letters: The linear analyses of the geometric expression across homeomorphic letters can be formulated as a series of variables whose contrasting geometric characteristics underlie the morphological distinctions of the homeomorphic letters (figure 3.31). These variables can be classified as three sets of linear qualitative dichotomies. The two sides of a right angle, catheti15 and curvature; convergence and parallel; and straight line and non-straight line dichotomies that result from the homeomorphic cases.
Figure 3.31: Qualitative dichotomies
The first two sets characterise the semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces. They are drawn from the distinguishing geometric characteristics of the basic shapes, catheti and parallel from a square, convergence from a triangle, and curvature from a circle (figure 3.32). The third set introduces two geometric characteristics of a line segment.
15 In Euclidean geometry ‘catheti’ is the name given to the sides adjacent to the right angle in a right triangle. This geometric characteristic is shared between the square and a right-angled triangle. In the context of the present research it represents the geometric characteristic of the square. 57
Figure 3.32: Derivation of the qualitative dichotomies from the basic shapes
It is important to note that the given three qualitative dichotomies are not discrete but part of a continuum. For instance, if parallel sides tend towards being convergent, the letter ‘U’ tends toward the form of the letter ‘V’ and vice versa. The qualitative dichotomies in figure (3.31) define the extremes of such a geometric continuum, but they might appear in intermediate forms, which can cause a formal uncertainty, denoting two letters at once, as in figure (3.33).
Figure 3.33: Parallel and convergence: two ends of a geometric continuum
The linear organisation can also be described as a series of quantitative parameters that underlie the morphological distinctions. The lengths of the sides or the perimeters, the value of the angles, and the number of sides (Flegg, 2001, p. 1) are the quantitative parameters affecting the linear organisation (figure 3.34). However, in upper cases letters no homeomorphic cases are distinguished by quantitative parameters as morphological characteristics of letterforms.16
16 The quantitative parameters will be determining factors in lowercase letterforms.
58
Figure 3.34: Quantitative parameters
The linear variables partly address the logical question associated with the syntagmatic argument but other homeomorphic letters are distinguished by their coordinate organisation.
Coordinate organisation:
The relative positions of the morphological primitives (i.e., their co-ordinate organisation) determine morphological distinctions between a number of homeomorphic letterforms. Figure (3.35) shows an analysis of the coordinate organisations of the semi-enclosed spaces of the homeomorphic letters ‘N’ and ‘H’. The morphological distinction between the letters can be explained by their coordinate organisations as well as by their contrasting geometric-linear characteristics. In both cases the two geometrically identical semi-enclosed spaces are vertically adjacent to one another. But in the coordinate system their relative positions can be defined more precisely. In letter ‘N’ the primitives can be explained as follows: the semi-enclosed space is rotated upwards, translated rightwards and downwards. In letter ‘H’ the positions of the semi-enclosed spaces result from the reflection of the one or the other across a horizontal axis. These three geometric transformations, “translation”, “rotation”, and “reflection” are referred to as rigid transformations (Flegg, 2001, p. 2) and underlie the coordinate organisations of letterforms.
59
Figure 3.35: Rotation, translation and reflection, the three coordinate organisations of morphological primitives
The morphological primitives appear in a variety of arrangements and directions, which result in the diversity of letterforms. For example, the homeomorphic letters ‘C’, ‘U’ and ‘V’ are all made of a semi-enclosed space. As discussed the morphological distinction between ‘U’ and ‘V’ lies in their geometric- linear organisation, whereas the morphological distinction between ‘C’ and ‘U’/’V’ results from their geometric-coordinate organisation. That is to say, if the upright semi-enclosed space of ‘U’/’V’ rotates to face right, it denotes letter ‘C’. Although the linear organisations of the given letters may appear in a variety of ways, their morphological distinctions are mainly caused by their coordinate organisations. The morphological distinction between the homeomorphic letters ‘M’ and ‘W’ lies in the reflection of an identical set of morphological primitives around the horizontal axis (figure 3.36).
Figure 3.36: Coordinate organisations of ‘M’ and ‘W’
In a less evident homeomorphism letters ‘P’ and ‘Q’ are constructed by the same set of morphological primitives whose coordinate organisations appear to cause their morphological distinction. Note that the historical evolution of 60 letterforms is irrelevant in the present study, which is based on the present synchronic forms of letters. Such distinction results from the varied positions of the line segment in the coordinate organisations of the letters. In letter ‘P’, the line segment is at the bottom left side of the enclosed space, whereas in ‘Q’ it translates to the right, then rotates and translates again upward such that it intersects with the linear organisation of the enclosed space (figure 3.37).
Figure 3.37: Coordinate organisations of ‘Q’ and ‘P’
Hence, the coordinate organisations as well as the linear organisations of the homeomorphic letters account for the variable forms derived from the same set of morphological primitives.
Restatement of general arguments:
An analysis of the geometric expression helped with an understanding of the morphological distinctions of homeomorphic letters. The triadic system made up of topological content, geometric expression and glyphic features, along with further explanations of its categories, resolves the logical issues of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic arguments. Such results also show how restricted general arguments on the basis of the dyadic system of the form and counter-form are. The general arguments, however, can be restated according to the triadic system.
61 The general characteristic argument: A probable occurrence of an invariant set of topological content (TC), geometric expression (GE) and glyphic features (AF) is equivalent (~) to the form (F) of a given letter (figure 3.38).
Figure 3.38: The general characteristic argument
The general paradigmatic argument: A probable occurrence of an invariant topological content with either an invariant geometric expression and variable glyphic features or variable geometric expression and variable glyphic features is equivalent to variable forms of a given letter (figure 3.39). As all paradigmatic forms of a given letter, such as ‘A’, are homeomorphic, the paradigmatic argument, therefore, refers to paradigmatically homeomorphic letters.
Figure 3.39: The general paradigmatic argument
The general homeomorphic argument: The paradigmatic argument does not account for the homeomorphic letters denoting alphabetically distinctive letterforms; in fact part of its premise is not valid. That is, the homeomorphic argument implies that a probable occurrence of an invariant set of topological content accompanied by only variable (not invariant) geometric expression and variable glyphic features is then equivalent to variable forms of alphabetically distinctive letters (figure 3.40). The homeomorphic argument refers to syntagmatically homeomorphic letters, in other words, different letters with the same morphological primitives (e.g., N and H).
62
Figure 3.40: The general homeomorphic argument
The general syntagmatic argument: A probable occurrence of a variable set of topological content, geometric expression, and glyphic features is equivalent to variable forms of distinctive letters, such as ‘A’ and ‘B’ (figure 3.41).
Figure 3.41: The general syntagmatic argument
I will now apply the principles defined for the English uppercase letters to English lowercase letters.
Lowercase Letterforms:
This section discusses analysis of the forms and counter-forms of lowercase letterforms for identifying their morphological primitives. Figure (3.42) shows that the lowercase letters can be analysed in terms of the same three morphological primitives identified for the uppercase letters. The red lines mark the direction of the semi-enclosed spaces. Although the given morphological primitives of the letters come from the analysis of a particular typeface (Helvetica), they can be confirmed through comparative analysis of the diverse forms of the letters.
63
Figure 3.42: Analysis of lowercase Helvetica
For instance, figure (3.43) demonstrates the morphological analysis of a more calligraphic typeface, Lucida Calligraphy. In spite of their geometric and glyphic variations across diverse typefaces, the lowercase letters demonstrate invariant sets of morphological primitives, in accordance with the paradigmatic argument.
Figure 3.43: Analysis of lowercase Lucida Calligraphy
Note however that three lowercase letters require further description. Letters ‘a’, ‘g’, and ‘t’ commonly appear in two varied forms reflecting two distinct sets of morphological primitives (figure 3.44).
Figure 3.44: Analysis of exceptional cases of ‘a’, ‘g’, and ‘t’
Letter ‘a’ is made of one semi-enclosed and one enclosed space, whereas in the other common form, ‘a’, it is made of one enclosed and one line segment. Since such a variation lies beyond the glyphic surface the characteristic arguments of both forms must be accounted for. Letter ‘g’ is made of one semi-enclosed and one
64 enclosed space, whereas ‘g’, the other common form, is made of two enclosed spaces and two line segments. As with ‘a’, letter ‘g’ also demonstrates two characteristic arguments. Although letter ‘t’ appears in two seemingly varied forms, both forms are actually made of the same set of morphological primitives. In ‘t’, and in other letters such as ‘l’, ‘b’, ‘d’ (see figure 3.43), the non-straightness of line segment might create the illusion of semi-enclosed space, but such geometric- linear variation of line-segment cannot be considered as an integral part of the fundamental structure.17 Therefore, letter ‘t’ is made of two line segments. Figure (3.45) presents the characteristic arguments denoting the topological contents of the lowercase letters are provided. The homeomorphic lowercase letters are then as follows: 1: {a, b, d, p, q}, 2: {i, j, r, t}, 3: {a, e, g}, 4: {t, y}, 5: {s, z}, 6: {c, v}, 7: {n, u}, 8: {f, h, y} and 9: {k, w}. I will now analyse those homeomorphic letters whose morphological distinctions can further elucidate the form’s geometric expression.
Figure 3.45: Characteristic arguments of lowercase letterforms, letters ‘a’ and ‘g’ are shown in their two common forms
For instance, the homeomorphic letters of group 2 (i, j, r, t) are worth noting here. There are four letters made of two line segments whose morphological
17 Such a geometric-linear variation of line segment to the extent of creating morphological distinction will be also observed in Farsi letterforms (see page 76). 65 distinctions can be explained in terms of their linear organisation, including both qualitative dichotomies and quantitative parameters, and the coordinate organisations of their geometric expression (see pages 60-4). The morphological distinction between letters ‘i’ and ‘j’ is caused by the dichotomy of the straight and non-straight line segments. The lower and longer line segment of letter ‘i’ (the stem line segment) is a straight line, whereas that of letter ‘j’ is non-straight. In contrast, the morphological distinctions between letters ‘t/i’ and ‘r’ result from quantitative parameters, namely, the lengths and the coordinate organisations of the line segments. It may seem counter-intuitive to compare t/i, but as I will demonstrate, they are homeomorphic (figure 3.46). The diacritic point of letter ‘i’, which is geometrically a short line segment, appears separately above the stem line segment, whereas the horizontal and vertical line segments of letter ‘t’ cross one another. And in letter ‘r’ a diagonal line segment intersects near the top with the stem line segment (figure 3.46).
Figure 3.46: Morphological significance of a line segment’s coordinate organisation
The morphological significance of the line segment’s length can be also noticed between the first group of homeomorphic letters, in particular between ‘a’, ‘d’. As already indicated (page 61), quantitative parameters might be significant in determining morphological distinctions between homeomorphic letterforms. Letters ‘a’ and ‘d’ ‘illustrate the point. The upward extension of the line segment causes the morphological distinction of ‘d’ from ‘a’. The morphological distinctions between the other remaining homeomorphic letters can be accounted for by their geometric expressions, so a separate analysis is not needed.
66 In fact, all lowercase letterforms conform to the triadic system and the general arguments. To summarise:
Letterforms can be studied at two objectively interconnected, yet analytically distinctive levels: form and counter-form.
The given dyadic system identifies the morphological primitives, enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces and line segment. A more comprehensive system, however, is required to explain the vast proliferation of the form. The triadic system of topological content, geometric expression, and glyphic features was therefore developed. The given categories were conceived as the subcategories of the two primal categories: fundamental structure and glyphic surface.
The glyphic surface underlies the glyphic and geometric proliferation of the form and is composed of glyphic features and geometric expression.
The fundamental structure lies behind the glyphic surface, causing letterforms to operate consistently across their glyphic and geometric proliferation.
The fundamental structure of a given letterform is composed of topological content and geometric features.
The topological content exposes the morphological primitives.
Two letterforms are topologically equivalent or homeomorphic if they are made of an identical set of morphological primitives.
The morphological distinctions of the homeomorphic letters can be explained by reference to their distinct geometric expressions.
The geometric expression includes linear organisation, which refers to the linear properties of morphological primitives including qualitative dichotomies and quantitative parameters, and coordinate organisation, which refers to the relative positions of morphological primitives within the coordinate system.
67 Figure (3.47) presents these propositions as the ‘Theory of the Letterform Genome’ (TLG).18 Analogically speaking, every letterform is a clause in which the fundamental structure is the subject predicated by the glyphic surface.
Figure 3.47: The elements of the Theory of the Letterform Genome
This chapter has developed the ‘Theory of the Letterform Genome’ by the application of analytic induction to the uppercase and lowercase letterforms of the English alphabet. The TLG elucidates the underlying consistent topological content of letterform under glyphic and geometric transformations across diverse typefaces and calligraphic hands. More importantly, it demonstrates that a common set of morphological primitives underlies the fundamental structure of letterforms, in the same way as notes do in music. This theory not only offers novel insights into the study of letterforms, it also establishes a theoretical foundation for conceiving and articulating the concept of the dialogic integration of letterforms. Having established a genomic map of English letterforms, the study now turns to the fundamental structure of other writing systems. Could the TLG describe a very different writing system such as Farsi? If this is possible, it lays the foundation for a systematic dialogic relationship between two sets of letterforms. I will attempt to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.
18 In contrast to van Leeuwen’s account of “distinctive features”, which I use here in a broader sense as aesthetic features, in the present study, as shown, the curvature falls under a more fundamental category of letterforms, which is the geometric-linear organisation. 68 3.6. Farsi Letterforms An analysis of the Farsi writing system’s distinctive set of letterforms will confirm the application of the general arguments to a letterform other than English.19 From a synchronic view, the Farsi writing system has thirty-two letters appearing in four functional forms: isolated, initial, medial, and final (figure 3.48).
sin) in its four positional forms) ’س‘ Figure 3.48: Letter
The isolated letters are freestanding, and initial, medial and final forms are three distinctive forms fitting three major orthographic positions in words. In Farsi, words are written from right to left and separated by space. To generate words, letters are shown cursively and form complex strokes (figure 3.49).
Figure 3.49: Farsi words as complex strokes
Farsi is a phonetic system and the complex strokes are phonetic objects whose letters correspond to the speech sounds. In contrast to the English alphabet, vowels in Farsi are under-represented—there are no separate codes for vowels and, as such, it has been noted as a so-called Abjad20 with other systems such as Arabic (Daniels and Bright, 1996, p. 4).
19 For the detailed overview of the historical evolution see section 8 in Daniel and Bright’s The World Writing Systems (1996).
د ,(jim) ج ,(be) ب ,(alef) ا The term ‘Abjad’ is derived from the first three letters of Arabic alphabet 20 (dal). 69 Figure (3.50) illustrates the isolated forms of the Farsi letters with their names transliterated. The typeface representing the letters is ‘Naskh Rousnamehie’ (Newspaper Naskh) commonly used in Farsi newspapers, as its name suggests. Due to the strong tradition of calligraphy the library of the Farsi printing type is not as well documented as that of the English (i.e., there has been no Farsi type specimen book published until now). Yet the printing type of a calligraphic hand ‘Nastaliq’ will also be considered here to further broaden and validate the examination of letterforms.
Figure 3.50: Farsi isolated letterforms
According to the TLG, the morphological primitives of the letters are defined as enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces produced by the form, and line segments, which are parts of the form. In line with the TLG, figure (3.51) illustrates the morphological primitives of isolated Farsi letterforms.
Figure 3.51: Counter-forms of Farsi isolated letterforms
70 Farsi letterforms can be analysed by morphological primitives, with enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces and line segments constituting the fundamental structures of letterforms represented in the particular glyphic-geometric forms of Newspaper Naskh typeface. The morphological significance of the Farsi diacritic system must be stressed.21 From the standpoint of geometry, as discussed in the analysis of the English lowercase letters ‘i’ and ‘j’, the diacritic points are shortened line segments. For this reason, in the illustration of the morphological primitives (figure 3.51) the diacritic points are shown as outlines akin to more structural line segments in zˆe) (figure 3.52). In brief, in Farsi) ’ژ‘ ze), and) ’ز‘ ,(re) ’ر‘ the letters such as letterforms, line segments perform two morphologically distinctive functions: diacritic and structural.
Figure 3.52: Diacritic and structural functions of line segments
The two distinctive functions of line segments imply a morphological division of the isolated Farsi letterforms, allowing them to be analysed into two categories: the diacritics, made of line segments, and the unified structure, made of either individual morphological primitives or their joint occurrences (figure 3.53).
Figure 3.53: Morphological functions of diacritics in Farsi
,ب} ,{ش ,س} In Farsi there is a number of letterforms identical in their non-diacritic parts such as 21 .etc. The diacritic points indicate differences in pronunciations of these letterforms ,{ت
71 Such a morphological division accounts for two distinctive groups of te), and) ’ت‘ ,(pe) ’پ‘ ,(be) ’ب‘ homeomorphic letters: one group of letters, such as se) whose morphological distinction is only explainable by reference to their) ’ث‘ (he) ’ح‘ ein) and) ’ع‘ diacritics, and another group of homeomorphic letters, such as whose morphological distinction lies in the disparate geometric expressions of their unified structures. This division is a major difference between isolated Farsi letterforms and the English letterforms. To validate the defined sets of morphological primitives in figure (3.54), and also establish related characteristic arguments the analytical framework must be expanded. To do so, a historically and culturally prominent calligraphic hand, ‘Nastaliq’,22 provides a glyphically disparate variation of the Farsi letterforms, represented in figure (3.54) by a typeface version. Although the Nastaliq hand creates smoothly curved letterforms in contrast to the much more angular Newspaper Naskh, the essential morphological primitives of the letters mostly remain the same. However, some do require discussion.
Figure 3.54: Nastaliq hand
’م‘ ,(ghaf) ’ق‘ ,(fe) ’ف‘ Figure (3.54) clearly shows different forms of the letters vav). The enclosed space in the given letters is filled up and) ’و‘ mim) and) presented as a mound for aesthetic and technical reasons. The bounded move of the qalam (i.e., the traditional calligraphic reed) on the paper affects the geometry of the given letters. However, such a geometric distinction is irrelevant to the
22 Nastaliq script was developed in the second half of 14th century in Herat during the Timurid period (Holt, Lambton and Lewis, 1980, p. 731). 72 topological content of the letters. A filled-up enclosed space is the inversion of an enclosed space with a perimeter. Other cases, which are apparently contesting the morphological primitives .(gaf) shown in figure (3.55) ’گ‘ kaf) and) ’ک‘ defined in figure (3.51), are letters
kaf) in Naskh and Nastaliq) ’ک‘ Figure 3.55: Morphological distinction of
’گ‘ is made of two enclosed spaces and ’ک‘ ,As presented in Newspaper Naskh of two enclosed spaces and one line segment. However, in their presentations in Nastaliq the counter-forms (enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces) in both cases tend towards a line segment. Similar to the English lowercase letters ‘t’ and ‘t’ the geometric variations of line segment create the illusion of morphological distinction. In this case, the topological content of the letterforms is defined by reference to the shared and irreducible morphological primitives (i.e., according to the definition of the fundamental structure). In fact the form of any letter is made of either one or more line segments (e.g., ‘I’ is made of one, ‘T’ of two, ‘H’ of three, etc). The counter-forms, enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces, are the primitives that result from the linear form and its spatial division. Consequently, at its simplest, a letter’s topological content is only made of a line segment that does not generate any enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces such as that of the English uppercase letters ‘I’ and ‘L’ or the isolated Farsi re). However, in some cases the glyphic-geometric) ’ر‘ alef) and) ’ا‘ letters variations of a line segment, its non-straightness, may result in a seemingly topological transformation by dividing the space into two semi-enclosed spaces, which are only characteristic of a specific typeface. gaf) illustrate such transformations of a line) ’گ‘ kaf) and) ’ک‘ The cases of segment. In these cases the line segment presents itself as the invariant morphological primitive because the semi-enclosed space is only characteristic of 73 a particular hand and is not common to all forms. As a result, the noted geometric variations of the given letterforms fall under the category of glyphic surface. The comparative morphological analysis allows for formulating the characteristic arguments presented in figure (3.56). Each argument defines an invariant set of morphological primitives constitutive of a given isolated Farsi letterform.
Figure 3.56: Characteristic arguments of Farsi isolated letterforms
The table of characteristic arguments demonstrates the consistency of the general arguments with respect to the Farsi letterforms. The isolated Farsi letterforms morphologically conform to the triadic system (originally presented for English letterforms) and the general arguments that underlie their transformations and distinctions.
Ligature: letterforms as complex strokes As established earlier (page 35) the objective analysis of letterforms must be oriented towards isolated letterforms outside a morphemic setting. This approach is not problematic for English letterforms, which appear morphologically undifferentiated either within or outside word structure (with the exception of cursive hands within which letters are joined by means of ligature). However, the 74 cursive presentation of the Farsi letterforms characterises all Farsi typefaces and hands. For this reason, the initial, medial, and final forms of the Farsi letters must be taken into account and analysed holistically within the writing system. Figure (3.57) shows the other three forms of the Farsi letters. Diacritically distinctive sin) are also in) ’س‘ te), and) ’ت‘ ,(pe) ’پ‘ ,(be) ’ب‘ homeomorphic letters, such as the same category as indicated by their phonetics.
Figure 3.57: Initial, medial, and final forms of Farsi letterforms
The essential morphological primitives of the given forms are not significantly different from those of the isolated ones. In most of the cases ligature, which is a line segment, is added to the set of morphological primitives defined earlier for the isolated form of every letter. Ligature links the letters in words, which consequently appear as complex strokes. It could be said to function as a prefix or a suffix by making derivatives of the isolated Farsi letterforms. Figure (3.58) presents the morphological analysis of the initial, medial, and final forms.
Figure 3.58: Counter-forms of initial, medial, and final forms of Farsi letterforms
By linking the letters in words ligature creates new spaces. However, the question is whether the created spaces are morphologically definable or not. That
75 is, one can argue that the created spaces by ligature within morphemic settings, words, or the structure of complex strokes, cause the letters to find contingently variable morphologies. Analysis of a word can help address this in relation to the kasa, an) ’کسا‘ cursive characteristic of the Farsi writing system. Consider the word invented word designed to present an extreme case study) in figure (3.59).
Figure 3.59: Analysis of counter-forms in Farsi words
The word is a complex stroke made of the combination of three letters, initial alef). The complex stroke as a whole, by the) ’ا‘ sin), and final) ’س‘ kaf), medial) ’ک‘ function of ligatures, creates a monolithic counter-form, which does not correspond to any Farsi letterform (figure 3.59-1). This is because although ligatures link the letterforms, the linguistic content of the created word still fully depends on the constitutive letterforms (figure 3.59-2). In virtue of the phonetic nature of the Farsi writing, the cursive characteristic of the words remains ineffectual in the morphological determination of letterforms. Thus, the general arguments and triadic system remain valid.
Discussion:
The first phase of the research ends here. An objective analysis of form and counter-form resulted in the ‘Theory of the Letterform Genome’, a shared set of definitions, logical arguments and principles that govern the fundamental structure of letterforms not in one language but rather across two disparate languages. In fact, it appears that the theory can apply to any alphabetic letterform system. For instance, the fundamental structure of Russian letterforms can be explained by the general characteristic argument (figure 3.60).
76
Figure 3.60: Morphological analysis and characteristic arguments of Russian letterforms
Figure (3.61) presents the analysis of Hebrew letterforms and their respective characteristic arguments.
77
Figure 3.61: Morphological analysis and characteristic arguments of Hebrew letterforms
By revealing the fundamental commonalities, ‘the morphological genus’ existing across languages, the TLG implies “a common objective world” (Cassirer, [1929], 1971, pp. 201-2) in its most detailed structure. In such a “world of objective spirit”, Cassirer contends that “although the differences of individuals are in no way cancelled,” a [dialogic] bridge is built between individuals by means of “this world of form” (ibid.). The TLG unveils the topological-geometrical possibility of realising the principles of dialogicality within and between letterform systems. The implications of this possibility form the focus of the second half of this thesis.
78 CHAPTER FOUR TOWARDS A DIALOGIC CODING SYSTEM (DCS)
4.1. Introduction Drawing on the ‘Theory of the Letterform Genome' (TLG) and informed by Bakhtinian dialogism, this chapter describes a written communication system integrating two sets of letterform. I refer to this as a ‘Dialogic Coding System’ (DCS). The DCS is a set of analytic and synthetic principles by which a letterform moves outward from its self-contained set of properties to enter a relationship with another letterform in which it completes, and is completed by, the other. The DCS formulates an inter-linguistic entity in which the letterforms are “a shared territory” (Voloshinov, 1973, p. 86). In the DCS every letterform is incomplete in-itself and can only be completed and expressed only through another letterform. The DCS lays out a systematic integration of letterforms, which stands in contrast to what I refer to as ‘accidental co-occurrence of letterforms’. To illustrate the point, consider the words ‘False’ and ‘True’ in figure (4.1). Apart from the semantic interplay between their linguistic contents from the formal-material standpoint the letterforms are self- contained objects whose togetherness lies merely in their simultaneous occurrence in one and the same textual space. They are, as it were, like two people speaking at each other, not to each other, their co-occurrence is devoid of formal- material integration.
Figure 4.1: Accidental co-occurrence of words
Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism provides a new paradigm in which the co- existence of two letterforms can shift away from an accidental co-occurrence to a formal-material unity. This is the chief concern of the DCS, which is clearly 79 articulated in the following passage from Bakhtin’s (1990, p. 1) early essay Art and Answerability:
“A whole is called “mechanical” when its constituent elements are united only in space and time by some external connection and are not imbued with the internal unity of meaning. The parts of such a whole are contiguous and touch each other, but in themselves they remain alien to each other.”
Following Bakhtin’s observation, the DCS offers a system in which every letterform is positioned and evolves in the context of another. It considers letterforms irrespective of their linguistic contents as objects whose formal-material structures can achieve a state of mutual consummation where every letterform issues from and simultaneously supports another. Such a consummated unity creates a polyphonic form that communicates two contrapuntal linguistic contents at one and the same time. By means of the DCS the accidental co-occurrence of two letterforms turns into a formal-material integration insofar as any division of constituent elements results in objects for which there is no code (speech sign). As discussed in chapter two (page 15), the mutual consummation is a relative event that is always grounded in the subject’s spatial-temporal involvement. The DCS must therefore facilitate the realisation of the mutual consummation and the subject’s spatial-temporal involvement, the two principles of dialogicality that coincide in a dialogic moment. My strategy consists of two principal phases: dialogic integration and spatial de-integration. I shall start by describing the DCS with linguistically less complex cases, namely monolingual cases such as the English uppercase letterforms. The resulting principles will then be applied to the bilingual cases of Farsi-English letterforms.
4.2. Dialogic integration
Dialogic integration is achieved through a system of forms and colours that accounts for the interpenetration and mutual consummation of letterforms. The system must be grounded in the theory of letterforms and defined ‘as a set of directive principles’ since the indeterminate objectivity of letterforms seeps 80 through any written practices and, accordingly, the integration of two letterforms can be realised in a vast number of forms. According to the paradigmatic argument the fundamental structure of a given letterform is made of an invariant part (the topological content), and a variable part (the geometric expression). Dialogic integration is possible by the interplay between these two parts, the potential variability of the invariant part at the geometric level. It refers to the morphological integration of two letterforms whose invariant topological contents are sustained while their geometric expressions including linear and coordinate organisations share and respond to the same transformation. In other words, the dialogic integration is drawn from two particular paradigmatic responsive-variable-forms of two given letters (a particular ‘A’ and a particular ‘B’). In fact, the paradigmatic argument is no longer solely exposing variable autonomous self-contained forms of a given letter, but rather open penetrable forms whose variability is defined by the geometric expression of another letterform. From the standpoint of formal-material structure any two given forms relative to one another can appear in a contiguous, intersected, or superimposed state; with the latter two (intersected and superimposed) a joint occurrence is also possible. To illustrate this, consider the two line segments presented in the three relative states in figure (4.2). In the first two, contiguous and intersected, despite the two line segments being closely related they remain autonomous forms within the closed unity of their morphological structures. In the second intersected state, although the two line segments cross each other at two points, there is no structural unity.
Figure 4.2: Three formal-material relations between two forms
81 However, in the third superimposed state the two line segments are morphologically fused insomuch as one issues from, and in turn forms, the other responsively, and vice versa. The horizontal sides of the line segments remain exclusive to them, yet their vertical sides merge as if they are one. Their superimposition, in part, has resulted in a conjoined third form, an embedded internal unity breaking through the previously self-contained autonomy of their morphological structures. Such superimposition realises the mutual consummation of the two forms in that their reinstatement always results in the completion of one and never of both. Therefore, dialogic integration rests upon the superimposition of forms and dismisses the contiguous and intersected states of appearance in which forms are, as it were, collaged and their formal-material relation are therefore accidental, arising outside the morphological structure of the forms.23 From the standpoint of geometry, the superimposition is a determining means of “geometric equivalence”, which is often referred to as “congruence” (Flegg 2001, p. 1). As Flegg notes “two plane figures are congruent if and only if one may be placed on top of the other so as to coincide perfectly” (ibid.). The perfect coincidence of letterforms is possible if, and only if, a letterform is superimposed on itself, in other words, it occurs only between variable forms denoting a given letter as encapsulated by the general paradigmatic argument (i.e., it refers to two identical letterforms in two words). In such cases the geometric congruence results from the superimposition of the entire two sets of morphological primitives constitutive of the two given letterforms (see letters ‘PP’ in figure 4.3). Apart from the paradigmatic cases, geometric congruence between the syntagmatic cases (two distinct letterforms) occurs only in part between the encountering letterforms’ morphological primitives (see letters PR in figure 4.3).
23 In fact, the history of writing in its various modes of practices is the history of contiguous and intersected states of letterforms. 82
Figure 4.3: Geometric congruence between ‘PP’ and ‘PR’
In other words, there is always a sectional geometric congruence between distinctive letterforms denoted by the general syntagmatic argument. Hence, the dialogic integration of letterforms lies in, and is conditioned by, the (sectional) geometric congruence of the morphological primitives: line segment, semi- enclosed and enclosed spaces.
Sectional congruence of the morphological primitives:
The dialogic integration investigates the sectional congruence between two given paradigmatic variables of two distinctive letterforms. This section explores the general conditions under which the sectional congruence between letterforms develops as a logical-analytical process of integration. Sectional congruence is a geometric concept and, therefore, in the context of letterforms must be considered and resolved at the level of geometric expression, which realises and fixes the topological content and the holding structure of glyphic features at once (see pages 55-6). Both subcategories of geometric expression, linear and coordinate organisations, resolve sectional congruence in different ways. Sectional congruence is determined by the sub-categories of geometric expression of letterforms’ linear organisation: qualitative dichotomies: catheti, curvature, parallel, convergence, straight line, and non-straight-line; quantitative parameters: length, angles, and number of sides, and coordinate organisations: translation, reflection, and rotation (for the definitions see figure 3.35 on page 63 in the chapter of the theory of letterforms). In other words, the dialogic integration refers to potential sectional congruence between qualitative dichotomies,
83 quantitative parameters, and coordinate organisations of the morphological primitives (topological content) essential to two alphabetically distinctive letterforms. The definition of the dialogic integration rests upon the fundamental structure of letterforms independent of the category of glyphic surface. Coordinate and linear organisations of the morphological primitives are independent variables that, depending on the cases, condition the ultimate determination of sectional congruence. An analysis of English uppercase letterforms can illustrate the significance of the geometric expression. First, to discuss the sub-category of coordinate organisation it is useful to generate schematic units that depict the coordinate organisations of the morphological primitives (see figure 4.4). These schematic units, however, do not consider the geometric forms of line segments, semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces. The spatial divisions are denoted by two distinctive sizes of units, squares and rectangles. The red lines indicate the direction of the semi-enclosed spaces.
Figure 4.4: Schematic units denoting the spatial divisions of uppercase letterforms
The schematic plans roughly illustrate the extent to which sectional congruence might occur between letterforms. For instance, as illustrated in figure (4.5), due to the corresponding coordinate organisations of their morphological primitives letters {A, B} or {Y, K} display a greater degree of sectional congruence than {E, Y} or {W, Z}, although their linear organisations are varied.
84
Figure 4.5: Variations of sectional congruence
This reveals how significant coordinate origination is in the ultimate sectional congruence of linear organisations. The alignment of coordinate organisations can reduce the probability of intersection between linear organisations. Yet coordinate organisation only creates a condition under which the sectional congruence of linear organisations can be resolved. To a great extent the linear organisations of morphological primitives determine the objective possibility of sectional congruence. The schematic units serve as consistent geometric frames of reference for evaluating and controlling the variations of linear organisation of morphological primitives and for determining their sectional congruence. The second variable is the linear organisation of encountering morphological primitives. The determinations of the linear organisations of letterforms are rooted in either individual or joint occurrence of the elements of the qualitative dichotomies: catheti, curvature, parallel, convergence, straight and non-straight line segments (figure 4.6; images are only indicative of possible variations and are not definitive).
Figure 4.6: Qualitative dichotomies
The elements of the qualitative dichotomies for the English uppercase letterforms can be classified in figure (4.7). This classification usefully posits the letterforms in specific qualitative classes, although other paradigmatic forms of 85 some letters can be placed in more than one class. Such multiple linear-qualitative classes of letterforms make the sectional congruence between letterforms of different classes more likely.
Figure 4.7: Classification of uppercase letterforms based on qualitative dichotomies
It can be readily grasped that there is sectional congruence in various degrees between letterforms of the same linear-qualitative class, in particular between those whose coordinate organisations such as {P, B}, {V, W) are aligned (figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8: Sectional congruence between letterforms of the same linear-qualitative classes
Nevertheless, although the geometric analysis of English uppercase letterforms confirms the significance of coordinate and linear organisations in the determination of sectional congruence, it only demonstrates particular correlations between these variables. To show their general correlations as applying not only to a particular set of letterforms, but also to other sets such as 86 English lowercase and Farsi letterforms, the given variables must be examined in the general abstract forms of morphological primitives outside letterforms. The analysis of the coordinate and linear organisations of English uppercase letterforms lays an empirical foundation for validating such general correlations. Generally speaking, at the abstract level, there are six probable encounters between morphological primitives, and the general correlations between coordinate and linear organisation must be examined in each of these encounters (figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9: Six possible correlations between morphological primitives
To do so, the morphological variations of linear and coordinate organisations must be defined. The cardinal directions in Cartesian coordinate system define four major orientations (coordinate organisations) in which morphological primitives can appear. And the variations of linear organisation arise from the linear-qualitative characteristics illustrated in figure (4.5). For their topological characteristics, the morphological primitives are divided into spaces and lines, namely, semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces and line segments. Accordingly the qualitative elements ‘catheti’, ‘curvature’, ‘parallel’ and ‘convergence’ describe linear-qualitative characteristics of semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces, and ‘(non-) straight line’ describes that of line segment. When the letterforms are superimposed, there is a noticeable sectional congruence between the letterforms within the catheti/parallel class in figure (4.7) (see figure 4.8 on page 89 for the sectional congruence between P and B). This is because the sectional congruence of the catheti/parallel-based morphological primitives is independent of their coordinate organisations (the orientations of the 87 semi-enclosed spaces as in the schematic units). In every superimposition, therefore, the linear organisations of the letterforms are aligned; there is (sectional) congruence in any probable encounters between catheti/parallel-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces in any cardinal directions. This can be further explained by means of an illustration. Figure (4.10) depicts catheti/parallel-based units, with sides of equal length, rotated at 90-degree intervals in four cardinal directions. Despite their varied coordinate organisations and topological disparity (semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces) the units’ sectional congruence remains independently consistent. This is because of the given alignment between the cardinal directions and the perpendicular sides of the forms, rendering the rigid transformations (rotation, reflection and translation) ineffectual in the continuous presentation of (sectional) congruence.
Figure 4.10: The rotation of catheti/parallel-based units at 90-degree intervals. E: Enclosed space, and SE: Semi-Enclosed space
For this reason, letters ‘E’ and ‘H’ demonstrate a great degree of sectional congruence (figure 4.11).
Figure 4.11: Sectional congruence between ‘E’ and ‘A’
From the standpoint of geometry, coordinate organisation does not determine congruence. In figure (4.9), for instance, every unit demonstrates congruence by
88 rotation, reflection or translation but, as coordinate organisation is an integral part of the fundamental structure of letterforms and, therefore, cannot be altered, the (sectional) congruence between the given units is determined with reference to the directions in which they appear. Since the schematic units are designed as catheti/parallel units they serve as uniform geometric frames of reference not only for coordinate but also for linear organisations. If the letterforms in this class were superimposed on the schematic units, there would be almost no alignment with the schematic units. In other words, such given-aligned linear organisations of the letterforms with the schematic units ensure the (sectional) congruence between the given letterforms (see letters ‘E’ and ‘H’ in figure 4.11, for instance). In the parallel/convergence class, due to their hybrid linear-qualitative characteristics letters ‘N’, ‘M’, and ‘Z’ display sectional congruence with the letterforms of both catheti/parallel and convergence classes. However, their sectional congruence is constrained by either of the variables of coordinate or linear organisation in any probable encounters with each of the classes, by linear organisation with the catheti-parallel class and by coordinate organisation with the convergence class. The former is apparent, for catheti/parallel and convergence are dissonant linear-qualitative characteristics; in a geometric account they constitute one of the qualitative dichotomies as established in the TLG, but the latter can best be explained by the analysis of convergence-based units in their general abstractions. In contrast to the catheti/parallel class there is less sectional congruence between the letterforms within the convergence class. If they were superimposed on the schematic units they would coincide minimally. Figure (4.12) shows two geometric variations of the convergence-based units: equilateral triangle-based and right triangle-based units. In neither variation are the convergence-based units independent of coordinate organisation, whereas in both, the given units have very restricted sectional congruence with their rotated or reflected duplicates in the coordinate system. In fact, superimposition results in the intersection of their linear organisations.
89
Figure 4.12: The rotation of convergence-based units at 90-degree intervals. E: Enclosed space, and SE: Semi-Enclosed space
In any probable encounters of convergence-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces the alignment of their linear organisations depends on the correspondence between their coordinate organisations. That is why there is almost no sectional congruence between letters ‘N’ and ‘Z’, although they are in the same linear- qualitative class. Much like the catheti/parallel class there is considerable sectional congruence between the letterforms of the curvature class, although they do not coincide with the schematic units. That is because the curvature-based enclosed spaces are the only morphological primitives, which are autonomous of their coordinate organisations and have sectional congruence with rotated or reflected duplicates of themselves and with curvature-based semi-enclosed spaces in any cardinal directions. For this reason letters ‘C’, ‘G’, ‘O’, and ‘Q’ demonstrate a high degree of sectional congruence independent of their topological disparity (figure 4.13).
90
Figure 4.13: Sectional congruence between ‘CG’ and ‘OQ’
In contrast, much like the convergence-based units, the sectional congruence between curvature-based semi-enclosed spaces is conditioned by their relative positions or coordinate organisations (figure 4.14). As a result, in the state of superimposition the cardinal directions of the curvature-based semi-enclosed spaces strictly determine the objective possibility of their sectional congruence. It is important to note that the considerable sectional congruence between the letterforms in the curvature class lies in, and is limited to, the particular geometric expression of the given English uppercase letterforms and may not be consistent in other letterforms.
Figure 4.14: The rotation of curvature-based units at 90-degree intervals. E: Enclosed space, and SE: Semi-Enclosed space
Similarly the considerable sectional congruence between letterforms in the (non) straight line class lies entirely in the particular geometric expressions of the given English uppercase letterforms, since in its general abstraction, a line segment, whether straight or non-straight, has sectional congruence only with the one to which its coordinate and linear organisations are aligned (figure 4.15). In this respect, (non-) straight lines (units) are akin to convergence-based units. The 91 alignment of linear organisations of two (non-) straight lines depends on the alignment of their coordinate organisations.
Figure 4.15: The rotation of curvature-based units at 90-degree intervals. LS: Line Segment
General Propositions:
All the results are presented as the logical propositions in figure (4.16). The diagrams illustrate sectional congruence between morphological primitives, with equivalent linear-qualitative characteristics, independent of their coordinate organisations. Such logical propositions are significant because cancellation of the coordinate organisation variable in the determination of sectional congruence results in the consistent objective possibility of sectional congruence.
Figure 4.16: Analytic propositions representing the correlation between sectional congruence and coordinate organisation with respect to morphological primitives
The analytic propositions in figure (4.16) can be articulated as follows:
1. Catheti/parallel class: There is (sectional) congruence between semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces in any probable encounters in any distinctive directions (i.e., having congruence in this section means it is independent of the 92 coordinate organisation variable). Furthermore, there is congruence between a set of two enclosed spaces in any distinctive directions. There is sectional congruence between a set of one semi-enclosed space and one enclosed space and also a set of two semi-enclosed spaces in any distinctive directions (see also figure 4.10).
2. Curvature class: There is congruence between a set of two enclosed spaces in any distinctive directions. There is sectional congruence between a set of one enclosed space and one semi-enclosed space. The sectional congruence between a set of two semi-enclosed spaces is conditioned by their coordinate organisations (see also figure 4.14).
3. Convergence class: The sectional congruence between sets of two enclosed spaces, one enclosed space and one semi-enclosed space, and two semi- enclosed spaces is conditioned by their coordinate organisations (see also figure 4.12).
4. (Non-) straight line class: The sectional congruence between sets of two straight lines, a straight line and non-straight line, and two non-straight lines are conditioned by their coordinate organisations (see also figure 4.15).
5. Straight line and semi-enclosed/enclosed spaces: There is sectional congruence between a straight line and catheti/parallel-based, semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces. Since the linear-qualitative characteristic of a straight line is not equivalent to curvature-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces, therefore there is no account for such a probable encounter. Also, the sectional congruence between straight lines and convergence-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces is conditioned by their coordinate organisations (i.e., though their linear-qualitative characteristic is of significance, due to the topological nature of letterforms, the units can be manifested by equivalent forms).
6. Non-straight line and semi-enclosed/enclosed spaces: There is sectional congruence between non-straight lines and catheti/parallel-based semi- enclosed and enclosed spaces. There is sectional congruence only between non-straight lines and curvature-based enclosed spaces. And the sectional
93 congruence between non-straight lines and convergence-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces is conditioned by their coordinate organisations.
The resulting general principles are as follows:
1. To have sectional congruence with one another a curvature- and convergence- based set of two semi-enclosed spaces appearing in distinctive directions must tend toward, or accommodate in part, the linear-qualitative characteristics of the catheti/parallel-based units. That is, the optimum geometric units denoting semi-enclosed spaces in the determination of sectional congruence are the catheti/parallel-based units since they are independent of the coordinate organisation variable (figure 4.17). This argument is reinforced if the given- sectional congruence of the catheti/parallel units with (non-) straight lines is taken into account.
Figure 4.17: Catheti/parallel-based units, the optimum geometric units in the determination of sectional congruence
2. A convergence-based set of two enclosed spaces appearing in distinctive directions must tend toward either curvature- or catheti/parallel-based units to have sectional congruence with one another (figure 4.18).
Figure 4.18: Transformation of convergence-based units into curvature- and catheti/parallel-based units
94 3. To have sectional congruence with one another any convergence- or curvature- based units with catheti/parallel-based units can accommodate parts of one another in various degrees depending on the cases (figure 4.19).
Figure 4.19: Sectional congruence between geometric units of enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces
4. To have sectional congruence with one another a set of two non-straight line segments or two straight line segments appearing in distinctive directions must tend toward one another on the basis of both their coordinate and linear organisations.
Figure 4.20: Sectional congruence between straight and non-straight line segments
5. To have (sectional) congruence with straight-line segments curvature- and convergence-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces either must tend toward linear-qualitative characteristics of catheti/parallel-based units or
95 straight-line segments must tend toward the given semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces (see image 4.17).
6. To have sectional congruence with one another non-straight line segments, and curvature- and convergence-based semi-enclosed spaces either must tend toward linear-qualitative characteristics of catheti/parallel-based units or non- straight line segments tend toward the given semi-enclosed spaces (figure 4.21-1). To have sectional congruence with non-straight line segments convergence-based enclosed spaces must tend toward either curvature- or catheti-parallel-based units; or non-straight line segments must tend toward the given enclosed spaces (figure 4.21-2).
Figure 4.21: Sectional congruence of enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces with line segments
7. All the geometric transformations explicated in the established principles as the pre-conditions under which sectional congruence can be demonstrated between the given sets of units are permitted insomuch as letterforms neither lose their topological characteristics nor do they turn out to be indiscriminably close to their homeomorphic letters.
96 Summary:
In line with the method of analytic induction used to build the ‘Theory of the Letterform Genome’ (TLG), in the first phase of the DCS the analysis of geometric expressions of the morphological primitives began with the particular cases, the English uppercase letterforms, and ended with general propositions on the basis of general abstractions of the morphological primitives. An attempt was made to free the morphological primitives from the indeterminate objectivity of letterforms and avoid restricted descriptions of particular encounters. This logical-analytical approach delivered an explicit account of variables and their correlations incorporating the determination of sectional congruence, which was described as a geometric incarnation of the concept of mutual consummation. In the following section, I will demonstrate dialogic integration using English uppercase letterforms according to the concepts of schematic and linear- qualitative units and with specific reference to the general propositions and principles established in this section.
4.3. Experimental demonstration of the general principles
In terms of the general propositions there are three modes of sectional congruence which letterforms are likely to demonstrate in a dialogic encounter. Every possible encounter can be classified in any of the three modes, which are as follows:
1. One letterform fully coincides with the other letterform (figure 4.22), such as the cases of {E, F}, {C, O}, {C, G}, {D, I}, {D, L}, {E, L}, {C, Q}, {V, W}, etc.
Figure 4.22: Examples of the first mode of sectional congruence
2. One letterform does not fully coincide yet bears sectional congruence with the other letterform (figure 4.23), such as in {U, H}, {E, H}, {F, H}, {E, U}, etc.
97
Figure 4.23: Examples of the second mode of sectional congruence
3. Two letterforms bear no sectional congruence whatsoever (figure 4.24) such as in {N, Z}, {V, U}, {V, E}, etc. In these cases sectional congruence needs to be constructed.
Figure 4.24: Examples of the third mode of sectional congruence
This section investigates these modes of sectional congruence between English uppercase letters, with the aim of establishing a method for sectional congruence in any possible encounter of letterforms in any of the three modes. Every demonstration of sectional congruence that follows instantiates only one of the many forms that the general principles can generate. As letterforms are indeterminate objects, their integrations are also objectively indeterminate but can be articulated as a series of governing principles. The rules are defined according to the logical propositions of the TLG, the general principles of sectional congruence, and the principles of dialogicality.
First mode: one letter fully coincides with the other:
This is the simplest mode in which the sectional congruence of letterforms arises from their given-aligned coordinate and linear organisations. Among this group of letterforms I will consider letters {C, G}, {C, O}; {E, F}, {D, I}; and {V, W}. Although one can demonstrate the sectional congruence of the given letters by superimposing them, they will be used here as the basis for establishing a methodical process of dialogic integration.
98 To discriminate between the geometries of {C, G} and {C, O}, since (sectional) congruence results from superimposing letterforms, the letters are shown within each set in two distinctive, arbitrarily assigned, colours (figure 4.25). The first step is the determination of the coordinate organisations of letterforms according to the schematic units (see figure 4.4, page 87). In figure (4.25), in both sets {C, G} and {C, O}, step shows the schematic units of the given letterforms. Both sets have the same number of schematic units and corresponding coordinate organisations.
Figure 4.25: Dialogic integration of ‘CG’ and ‘CO’
The second step is to determine the linear-qualitative characteristics (curvature-based) of the letters within the uniform geometric bounds of the schematic units. Since the schematic units are congruent, the more they are aligned with the schematic units the more the forms reveal sectional congruence. Any linear or angular deviations from the schematic units, such as convergence-and curvature-based elements, must be isometrically constant in both letterforms. For instance, in figure (4.25) both sets exhibit curvilinear corners in contrast to the right angles of the schematic units. In step , the qualitative-linear forms are superimposed such that the schematic units coincide perfectly. Since one letterform perfectly coincides with the other, ‘C’ with ‘G’ and ‘C’ with ‘O’, their sectional congruence is demonstrated and the dialogic integration is achieved. The outcome of the superimposition step is a ‘hybrid third form’ that simultaneously carries two given letterforms. This formal hybridity provides an embedded internal unity, in contrast to an accidental
99 co-occurrence, and is the basis for an observing subject to experience mutual consummation in Bakhtinian dialogism.24 Similarly, letters {E, F} and {D, I} show a high degree of congruence due to the given-aligned geometric expressions of their morphological primitives (figure 4.26). Their topological contents are shown in the schematic units . In both sets the linear-qualitative characteristics of the letters fully coincide with these units and, as such, their superimposition results in the hybrid form.
Figure 4.26: Dialogic integration of ‘EF’ and ‘DI’
In contrast, ‘W’ and ‘V’ are made of an unequal number of morphological primitives, denoted by schematic units. One has to opt for the optimum units driven by the correspondence between their coordinate organisations. With ‘W’ and ‘V’, the schematic unit (i.e., denoting the spatial divisions of the letters) of the letter ‘V’ is upward and therefore has to be joined up with either the left or right unit of ‘W’ , and certainly not with the downward middle one. The next step is the determination of the linear-qualitative characteristics of the morphological primitives . The schematic and linear-qualitative units are superimposed and, as shown, it is clear that the given units (convergence-based) perfectly coincide, and are congruent . Finally, to generate the hybrid form, the other two schematic units including the two semi-enclosed spaces of ‘W’ are added.
24 The concept of formal hybridity here is distinct from Bakhtin’s concept of “hybridisation” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 359) in that the former is objective and refers to the integration of two letterforms (signifiers) within the space of one, whereas the latter is abstract and refers to “a mixture of two individualised language consciousnesses… the individual, representing authorial consciousness and will, on the one hand, and the individualised linguistic consciousness and will of the character represented, on the other” (ibid.). 100
Figure 4.27: Dialogic integration of ‘WV’
The formal possibility of ambigrams such as Scott Kim’s FASLSE/true (1981) lies in the first mode of sectional congruence (see page 17 for a discussion). However, from the standpoint of dialogicality the hybrid forms that result from this mode are defective. That is, the consummation between the encountering letterforms is one-sided, as the fully coinciding letterform is always independent of the other. Letter ‘V’ is always fully present in ‘W’ but not vice versa; the morphological character of ‘V’ is retained at the expense of that of ‘W’ if they are de-integrated. This kind of one-sidedness, according to Bakhtin is always “untrustworthy” (1986, p. 6), since the relationship must be mutually enriching and complementary. This problem will be resolved in the second phase, spatial de- integration (pages 118-27), as will the problem of colour determination in hybrid forms.
Second mode: two letters partially coinciding: This section considers the sets {E, H} and {E, U} and their particular problems of integration. In both sets, one letterform does not fully coincide yet shows sectional congruence with the other letterform (figure 4.28). In the first set, letters ‘E’ and ‘H’ have a great degree of sectional congruence, despite the distinctive coordinate organisations of their morphological primitives, as shown by the schematic units. The superimposition of their schematic and linear-qualitative units yields the hybrid form, which presents the sectional congruence of the given letterforms. In the second set, though the linear-qualitative units do not coincide at the bottom , the curvature of letter ‘U’ can simply transform into the catheti of letter ‘E’, as shown in the hybrid form. This geometric reconstruction or the finding of
101 congruent features addresses geometric disparities. There are a number of strategies for doing so since geometric reconstructions always take place on a continuum of variations of linear-qualitative characteristics. For instance with ‘E’ and ‘U’ one might choose instead to apply the curvature of ‘U’ to ‘E’.
Figure 4.28: Dialogic integration of ‘EH’ and ‘EU’
Geometric reconstructions are constrained by the requirement that a letterform neither loses its topological characteristics nor turns out to be indiscriminably close to its homeomorphic letterforms (general principle 7). Second mode encounters provide more insight into the dialogic integration. Since no letterform fully coincides with the other, the hybrid form can therefore be divided into three parts: one ‘shared part’ and two ‘non-shared parts’ that remain outside the integration, each of which constitutes a part of each letterform. This division of the hybrid form underpins spatial de-integration (the second phase).
Third mode: Zero coincidence:
This mode considers the following sets of letterforms: {A, B}, {A, T}, {Z, P}, {B, X} and {N, Z}. Through geometric reconstructions sectional there can be sectional congruence between the letters in each set at the level of either first or second mode of encounter. In figure (4.29), letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ from two distinct linear- qualitative classes, demonstrate sectional congruence in two possible ways generating slightly different hybrid forms. With both schematic and linear- qualitative characteristics of the given letters defined in steps and , their superimposition requires geometric reconstructions to demonstrate sectional congruence. In other words, according to the fundamental structures of the 102 letterforms and general principle 3, the convergence-based and catheti/parallel- based units must tend toward one another, demonstrating congruent features. In the hybrid form-a, the convergence-based units of letter ‘A’ can be assimilated into catheti/parallel-based units of letter ‘B’, and in the hybrid form-b the convergence-based units can integrate only the catheti while sustaining their convergence. Since the latter strategy more equally integrates the letterforms it also more faithfully instantiates mutual consummation. The hybrid form and the outputs in both ways are illustrated. In both hybrid forms, letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ fall under the first mode of sectional congruence where one fully coincides with the other.
Figure 4.29: Dialogic integration of ‘AB’
Figure (4.30) shows the integration of ‘A’ and ‘T’. According to general principle 5, the sectional congruence between straight lines and convergence- based units comes about if the given units tend toward catheti/parallel-based units. Since the sectional congruence between straight lines and catheti/parallel- based units is given, the conjunction of two straight-line segments of letter ‘T’ projects the catheti-based linear-qualitative characteristic, requiring geometric reconstructions of the convergence-based units of letter ‘A’. In step , by changing the left diagonal to a vertical, letter ‘A’ begins to demonstrate the catheti linear- qualitative characteristic. The horizontal line segment of letter ‘T’ can be slightly shortened to coincide with the upper part of letter ‘A’ in the hybrid form. In this form, letters ‘A’ and ‘T’ show the second sectional congruence.
103
Figure 4.30: Dialogic integration of ‘TA’
Letters ‘Z’ and ‘P’ are disparate in their spatial division; the former is made of two small, vertically adjacent units, and the latter of two large, horizontally adjacent ones (figure 4.31). That is, either unit of letter ‘Z’ is equivalent to, and can include, both units of letter ‘P’. But which unit of letter ‘Z’ is best suited for integration with units of letter ‘P’? From a linear-qualitative point of view the left unit of letter ‘Z’ corresponds more closely to the units of letter ‘P’. The reason for that is neither the diagonal line nor the bottom straight line of the right unit corresponds to the units of ‘P’. The sectional congruence between a convergence- based unit and catheti/parallel-based units lies in their integration (general principle 3). Letter ‘Z’ accommodates the catheti linear-qualitative characteristic of letter ‘P’ and for the optimal determination of sectional congruence. In turn, letter ‘P’ slightly integrates the convergence linear-qualitative characteristic of ‘Z’. In short, both sets of units tend toward one another.
Figure 4.31: Dialogic integration of ‘ZP’
Figure (4.32) integrates the challenging set of letters ‘B’ and ‘X’. The former belongs to the catheti/parallel class and the latter to the convergence class. In 104 terms of number and coordinate organisation, the two central schematic units of ‘X’ correspond more to those of ‘B’ than do either of the side ones. Two catheti/parallel-based units encounter two convergence-based ones . According to general principle 3, both sets can tend toward one another, therefore, in steps and convergence-based units of ‘X’, to a considerable extent, become aligned with the schematic units and, in turn, the units of ‘B’ accommodate slightly the linear-qualitative characteristic of letter ‘X’.
Figure 4.32: Dialogic integration of ‘BX’
The last set to be considered includes letters ‘N’ and ‘Z’. Both letterforms have two schematic units and belong to the convergence/parallel class, yet their coordinate organisations are disparate by an interval of 90-degree. To have sectional congruence, two sets of convergence-based units, despite their parallel linear-qualitative characteristic, appearing in distinctive directions, must tend toward catheti/parallel-based units according to general principle 1. In step 2, two corresponding units from the given letterforms are selected. It does not matter whether two rights or the two lefts are selected since the given sets are just counterposed in the directions of their units. The two superimposed convergence-based units tend toward catheti/parallel-based linear qualitative characteristics. The black unit finds a right angle (catheti), which allows it to be aligned with the bottom part of the red unit , and, in turn, the diagonal line of the red unit turns out to be parallel with the vertical line of the black unit , which ensures their sectional congruence. In the hybrid form the remaining units are added to the integrated units.
105
Figure 4.33: Dialogic integration of ‘NZ’
Dialogic integration is consistently directed by the general principles. In any possible encounter, sectional congruence can be achieved through the application of the principles. In all cases, the hybrid forms are not definitive and can integrate a variety of features in their glyphic surfaces. To confirm the applicability of the principles of dialogic integration, I will now demonstrate the sectional congruence between English uppercase and lowercase letterforms.
Lowercase letterforms:
Figure (4.34) presents the schematic units and linear-qualitative classes of English lowercase letterforms shown in Helvetica. There are three points to stress. First, the schematic units are indicative of the coordinate organisations of the morphological primitives of letterforms and not particular forms of the given letters. That is why the units may not correspond to the particular x-height of some letters, such as ‘m’ and ‘h’. Second, the lowercase letterforms show a distinct linear-qualitative class in comparison with the uppercase letterforms. Letters ‘b’, ‘d’, ‘p’, and ‘q’ exhibit the linear-qualitative characteristic of both straight line and curvature classes. And the third, the diacritic points in letters ‘i’ and ‘j’ are not denoted by the schematic units. Although they can easily be integrated, they are of no formal-material value in dialogic integration and therefore removed for purposes of simplicity. With integration, diacritic points are systematically posited as non-shared parts of letterforms, unless they happen to coincide with each other.
106
Figure 4.34: Classification of lowercase letterforms based on qualitative dichotomies
To demonstrate the sectional congruence between contrasting cases I have selected two words with the same number of letters but with antonymous meanings, the Helvetica uppercase ‘LOVE’ and lower case ‘hate’.25 Figure (4.35) shows the sectional congruence of the given words. Their schematic units in step and their linear-qualitative units in step are defined and subsequently both are superimposed in step . There is no need to select between the schematic units of the letters, nor between the letters, as there is a counter-letter in one word for each letter in the other word, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the linear deviations from the schematic units, such as the curvilinear corners, remain constant across the letterforms of both words.
Figure 4.35: Dialogic integration of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’
25 Later on I will demonstrate with words of unequal length.
107 Due to their given-aligned coordinate organisations and linear-qualitative units, letters (L, h), (O, a), and (E, e) have more sectional congruence with one another and, as a result, it is straightforward to create their hybrid forms. But letters (V, t) need to have certain geometric reconstructions, as defined in general principle 5. According to this principle, to have (sectional) congruence with straight-line segments, curvature- and convergence-based semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces either must tend toward linear-qualitative characteristics of catheti/parallel-based units or straight-line segments must tend toward the given semi-enclosed and enclosed spaces. In this instance, the former strategy seems to be the more adequate; the left diagonal line of letter ‘V’ rotates so that it becomes parallel and, consequently, congruent with the vertical line segment of letter ‘t’. The dialogic integration of words ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’ instantiates the integration of letterforms in their morphemic context.26 The remaining problem is the unequal number of letterforms in two encountering words, which I will discuss in the next section. With justification, however, the reader may object that the hybrid form is not easily legible, a problem which is addressed in the second phase of the DCS. Figure (4.36) summarises the five-step process of dialogic integration: schematic units, linear-qualitative units, superimposition, geometric reconstructions (not always required) and hybrid forms. This process systematically and satisfactorily defines a pathway toward the sectional congruence of letterforms.
Figure 4.36: Five-steps process of dialogic integration
26 According to Driven and Verspoor (2004, p. 50) “[a] morpheme is defined as the smallest meaningful unit in the language”. 108 Sectional congruence of letterforms in the bilingual context: This section discusses sectional congruence between bilingual letterforms, using the disparate forms of Farsi and English as examples. As with English letterforms, the schematic units of the Farsi letterforms are first defined. Diacritic points are excluded and the schematic units mainly illustrate the coordinate organisations of the morphological primitives essential to unified structures.27 Figure (4.37) presents the schematic units of two letterform categories: isolated letters, and initials, medials and finals. The Farsi letterforms in both categories demonstrate wider and more distinct varieties of linear-qualitative characteristics than the English letterforms. It must be stressed again that there is ligature in the initials, medials and finals upon which the Farsi writing system largely rests. The schematic units denoting the ligatures in isolated states (outside the morphemic context) are illustrated in green. Since there is always one ligature connecting two adjacent letterforms in the morphemic context, in any joint occurrences of the initials, medials and finals two ligatures therefore do not connect with one another. Rather, the latter integrates into the former. In other words, all green schematic units are provisional and determine the directions of connections in figure (4.37) only.
27 The system of course allows the inclusion of diacritic points which are essential morphemic indicators in Farsi. 109
Figure 4.37: Classification of Farsi isolated, initial, medial, and final letterforms based on qualitative dichotomies
At the same time, the schematic units of the Farsi initials, medials and finals, and a number of isolated letterforms, are characteristically horizontally aligned along the x-axis unlike those of the English letterforms, which are predominantly vertically aligned along the y-axis. In the demonstration of sectional congruence, the distinctive coordinate organisations of the Farsi and English letterforms may not be problematic simply by virtue of the linear-qualitative characteristics of their corresponding morphological primitives. For instance, the morphological ,te) appear in contrasting coordinate organisations) ’ت‘ primitives of letters ‘B’ and yet they have sectional congruence with each other due to their similar linear- qualitative characteristics (catheti/parallel). If it were otherwise, the letterforms’ morphological primitives could be brought into a more dialogic state by geometric reconstructions according to the general principles. To demonstrate the sectional congruence between Farsi and English ’گفتگو‘ letterforms, the two synonymous words of ‘Dialogue’ and its Farsi equivalent (goftogou) have been chosen. Figure (4.38) shows the schematic units of both is analysed into a series of schematic units denoting the ’گفتگو‘ words. In step letters with their connecting ligatures according to figure (4.37). As already mentioned the latter ligature integrates into the former ligature in any two 110 ’گ‘ fe, 2) and) ’ف‘ adjacent letterforms. As a result, the ligatures of every two letters gaf, 4) form one unit as) ’گ‘ vav, 5) and) ’و‘ fe, 2), and) ’ف‘ te, 3) and) ’ت‘ ,(gaf, 1) step shows.
(goftogou) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.38. Schematic units of ‘Dialogue’ and
The schematic units of the letters of the word ‘Dialogue’ are also depicted adjacent to one another, at this stage with no space in between (no kerning) akin to the Farsi letters. Although there are equal numbers of schematic units denoting the two words along the horizontal axis, there are a disparate number of letters. Consequently, one needs to select between the letterforms of the word that contains more letterforms than the other. This selection is conditioned by two facts: first, by the degree of sectional congruence between encountering letterforms, and second, by the orthographic order of letterforms. This can be illustrated by visualising three modes of encounter (figure 4.39). The schematic units denote the number of letterforms in each set and the blue lines indicate their couplings.
Figure 4.39: Three modes of selection
111 The first mode shows the two units of S1 with the first two units of S2; the second mode shows the two units of S1 with the last two units of S2, and the third mode shows the two units of S1 coupled with the first and the third unit of S2. In the first two modes, the two adjacent letterforms of S2 that demonstrate a higher degree of sectional congruence are coupled with the counter-letterforms in S1. But in the third mode, the selected units from S2 are distant; there is a non- encountering letter (indicated in green) possibly due to it having less sectional congruence with either of the units of S1. In the third mode, the non-encountering letter raises a space issue. That is, the orthographically successive order of the letters in S1 requires the selected distant letters of S2 to move closer and inevitably occupy the space of the non- encountering letter. On some occasions, this adjustment of space may not be problematic since the non-encountering letter has a very fine linear organisation and can fit into a thin space. In other cases, depending on the linear organisation of the non-encountering letter, there are three possible strategies for resolving the space issue: reducing the width of the non-encountering letterform in S2, expanding the space between the two letterforms of S1, or applying both at once. I to which the encounter and ’گفتگو‘ will now return to the words ‘Dialogue’ and selection modes of strategy can apply. Figure (4.40) defines the linear-qualitative characteristics of the letterforms. All deviations from the schematic units are kept constant. The space between the letterforms must be consistent with the schematic units; one unit defines the space between two letterforms, and it must also be in accordance with the mode of selection. If a given letterform is non-encountering and has a vertical straight-line segment, such as letter ‘I’, then it can be situated within its schematic unit without needing more space. There are five possible encounters in the case of the words ‘Dialogue’ and According to .’گفتگو‘ because there are five letterforms in the shorter word ’گفتگو‘ their linear-qualitative characteristics, the most promising five letterforms must be selected from the word ‘Dialogue’. Two modes of encounter will now be tested.
112
(goftogou) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.40: Two modes of selection between the letterforms of ‘Dialogue’ and
In the first mode, indicated by , the point of encounter (i.e., a letterform at which the longer word begins to encounter the shorter word) posits the two opposite ends of the two words, the initial of ‘Dialogue’ encountering the final of In the second encounter between letters ‘i’ and ‘a’, the latter would certainly .’گفتگو‘ be a more suitable selection. It has more sectional congruence with the Farsi gaf) and, furthermore, ‘i’, as an envisaged non-encountering) ’گ‘ counter-letter letter, also does not raise the space issue because of its fine, linear organisation. The rest of the letters encounter one another following their orthographically successive order because they have a satisfactory, potential sectional congruence. Inevitably letters ‘u’ and ‘e’ will be not integrated. In the second mode, which is indicated by , the point of encounter emerges between letter ‘a’, the third letter .’گفتگو‘ vav), the final letter of) ’و‘ in the word ‘Dialogue’, and These two modes of encounter assure further sectional congruence between the two sets of letterforms. The two words can also assume other experimental modes of encounter. They are superimposed to delineate the sectional congruence between their encountering letterforms as well as to envisage the geometric reconstructions (figure 4.41). The baseline may seem problematic, as the Farsi writing system does not have a uniform baseline. Nevertheless, the line that holds the ligatures connecting the Farsi letterforms as if they are complex strokes is the most explicit and common baseline with which the English letterforms can be optimally aligned.
113
goftogou) in two) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.41: Sectional congruence between the words ‘Dialogue’ and modes of selection
The encountering letterforms in the two modes of selection demonstrate the second mode of sectional congruence: one letterform does not fully coincide, yet has sectional congruence with the other letterform. That is, in the last step the superimposed words need extremely tiny geometric reconstructions for the optimum determination of their hybrid forms (figure 4.42). In both instances, the geometric reconstructions are limited to the alignment of curvilinear and right- angled corners, depending on their linear organisations.
goftogou) in two) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.42: Two possible dialogic integrations of the words ‘Dialogue’ and modes of selection
The schematic units reveal sectional congruence between the letterforms and no particular geometric reconstruction based on the general principles is needed.
114 Two sets of hybrid forms result from the two modes of selection demonstrating the dialogic integration of the two bilingual words. The evolution of the words is relatively conditional such that one without the other falls apart. The non-encountering letterforms are the non-shared parts of the English word and depict the disparate topological characteristics of the two words that must be recognised and maintained within dialogic integration. Although it is probable that two letterforms with simple geometries encounter the one with more complex geometry, particularly in the bilingual context of dialogic integration, the characteristic non-shared parts of letterforms and, by extension, words are not to be forced into the shared territory. Within the DCS, the hybrid forms display two distinct letterforms whose topological characteristics are simultaneously shared and retained. The dialogic integration demonstrates the formal integration of letterforms as an integral part of the DCS. I will now discuss the second phase of the coding system where form, colour, material, space and subject become momentarily, yet deeply, connected.
4.4. Spatial de-integration
Since the hybrid forms raise the issue of space, the DCS includes a spatial phase. In type every letterform occurs in a distinct space close to other letterforms. In ambigrams a letter might even share the same space with another. However, once two sets of letterforms (s1, s2) coincide on the same point-event in a coordinate system (x, y) they occupy the same space, which creates the problem of how to discriminate between forms and differentiate between colours. To resolve this, the two encountering sets of letterforms can only be discriminated by extending them in the direction of the third dimension, namely, on the z-axis in the coordinate system (figure 4.43). I will now consider the spatial de-integration of hybrid forms, which is significant not only for discriminating between letters coalesced and integrated in hybrid forms, but also for the second principle of dialogicality: the observer’s spatial-temporal involvement.
115
Figure 4.43: Three spatial relations between two sets of letterforms
With dialogic integration, letterforms depart from absolute toward relative objects within hybrid forms. However, the relative hybrid forms remain absolute to observers independent of their positions in space. In other words, hybrid forms are decipherable to the observer at any positions in any direction and in any given moment if, and only if, the observer’s field of view coincides with the site where hybrid forms appear. But if hybrid forms are extended in space so that the two sets of letterforms occupy distinct points on the z-axis, then the observer’s field of view is to be aligned with this extension in the direction of the z-axis (see figure 4.43, spatial de-integration). The cognitive experience of correlation of two static, distinct points in space is only possible from the third point, which is precisely in the direction of the given two points. Anamorphic typography provides examples of such an illusion (for a related discussion see page 21). The third particular point is the privileged vantage point that the observer will occupy. The privileged vantage point is a static spatial point, whereas the observer can—and does—move in various directions in space. The observer only occupies the privileged vantage point momentarily. If an object is in constant motion in various directions, the object’s possible alignment with any given set of points will be momentary (figure 4.44). Hence in this instance, hybrid forms are no longer absolute objects but rather relative both in time and space.
116
Figure 4.44: The momentarily spatial alignment of a point in constant motion with another two points in coordinate system
In the moment of alignment the subject’s field of view and the elements of hybrid forms occupy “simultaneous but different space” (Holquist, 1990, p. 21). In other words, the position of the observer in space has meaning in relation to the hybrid form and, in turn, the hybrid form functions and expresses its linguistic content only in relation to the observer, whose relative position is fundamental to Bakhtin’s notion of dialogue (ibid.). Hence, the spatial de-integration of hybrid forms into their constitutive sets of letterforms yields two significant results: the form and colour discrimination of two sets of letterforms, and the subject’s spatial- temporal involvement and participation in the DCS. The spatial de-integration occurs with specific reference to two major shared and non-shared parts of hybrid forms. The shared part refers to the sectional congruence, to the shared elements between two given sets, and the non-shared part refers to the non-congruent elements of the sets, to their unique particularities. To do this, I will consider a hybrid form from the preceding section, ‘A’ and ‘B’ (figure 4.29).
Form de-integration:
Figure (4.45) illustrates the hybrid form of letters ‘A’ and ‘B’, as a case study. The hybrid form is divided into the two constitutive letterforms appearing on two transparent parallel planes, P1 and P2. The given planes are the same size and form and are in close spatial proximity on the z-axis so that they precisely superimpose on one another if observed from a privileged vantage point (figure 117 4.45 shows this in three-dimensional form). An observer will be able to perceive both planes simultaneously. The colour of each plane’s frame is defined by the colour of the presented letterform (black/black and red/red). The non-shared and shared parts of each letterform follow and show that both letterforms have the same shared parts denoting their sectional congruence.
Figure 4.45: Form de-integration of the hybrid form of ‘A’ and ‘B’. N-Sh: Non-Shared parts, and Sh: Shared parts
Within spatial de-integration, the non-shared parts are by definition outside the geometric expression of the other letterform, and, therefore must be placed on the plane assigned to the letter (figure 4.46). For example, the middle part of the right leg of ‘A’ is not shared with ‘B’. In contrast, the inclusive parts exist identically in both letterforms and, therefore, only need occur once.
Figure 4.46: A close view of non-shared parts between ‘A’ and ‘B’
The process of separating shared parts is referred to as ‘form de-integration’ (figure 4.47). The enclosed spaces are reduced down to either semi-enclosed spaces or line segments, semi-enclosed spaces down to line segments and line 118 segments to fragments. As figure (4.47) shows, the shared parts are de-integrated into parts such that they no longer, even with recourse to the non-shared parts, communicate the given letterforms.
Figure 4.47: Spatial de-integration of the hybrid form of ‘A’ and ‘B’
The letterforms are now incomprehensible unless they are re-integrated by the viewer who aligns them into a mutually constitutive form that realises the Bakhtinian moment of mutual consummation.
Colour determination: In the next step, the non-shared parts on each plane remain in the colour of their respective plane, whereas the de-integrated shared parts find the colour of the counter-plane, such that the elements in red change into black, and vice versa (figure 4.47). As a result, the colours are organised in relation to the two letterforms; in an important sense, the letterforms also become interdependent in colour. As figure (4.47) shows, in order to decipher the planes an observer needs to bring forward or back the elements appearing in the colour of one plane from the other plane, and vice versa. The red elements from P1 consummate P2 and consequently render letter ‘B’ decipherable as much as the black elements from P2 consummate P1 and render letter ‘A’ decipherable. As a result, neither form nor colour dominates or subordinates the letterforms. Rather, along with the material transparency of the planes, they develop into a unified apparatus of equality,
119 responsiveness, and double-voicedness of the letterforms. The Dialogic Coding System has begun to operate. An important fact about the privileged vantage point is its perspectival relativity. Figure (4.48) demonstrates that the determination of the privileged vantage point results from a certain translation of the positions of the encountering letterforms on the x, y-axes (x1, x2, y1, y2) on the z-axis (z3). There is a positive correlation between the distance of the planes (z1, z2) and the translational distance of the given points (z3). That is, the greater the distance between the planes, the greater is the translational distance of the points on the z- axis, so that the observer must stand further away from the planes to be able to perceive the coincidence of the de-integrated parts on the planes in the right proportions. Correspondingly, the shorter the translational distance is, the bigger the parts on P2 appear to be compared to those on P1, and the farther the translational distance, the further the two planes spatially merge and turn out to be one, as if the observer perceives the hybrid form on a two-dimensional plane. The perspectival relativity of vantage points, in fact, reinforces the essential and fundamental spatial and temporal characteristics of the DCS.
Figure 4.48: Side and front views of the 3-D extension of P1 and P2 in the coordinate system
120 Demonstrations: I will now apply spatial de-integration to the monolingual and bilingual letterforms in their word context by considering the hybrid forms of monolingual words, .’گفتگو‘ LOVE’ and ‘hate’, and bilingual words, ‘Dialogue’ and‘ The hybrid forms of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’ are divided into planes P1 and P2, respectively allocated the colours black and red. The non-shared and shared parts are separately illustrated (figure 4.49).
Figure 4.49: Form de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’
Figure (4.50) shows that the shared parts are de-integrated onto the two planes according to the reduction principles already noted. The non-shared parts maintain their colours whereas the de-integrated parts on each plane are assigned the colour of the other plane. From the privileged vantage point, an observer will be able to read both words simultaneously and relatively.
Figure 4.50: Spatial de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’
121 In both monolingual and bilingual encounters, the reading of hybrid forms requires multiple privileged vantage points. That means the observer needs to move along x, y-axes while they adjust their position on the z-axis to find an ideal translational distance to the planes. With the words ‘LOVE’ and ‘hate’, it can be envisaged that the observer will take at least four positions, each of which will only reveal one set of letterforms, with the rest appearing to be misaligned (figure 4.51). Although it might appear absurd to incorporate such a cumbersome reading process, this process, based on an integrated system of relations, is essential for a dialogic experience, a crucial point that I will discuss in chapter five.
Figure 4.51: Views from four privileged vantage points
Bilingual cases:
The bilingual hybrid form is now considered. Figure (4.52) shows the hybrid forms goftogou), the results of the second mode of) ’گفتگو‘ of words ‘Dialogue’ and selection, as they begin to undergo spatial de-integration. The non-shared and shared parts are clearly distinguished, and the latter are ready to be de-integrated and added to the non-shared parts on each plane.
(goftogou) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.52: Form de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘Dialogue’ and
Figure (4.53) shows the de-integration of the shared parts and how the colour organisations of the de-integrated parts are relatively determined.
122
(goftogou) ’گفتگو‘ Figure 4.53: Spatial de-integration of the hybrid forms of ‘Dialogue’ and
Figure (4.54) shows the privileged vantage points at which bilingual observers can perceive the bilingual words in their orthographically reversed directions. As in the previous case study, each position will only reveal one set of letterforms, with the rest appearing to be misaligned.
Figure 4.54: Views from five privileged vantage points
In conclusion, the spatial de-integration fulfils two purposes: reinforcing mutual consummation by rendering hybrid forms interdependent formal-material structures, and the spatial-temporal involvement of subjects. It consists of two parts: form de-integration and colour distribution, which render the observer’s act of spatial-temporal participation an integral part of the DCS. Spatial de-integration also extends the concept of mutual consummation from hybrid forms to the contexts of colour, material, space and time, and creates a unified, encompassing arena of dialogic moment. In this way, the DCS engenders an a priori condition of possibility under which the experience of dialogic moment comes about, where the other’s traces form the basis for one’s perception of one’s self and the other, and vice versa. Contrary to the Khatt Foundation’s projects (see page 25), with the DCS glyphic-geometric synchronisation of letterforms does not occur. Although hybrid forms can appear in a variety of glyphic-geometric forms at the level of their 123 glyphic surface, their discursive value and significance lies in the integrated system of formal-material relations in which linguistic contents are embedded. The DCS draws attention to mutual consummation of the letterforms’ fundamental structures irrespective of what they look like. The issue of glyphic-geometric characteristics of bilingual letterforms and also the issue of legibility, which is closely related to the philosophical underpinnings of the DCS, will be discussed in chapter five. Following this discussion of the DCS at letterform and word level, the next section considers the system at the level of the sentence.
4.5. The DCS at sentence level Letterforms are the fundamental units of the Dialogic Coding System (DCS). The DCS is an integrated system of formal-material principles that considers letterforms as purely formal objects irrespective of their linguistic content. Although, the system functions independently of linguistic content, the encounters of letterforms beyond their isolated manifestations, in words and sentences, are closely tied to the word or sentence structure. In other words, the number of letterforms in encountering words, the number of words in encountering sentences, and their writing directions turn out to be crucial factors in dialogic integration (the first phase of the Dialogic Coding System). I will now demonstrate the DCS at sentence level and resolve the related issues in monolingual and bilingual encounters.
Monolingual encounters: Monolingual sentences can be integrated at two levels: letterform and word. In the former the words of a sentence are considered as a series of successive letterforms and every letterform in each word is integrated with its previous or following letterform; in other words, words are dialogically integrated in themselves. In the latter, the words of two distinct sentences or two parts of a sentence correspond to each other; they are dialogically integrated.
124 The selected monolingual text by which the dialogic coding system at both letterform and word levels will be tested is the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nation General Assembly (1948): “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The text was chosen because of the dialogical connotations of the article. It is all-embracing, as it addresses all human beings regardless of their ethnicity, language, religion, gender, sexuality or other discriminable characteristics, premised on our shared, innate equality, beyond discrimination and the social segregation of ideology and power. Despite being criticised, mostly by non- Western states and scholars (Alfredsson and Eide, 1999, p. 58; Morsink, 1999, p. x) for privileging Western values, the article effectively describes the axiological space that the DCS creates. This will be further discussed in chapter five. The first part, “All human being are born free”, covers discussion of monolingual sentences, while the full article illuminates bilingual sentences. Each of the six words of the first part is made of a series of letterforms: 1{A, l, l}, 2{h, u, m, a, n}, 3{b, e, i, n, g, s}, 4{a, r, e}, 5{b, o, r, n}, 6{f, r, e, e}, integrated to generate a coherent fabric of hybrid forms. Section 1 in figure (4.55) illustrates these hybrid forms of the letterforms as being spatially de-integrated onto two planes. P1 shows the shared and non-shared elements of the following letterforms of the six words: 1{A}, 2{h, m, n}, 3{b, e, s}, 4{r}, 5{b, r}, 6{f, e}. P2 shows the shared and non-shared elements of the following complementary letterforms of the six words: 1{l, l}, 2{u, a}, 3{i, n, g}, 4{a, e}, 5{o, n}, 6{r, e}. By combining the shared elements on P1 with the non-shared elements of P2, and vice versa, the observer unfolds each word. Section 2 shows P1 and P2 superimposed as if they are seen from a single vantage point. Section 3 shows a 3-D extension of the planes, which requires an observer to occupy multiple vantage points.
125
Figure 4.55: Dialogic integrations of ‘All’, ‘human’, ‘beings’, ‘are’, ‘born’, and ‘free’
The dialogic coding system at word level lies between distinct words. For this reason, the sentence is divided into two parts as follows: {All human beings}, {are born free}. The same principles can also be applied to two distinct sentences. Hence, the three groups of two words {all, are}, {human, born}, and {beings, free} and their hybrid forms represent the dialogic integration of the constituent letterforms of each group. At word level the units of integration are the words themselves. For dialogic integration to be more inclusive of letterforms, one letterform can be dialogically integrated with two other letterforms. The unequal number of letterforms highlights the dissimilarity of the encountering words and the potential for their dialogic integration, of their sectional congruence. The unequal number of letterforms also allows for a more creative exploration of dialogic integration. A letterform of one word can be integrated with either one or two letterforms of the 126 other. The method of one-with-two integration of letterforms at sentence level is an alternative to the one-with-one method of the dialogic integration, already discussed. The one-with-two method of integration is schematically illustrated in figure (4.56). It shows three modes of selection can be conceived between a letterform encountering two letterforms. In the first two modes, the letterform (1) can be integrated with either of the other two letterforms (2 or 3) and in the third mode with both letterforms (2 and 3) at once. The first two modes refer to the modes of selection discussed in figure (4.39) when a selection is always made between one and one. The third mode of selection illustrates the one-with-two method of integration through which a more coherent and inclusive integration can be achieved.
Figure 4.56: One-with-two method of integration at sentence level
As can be seen in figure (4.55) section 2 a letter ‘A’ is integrated with two letterforms ‘LL’ at once. The integration of ‘A’ with ‘LL’, as a particular instance of one-with-two method, is illustrated in figure (4.57). Letter ‘A’ and letters ‘LL’, according to their schematic units and their potential sectional congruence with one another, are superimposed. Through a simple geometric reconstruction the three letterforms together generate the hybrid forms with the elements of three rather than two letterforms in the one-with-one method. Certainly the distribution of colours within spatial de-integration is modified.
127
Figure 4.57: Dialogic integration of ‘A’ and ‘LL’
The second experiment was carried out with reference to the words of the United Nation’s first article. Section 1 in figure (4.58) illustrates the spatial de- integration of the dialogic integration of the three couples of words onto two planes of P1 and P2. To explore further the dialogic integration of the one-with- two method, the first part of the sentence is written with uppercase letters, ‘ALL HUMAN BEINGS’, and the second part with lowercase letters, ‘are born free’. Hence the three groups of two words will be as follows: {ALL, are}, {HUMAN, born}, {BEINGS, free}. The shared and non-shared elements of the first words in each group appear on P1 and those of the second words in each group on P2. The colours of the planes’ frames indicate the shared and non-shared elements on each plane. For example, the black colour of P1 indicates the black elements are non- shared and the red elements are shared on P1. The words of the first group {ALL, are} are made of equal numbers of letterforms and therefore the dialogic integration simply takes place between corresponding letters {A, a}, {L, r}, and {L, e}. The words of the second group {HUMAN, born} are made of unequal numbers of letterforms and, therefore, the dialogic integration by the one-with-two method can take place between letters {HU, b}, {UM, o} and one with one between {A, r}, and {N, n}. Certainly this represents only one provisional mode of selection and there can be experiments with other modes. In the last group of words {BEINGS, free} the dialogic integration can take place between {BE, f}, {I, r}, {N, e}, and {GS, e}. The rationale behind the employed
128 mode of selection is that the grouped letters have great sectional congruence with one another. Section 2 shows the two planes superimposed on to each other from a single point of view while section 3 demonstrates the 3-D extension of the dialogically coded sentence.
Figure 4.58: Dialogic integration of ‘All HUMAN BEINGS’ with ‘are born free’
Bilingual encounters:
The DCS can be applied to two bilingual sentences in the same way we have seen it applied to two monolingual sentences. As long as a direct linguistic correspondence between the words of two sentences (a literal translation at word level) is not intended or required, the bilingual sentences can be treated akin to monolingual ones, as a series of formal-material objects whose topological- geometrical properties are the only determining factors within dialogic integration. The issue of an unequal number of words can be addressed by the one- with-two method of integration.
129 However, if a direct linguistic correspondence between the words of two bilingual sentences is intended or required then the writing directions of the sentences can be an issue as it is with English and Farsi languages. Writing direction (i.e., the directionality of syntactic order of words) is not an issue if the sentences are written in languages of a common letterform family, such as English/French or Arabic/Farsi, which share directionality. In figure (4.59) the literal translations of the article in Farsi and English are provided, yet due to the reverse directions of the syntactic word order in Farsi and English, a direct linguistic correspondence between the encountering words, for example “All” and .barabarand = ‘equal’), is not possible) ”برابرند“
Figure 4.59: The literal translations of the first article in Farsi and English28
If the direction of either of the sentences is reversed so the words correspond with each other, the syntax of the resulting sentence is not logical and becomes subordinate to the other. Figure (4.60), for instance, shows the syntactic order of Farsi adjusted to that of English by being fragmented into four and reordered in reverse to match the English words. The domination of English means that Farsi loses the logical structure it needs to communicate coherently. In a converse scenario, English is subordinate to Farsi with reverse consequences.
افراد (hameye) همه :The transliteration of the Farsi translation of the first article is as follows 28 و (sha’an) شان (daraie) دارای (va) و (miaiand) می آیند (donia) دنیا (be) به (azad) آزاد (bashar) بشر (afrad) .(barabarand) برابرند (hoghooghe) حقوق (va) 130
Figure 4.60: Directional conflict between English and Farsi writings
Although this directional conflict between English and Farsi sentences and words cannot be fully resolved due to their disparate syntactic structures, it can be alleviated somewhat by breaking both sentences into corresponding chunks. For instance, they can be broken into four pieces and, as a result, there will be four panels of bilingual texts, each of which represents two linguistically corresponding pieces of the original English and Farsi text (figure 4.61). However, the disparate syntactic structures of English and Farsi means that the ideal linguistic correspondences or literal translations between them at sentence level are not always possible. Taking this into account, the linguistic correspondence between the Farsi and English pieces in panels 3 and 4 is satisfactory, though it does not in any way represent their literal translations, which are shown in panels 1 and 2.
Figure 4.61: Linguistic correspondence between English and Farsi sentences
The four panels as ordered in figure (4.61) are the textual foundation of dialogic integration within bilingual sentences. In the first panel, the three English words are integrated with the three Farsi words, in the following syntactic orders: In figure (4.62) section 1, the hybrid .{همه ,and {beings ,{افراد ,human} ,{بشر ,all} forms of the three groups of two bilingual words are spatially de-integrated and 131 projected on two planes P1 and P2, which respectively represent Farsi and English. The bilingual hybrid forms are designed with simple geometric forms intended to represent the fundamental structures of letterforms, aside from the glyphic features common to the glyphic surfaces of both languages (e.g., serifs, slopes, etc of English and curvature, varying strokes, and diacritics of Farsi). The expression of fundamental structures of letterforms is inevitably grounded in geometric forms, while, from the standpoint of aesthetics, every choice of form betrays an aesthetic bias in favour of one or other of the languages. Therefore, there might be objections that the simplistic typefaces with which the text is written in English and Farsi in figure (4.61) and the simplicity of the hybrid forms in figure (4.62) connote English letterforms more than Farsi ones. However, the DCS is a system of relational principles and any selected forms and colours to express it are only provisional and not definitive. Nonetheless, the issue of aesthetic simplicity will be dealt with adequately in chapter five. According to the colour principle of the dialogic integration, P1 requires the red elements of P2 and conversely P2 requires the black elements of P1 in order to be completed from vantage points. Section 2 and 3 display the panels and hybrid forms superimposed on each other from a single vantage point, and then the 3-D extension of the planes in space.
132
Figure 4.62: The first panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level
In the following panel the English words ‘are born free’ are integrated with the according to their syntactic orders in the following ’آزاد به دنیا می آیند‘ Farsi words Following from the first panel the .{آزاد ,and {free ,{به دنیا ,born} ,{می آیند ,groups: {are design of the hybrid forms remains consistent with simple geometric forms. In figure (4.63), section 1 the bilingual hybrid forms are spatially de-integrated on two planes P1 and P2. The elements of Farsi appear on P1 and require the red elements of P2 and the elements of English appear on P2 and require the black elements of P1 in order to be completed. Sections 2 and 3 represent the superimposition of the planes and their 3-D extension in space.
133
Figure 4.63: The second panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level
In the third panel the English words ‘and equal in’ are integrated with Farsi In .{و ,and {in ,{دارای ,equal} ,{شان ,in the following groups: {and ’و دارای شان‘ words figure (4.64) section 1 the red plane contains the Farsi elements of the hybrid forms and the black plane, the English elements of the hybrid forms. The elements in the colour of the plane on which they appear are the non-shared elements and the elements in the colour of the other plane are the shared elements. Hence, the Farsi elements require the red elements of P2 and the English elements require the black elements of P1 in order to be seen completed from vantage points. Sections 2 and 3 respectively represent the planes superimposed on each other and their 3-D extension in space.
134
Figure 4.64: The third panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level
In the last panel, the English words ‘dignity and rights’ are integrated with the ,and {nd rights {برابرند ,in the following groups: {dignity, a ’و حقوق برابرند‘ Farsi words In this panel, the first letter of ‘and’ is integrated with the same Farsi word .{و حقوق as ‘dignity’ is integrated with the second and third letters of the Farsi word ’برابرند‘ ’و‘ The last two letters of ‘rights’ are integrated with the Farsi morpheme .’حقوق‘ (vav = and). This particular mode of selection creates a more coherent integration in this tight panel of the bilingual letterforms. In figure (4.65) section 1, the bilingual hybrid forms are spatially de-integrated on two planes, P1and P2, which represent Farsi and English respectively. As with other panels, the Farsi elements require the red elements of P2 and the English elements require the black elements of P1 to be completed when viewed from vantage points. Sections 2 and 3
135 also represent the panels superimposed on each other and their 3-D extensions in space.
Figure 4.65: The fourth panel of linguistically corresponding English and Farsi words at sentence level
The two panels of monolingual and four panels of bilingual dialogic integration of letterforms at sentence level constitute the formal-material foundation of an installation exhibition, which will become the basis for discussing the various philosophical, political, and cultural implications of the DCS in chapter five.
136 4.6. Exhibition Dialogical relations can be explored in three ontological categories of relation: between two objects such as two sets of letterforms, between an object and a subject such as hybrid forms and an observing subject, and between two subjects through an object or language. The exploration of the first category of object-object relations with respect to letterforms resulted in the establishment of the Dialogic Coding System (DCS). Yet the dialogical relation of two objects such as two sets of letterforms finds meaning and value within and through an observing subject’s experience and understanding. To explore the ontological nature of the object- subject relations the DCS was instantiated in the form of an installation held at the COFA Space, a public gallery on the campus of the College of Fine Arts29 at the University of New South Wales 15-22 July 2013.
Rationale and Significance:
The research instruments used to collect information from visitors in the exhibition were a questionnaire with six open-ended questions: face-to-face interviews in the gallery, and also the researcher’s observation. The six questions, approved by University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Advisory (HREA), were as follows:
1. Could you read what is written on the panels? 2. If so, what did you understand? 3. How many languages is the text written in? 4. Can you describe your reading experience? 5. What does the model say? What does it mean to you? 6. Any further comments?
Although a limited number of casual visitors (not recruited) signed the consent form and responded to the questions either by filling in the questionnaire or through a face-to-face interview, the exhibition, in line with the research
29 Since 1 July 2014 the College of Fine Arts (COFA) has been officially known as University of New South Wales, Art and Design. 137 methodology, analytic induction, primarily served as an objective ground for philosophical speculation on the category of object-subject relation. Since there is no hypothesis to be tested and the experience of dialogic moment must also be free from any experimental interference, a controlled experiment where the variables are controlled and respondents are directed by the researcher (Bryman, 2012, p. 55) was deemed to be inappropriate. The ontological structure of dialogic moment cannot be derived from empirical data alone. The outcome of the exhibition was a series of speculative interaction trajectories on the basis of the researcher’s observation and visitors’ comments. These trajectories illustrate the crucial moments in the process of dialogic experience and lay the foundation for an ontological account of dialogic relationships.
The design foundation:
The DCS was explored and developed through monolingual English letterforms and bilingual English/Farsi letterforms at the three levels of letterform, word and sentence, based on the first article of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. The installation exhibition presented the six monolingual and bilingual panels demonstrating the dialogic coding system at sentence level as they were illustrated and described at the end of the preceding section.
Installation plan: The installation comprised six panels, two monolingual and four bilingual panels, presented at COFA Space, a rectangular room roughly 97 metres with a 4.5 metre ceiling. The monolingual and bilingual panels were distributed according to their functional significance. The monolingual panels were primarily intended to introduce the coding system to visitors and for this reason were placed next to the gallery’s entrance marked as M1 and M2 in both plan views in figure (4.66). And the bilingual panels, marked as B1, B2, B3, B4 in both plan views in figure (4.66), were distributed in such a way that visitors could move around and interact with 138 them from various directions. Plan view (1) illustrates six areas marking privileged vantage points in relation to the six panels, while plan view (2) depicts the visitors’ probable moving path from the gallery’s door through the space in terms of the privileged vantage points.
Figure 4.66: Plan view of the gallery space
The six panels, which were made of PVC sheets, were suspended from the 4-metre high ceiling down to 155cm above the floor, roughly at the visitors’ average standing eye height (Chengalur et al., 2004, p. 230). Figure (4.67) provides an axonometric illustration of the gallery space, the spatial arrangement and dimensions of the panels, and the spatial relation of observing visitors standing behind the line of vantage points with the suspended panels. The lines of vantage points were marked on the gallery floor to indicate appropriate positions towards the panels (they can be clearly seen in images 1 and 2).
139
Figure 4.67: Axonometric view of the gallery space
Both monolingual panels were suspended from the ceiling very close to the wall, around 4cm off the wall next to the gallery’s door. The following two images show the suspended panels from two angles of view. Image (1) shows the two monolingual panels can be seen next to the door and the four bilingual panels around the centre of the room and image (2) shows the same view but in reverse.
140
Image 4.1: Spatial distribution of the panels in the gallery. Note the floor markers and the instructions to the right of the door.
Image 4.2: Spatial distribution of the panels in the gallery (view from reverse angle)
141 Panels: The two monolingual and four bilingual panels representing the first article of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights discussed in the preceding section were reproduced for the installation exhibition. Both the monolingual panels (M1, M2) and the bilingual panels (B1, B2, B3, B4) were identical to the original designs, but the colours of the bilingual panels were changed. The provisional black and red colours of the dialogic coding system at sentence level were changed to green and red colours for two reasons: first, to further distinguish the bilingual panels from the monolingual panels; second, the complementariness of the given colours communicates a dialogic sensibility and as such reinforces the dialogic relation of the languages.30 The colours were reversed from one panel to the other in order to avoid establishing an inessential colour association with either of the languages (figure 68).
30 For a discussion of colour and dialogism see Haynes (2002, p 297) who argues for the dialogic interaction between colours as they contest and respond to each other in the polyphonic sense. 142
Figure 4.68: The monolingual (M1, M2) and bilingual (B1, B2, B3, B4) panels
The axonometric illustrations of the panels are reproduced here for ease of reading. Figure (4.69) shows in four sections the first monolingual panel (M1): the spatial de-integration of hybrid forms (1), the superimposition of the planes (2), the 3-D extension of the panel (3), and a view of the panel photographed in the exhibition from a marked vantage point (4).
143
Figure 4.69: The first monolingual panel (M1)
In the photograph, the hybrid forms of letters ‘A’ and ‘LL’ or ‘h’ and ‘u’ on the left side of the panel appear aligned, whereas those on the right side are misaligned because the view from each vantage point is limited. As also can be seen P1 and P2 have no coloured frame to indicate the colours of the hybrid forms on each plane. In fact, visitors were deliberately not provided with any colour codes—extralinguistic codes—as part of their experience of the panel.
144 Image (4.3) shows a close-up of B1, closer than in the previous photograph. In this image, letters ‘A’ and ‘LL’ are almost completely aligned, as can be seen in the blue rectangle. The letters following on, from left to right, become progressively less aligned from the vantage point.
Image 4.3: A closer view of B1
In fact, the closer the position visitors occupied, the fewer letters they could decipher as the perspective grew more intense; the farther away they were, the more letters they could decipher. However, it was then more difficult for visitors to discriminate between the elements of P1 and P2. For this reason, visitors soon discovered that they had to remain close to the vantage points and move back and forth in order to find a suitable position that would enable them to reconstitute the hybrid forms. The two sources of light in the gallery, the daylight and two lines of fluorescent light tubes suspended from the ceiling, cast shadows on the planes, as can be seen in section 4 of figure (4.69) and image (4.3). The shadows were inevitable in the absence of daylight in particular, and visitors therefore also had to discriminate the forms from the shadows by moving back and forth between the line of vantage 145 points and the planes. On such occasions colours of the forms provided useful clues. In figure (4.70) the second monolingual panel (M2), as with the first panel, is illustrated in four sections.
Figure 4.70: The second monolingual panel (M2)
146 In the photograph (4) as with the first panel, the hybrid forms on the left side of the panel such as ‘ALL’ and ‘are’ appear more aligned than those on the right side. Figure (4.71) illustrates the first bilingual panel (B1) in four sections. The photograph (4) was taken from a position behind the line of marked vantage points and for this reason the first two English words ‘all human’ and two Farsi .afrad bashar = ‘human beings’) to a great extent are aligned) ’افراد بشر‘ words
147
Figure 4.71: The first bilingual panel (B1)
148 In image (4.4) a closer view of B1 can be seen. The English word ‘ALL’ and bashar = ‘human’) are fully aligned, as indicated by the blue) ’بشر‘ Farsi word frame.
Image 4.4: A closer view of B1
In image (4.5) the three letters ‘H’, ‘u’, ‘m’ (of ‘Human’) on P1 that required red (’afrad = ‘human ,’افراد‘ of) ’اد‘ elements on P1 appear aligned with the Farsi letters on P1 that required the green elements on P2 in order to be completed.
149
Image 4.5: A closer view of B1
Figure (4.72) illustrates the second bilingual panel (B2) in four sections. The photograph (4) shows the panel while viewed from outside the line of vantage points, as the hybrid forms appear slightly misaligned.
150
Figure 4.72: The second bilingual panel (B2)
151
Image 4.6: A closer view of B2
In image (4.7), a visitor was photographed from behind the panel while ’می آیند‘ interacting with B2. In this image English word ‘are’ and Farsi word (miaiand: a part of the verb ‘are born’) are in alignment.
Image 4.7: A visitor interacting with B2 152 As can be seen, the reader is standing between the line of the vantage points (visible behind him on the floor) and the panel, and is peering into the panel, searching for the right positions. The bilingual panel 3 behind can be seen in the top-right corner of panel 2 in image (8).
Image 4.8: View from behind the panel (B2)
Figure (4.73) illustrates the third bilingual panel (B3) in four sections. The photograph (4) was taken from approximately 1 meter to the panel. On the left (dignity = ’شان‘ of) ’ن‘ side, English uppercase letter ‘A’ (of ‘And’) and Farsi letter appear in alignment.
153
Figure 4.73: The third bilingual panel (B3)
’و‘ Image (4.9) depicts the alignment of English word ‘in’ and Farsi conjunction (vav: ‘and’) on the right side of the panel.
154
Image 4.9: A closer view of B3 (note the photographer’s shadow cast on the panel)
Image (4.10) shows the two visitors striving to decipher the panels 3 and 4 from behind the line of the vantage points.
Image 4.10: Visitors interacting with B2 and B3
155 Figure (4.74) illustrates the last bilingual panel (B4) in four sections. In the photograph (4), the left side shows the alignment of letters ‘dig’ (of dignity) with .(’barabarand = ‘equal ,’برابرند‘ of) ’ند‘ Farsi letters
156
Figure 4.74: The fourth bilingual panel (B4) Image (4.11) provides a close view of, in some measure, the alignment of va = and) on the) ’و‘ letters ‘ts’ of the English word ‘rights’ and Farsi conjunction = hoghoogh) ’حقوق‘ of word ’حقو‘ right, and letters ‘righ’ of word ‘rights’ with letters
‘rights’) on the left.
Image 4.11: A closer view of B4
Instruction:
Since the installation was an unorthodox object of which visitors, presumably, had had no previous experience, there was a note with instruction (in English) briefly introducing the installation and suggesting some reading strategies along with some marks suggesting vantage points on the floor. The note was posted on the wall between the gallery’s door and the first monolingual piece (it can be seen in image 1). It suggested that visitors begin their journey with the first two monolingual pieces suspended next to the note:
The first two panels, hanging on your right, demonstrate the dialogic coding system with reference to English letterforms. In order to decipher the panels you need to occupy a series of vantage points as marked on the floor. To read
157 the text you need to combine the elements on the front plane with the elements of the back plane.
There are four major panels that represent English and Farsi letterforms. Each plane of panels belongs to one language. To read the text in each language you need to combine certain elements on the front plane with certain elements on the back plane and vice versa. These four panels are numbered on the floor as the text is divided into four successive parts.
There was no information about the panels’ text and, importantly, not all the visitors read the note.31
Interaction trajectory: ‘Aha’ and ‘Oho’ Moments:
As described, the exhibition was held in two monolingual and bilingual sections. The English monolingual section was designed as an introduction to the Dialogic Coding System and, as such, was in some way peripheral to the exhibition. Hence, although the monolingual panels can be dissected in their own right, the bilingual section was central to the exhibition and to this chapter. Before I examine the visitors’ possible experiences when encountering the panels, I will first define two frames of experience encountered by the visitor not as single moments but rather as an event in its own space and time, as a series of parallel or successive moments, that can help explain the interaction trajectory. Visitors to the installation were either monolingual (i.e., speaking either English or Farsi) or bilingual (i.e., speaking both Farsi and English). The visitors interacted and deciphered the panels by using different strategies in different degrees and qualities. The first series of moments are associated with deciphering the first language in bilingual hybrid forms. The moments in which a visitor, either monolingual or bilingual, deciphered the hybrid forms in either Farsi or English are what might be termed the ‘aha moments’. In her study of cross-cultural linguistic communication Wierzbicka (2003, p. 331) contends that “aha links
31 For a video of the installation picturing the bilingual panels refer to the URL address below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBvdLP1hcRA 158 knowledge with thinking.” In the case of aha the content of the knowledge that one strives to acquire is given (ibid., p. 332). The ‘aha moments’ can be thus defined in the context of bilingual hybrid forms as follows: A familiar object—the letterforms of the observer’s language—, which has been concealed, unreachable or unintelligible, is suddenly revealed, as the observer becomes part of the object by reflective thinking. A monolingual visitor’s answer to the first question illustrates her experience of the aha moments: Struggling with the first panel, but then it became easier with the other panels. The second series of moments are associated with the recognition of the presence of the second language’s letterforms. This moment of recognition might be termed the ‘oho moment’. According to Wierzbicka (ibid, pp. 331-332) knowledge in the case of oho “links with perception or observation,” in other words, “what is perceived is new information.” In the context of bilingual hybrid forms the oho moments can be defined as follows: The observer’s recognition of the presence of a second set of letterforms as an integral part the first set of letterforms; it refers to the moments in which mutual consummation of letterforms is understood. A monolingual visitor’s answer to the third question clearly evidences the experience of the oho moments: I could read one language but it seems to me there is another language involved in it (Appendix, Q1, M1). The series of the aha and oho moments are in fact two parallel or successive processes, each of which can be broken down into a sequence of moments depending on the visitor’s linguistic competence and diligence. Figure (4.75) illustrates two frames of experience including aha and oho moments that a monolingual English or Farsi visitors might encounter as she engages with the bilingual panels. Whether she has already experienced the monolingual panels or not, she can see that the object communicates something but may nevertheless disengage from the object if she finds it perplexing and laborious (the first exit point). But if she stays and continues to engage with the panels she may recognise the letterforms. This recognition marks the first aha moment. If she continues to examine the panels she may read some words in her own language either by recognising all the letterforms or by recognising some and guessing others. This marks the second aha moment at the level of the word. Our observer might 159 disengage at this point too, but if she continues to explore the panels and gains more competence in decoding the letterforms and words she may come to be able to read the whole sentence, through recognition and/or conjecture. For instance, by reading ‘all human’ the third word ‘beings’ could become accessible to her. The reading of the whole panel, a part of the article, marks the third aha moment at sentence level. This can be seen in a monolingual visitor’s answer to the forth question: It was interesting trying to decipher the words at first and then it became easier to read the messages (Appendix, Q4, M3).
Figure 4.75: An interaction trajectory for a monolingual visitor
The ‘oho moments’ could occur to her as she begins to explore the object beyond her language. The order of aha and oho moments—as mentioned could be parallel or successive—cannot be determined with certainty. As illustrated in figure (4.75) in the moment that she realises that there is something else, in other words, in the moment she begins to question herself about the non-shared elements of the second language can be marked as the first oho moment. The second oho moment is when she can recognise some letterforms of the second language by reference to her previous experiences. The first and second oho moments are equally probable to occur to her simultaneously with or in between or after ‘aha moments’. Such speculation about the experience of the ‘oho moments’ can be supported by the comment of an English monolingual visitor as
160 follows: I could read one language but it seems to me there is something else or another language involved (Appendix, Q3, M1). A bilingual observer, competent in both Farsi and English, would experience the bilingual panels differently. Theoretically a bilingual visitor could be an English speaking or a Farsi speaking one, but due to the sociolinguistic context of the exhibition (Australia) they were more likely to be a Farsi speaking one. A bilingual visitor could experience the aha and oho moments through a deeper understanding of the bilingual hybrid forms and most likely in a parallel order. Figure (4.76) shows the two parallel frames of experience analogous to the parallel structure of the panels. As a bilingual visitor encounters the panels she might shortly leave the gallery for the same reason, as did the monolingual visitor. Beyond the early state of ‘there is something’ the bilingual visitor may realise that the object communicates one or two languages.
Figure 4.76: An interaction trajectory for a bilingual visitor
161 For this reason, the first aha and the first oho moment could occur simultaneously or successively at letterform level. Upon reading the first letterforms the visitor might leave the gallery. In a deeper and longer engagement with the object she might combine the elements of the two plans and read words in one or two languages. Therefore, the second aha and oho moment similar to the first ones could occur simultaneously or successively at word level. At this point, she might stop interacting with the object. And lastly, by continuing to read she could read a whole bilingual panel, a part of the article in full, in one or two languages at once. Then again, the third aha and oho moment would occur simultaneously or successively at sentence level. The answer of a bilingual Farsi speaking visitor to the fourth question illustrates a bilingual experience of the ‘aha and oho moments’: It is the first time that I could see my language [Farsi] is as important as English. The English language has to derive its characters from my language [Farsi] in order to be able to speak (Appendix, Q4, B1).
Collaborative Encounters:
Another possible scenario would be a collaborative encounter and interaction with the installation by two or more observing subjects at one and the same time. This collaborative experience is referred to as “co-experience” (Battarbee, 2003). The scenario of visitors’ co-experience explains how two or more visitors, whether monolingual or bilingual ones, directly (e.g., speaking to each other) or indirectly (e.g., observing each other) impact the cognitive experience of one another. Here three variations of co-experience can be considered: monolingual-monolingual, bilingual-bilingual, and monolingual-bilingual. The first two scenarios refer to homogeneous linguistic contexts of interaction where visitors are equally competent in one or both languages. In the given scenarios the cognitive engagement of two visitors are more or less built upon and propelled by one another. The third scenario refers to a heterogeneous linguistic context where the bilingual competence of one visitor (a Farsi speaking visitor also competent in English) leads the experience of a monolingual English-speaking visitor with the panels. The comments of a bilingual Farsi-speaking and monolingual English-speaking couple to the fourth question suggests the 162 possibility of such an interlingual experience. The English monolingual partner said: That was an amazing experience that how we were able to read our languages through the language of one another (Appendix, Q4, B2). In summary, the aha and oho moments demonstrate the processual character of the dialogic experience in regard to the DCS. The observer’s recognition of her letterforms as essentially connected to the other’s letterforms such that the former is only possible through the latter comes about in a series of moments and not in a single moment. Furthermore, the contents of these moments are unveiled only through the visitor’s active engagement and exploration; there is nothing already revealed and ready to be unreflectively picked up throughout the dialogic experience. Reflection on these moments and their dialogic dimensions with respect to the formal-material structure of the dialogic coding system is the focus of the next chapter.
163 CHAPTER FIVE TOWARDS A GENERAL THEORY OF DIALOGUE
5.1. Aha and Oho moments: Two dialogic frames of experience
As defined in chapter four, the aha and oho are two moments in which the meaning of the bilingual hybrid forms are revealed to visiting subjects. The former designates a process through which a monolingual or a bilingual visiting subject deciphers either of the languages (theoretically his or her native language first) and the latter, a process through which a monolingual visiting subject speculates about the parallel existence of the second language and a bilingual visiting subject deciphers the second language. The formal-material structure from which these two moments emerge, and their dialogic implications, are central to the present discussion. First, what could these two moments mean in the context of Bakhtinian dialogism? The content of the aha and oho moments sequentially emerges in time and space as the observer32 occupies multiple vantage points. In the aha moments, the content of perception is given (letterforms of one’s own language), whereas in the oho moments the content of perception is new (letterforms of the other’s language). In other words, in the aha moments old information continuously comes through a new channel, which might extend to a point in time and space where new information is presented. But what emerges in the oho moments? In point of fact the novel content of the oho moments is not simply characterised by the exposure of an observing subject to the other’s letterforms—to the other’s representation—but rather by the subject’s grasp of the essential interplay and mutually constitutive relation between the two sets of letterforms. The content of the oho moments, in fact, bears on what Bakhtin (1990, p. 267) referred to as “the content of aesthetic activity (contemplation) directed toward a work.”
32 The difference between a reader and an observer calls for special consideration here, as a lack of linguistic competence means the latter cannot become the former. Visitors to the exhibition depending on their linguistic competence and their spatial relationship with the panels could take the character of both the reader and observer. However, since the act of reading consists in observing and observing is always part of the interaction course between visitors and the panels therefore I refer to visitors as ‘observers’ in the following discussion. 164 The content of the oho moments, or the content of aesthetic activity, forms the core of the “aesthetic object” that is “in distinction to the external work itself”(ibid.), which is solely a matter of cognitive-sensory perception. The suspended panels in the gallery are physical objects whose material characteristics, or “sensuous givenness” in Bakhtin’s term (ibid., p. 266), could be analysed and received solely by cognition. Such a purely cognitive approach in Bakhtin’s view is methodologically limited; as it considers the work of art as if it is an object of scientific enquiry (ibid., p. 265). In his epistemological account of general aesthetics Bakhtin formulated three areas of study, “the aesthetic object”, “material givenness”, and “goal-directed composition” of a work of art (ibid., p. 268). According to Bakhtin, the primary focus of aesthetics must be directed towards the “aesthetic object in its purely artistic distinctiveness” (ibid.) and the understanding of its structure, which Bakhtin called “the architectonics of the aesthetic object” (ibid.). The last two areas of study, the material givenness and goal-directed composition—what the object is and what it is made for independent of the subject’s experience—are what material aesthetics (e.g., Formalist aesthetics) is concerned with (ibid., pp. 262-3). But although the study of the “aesthetic object” and its “artistic distinctiveness” accounts for the material givenness and the goal-directed composition of the object, it also extends its scope to the experience of an observing subject. This illustrates Bakhtin’s central epistemological premise in the study of objects, this truth lies neither entirely in the object nor entirely in the subject’s mind but in their unique relation. Bakhtin effectively argued for a relativistic theory of knowledge that is primarily focused on the relation between the observer and the observed object (Holquist, 1990, p. 21), rather than on objects in themselves. This relativistic epistemology posits that subject and object are essentially related points of reference and the study of one is defective without that of the other. In fact, the study of “aesthetic object” is the study of the subject- object relation.
165 5.2. Exposition of the category of Relation The contents of both the aha and oho moments become available only through the subject’s relation to the object of the Dialogic Coding System. In other words, the coded relation between two sets of letterforms in the formal-material category of object extends towards the category of the subject’s aesthetic contemplation. The object breaks away from its objectivity, passivity and silence of its material givenness and goal-directed composition, and is consummated by the subject’s conscious act of contemplation (aesthetic activity) including the aha and oho moments. The observer’s openness is not sufficient in the aha and oho moments and the content of observation is not simply that of sense-experience. It is rather grounded in an active participation and creative synthesis, and inexorably accompanied by the act of confirmation of the other. This is the distinction between the letterforms on the present page and the hybrid forms in the dialogic coding system. The system of coded relations is completed and reinforced through the spatial- temporal relation that the subject develops with it. It occurs at a particular space and time, which are the essential contexts of sense-experience. The space and time define the threshold on which a subject enters into the system of coded relations so that the world of “It” fleetingly turns into the world of “Thou” (Buber, 2010, p 33). In I and Thou Buber33 describes this moment as follows:
“The world of It is set in the context of space and time. The world of Thou is not set in the context of either of these. The particular Thou, after the relational event has run its course, is bound to become an It. The particular It, by entering the relational event, may become a Thou. These are the two basic privileges of the world of It. They move man [sic] to look on the world of It as the world in which he has to live, and in which it is comfortable to live, as the world, indeed, which offers him all manner of incitements and excitements, activity and knowledge. In this chronicle of
33 Bakhtin acknowledged once in an interview that he was influenced by Martine Buber’s philosophy of dialogue (Friedman, 2001, pp. 25-36). Bakhtin’s accounts of monologism and dialogism occupy the space of Buber’s primary relational axes of words of I-It and I-Thou, the differentiation that is found between objectification of a voice and its valid consciousness. For a discussion on the similarities between Bakhtin and Buber’s dialogue see Friedman’s (2001) Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogue of Voices And The Word That Is Spoken. 166 solid benefits the moments of the Thou appear as strange lyric and dramatic episodes, seductive and magical, but tearing us away to dangerous extremes, loosening the well-tried context, leaving more questions than satisfaction behind them, shattering security—in short, uncanny moments we can well dispense with… And in all the seriousness of truth, hear this: without It man cannot live. But he who lives with It alone is not a man.” (emphasis in original, ibid.).
Buber’s account of the primary words of “I-It” and “I-Thou” and the fleeting occurrence of the latter (relational event) in the preliminary and all-present context of the former (sense-experience) is closely related to Bakhtin’s concept of “aesthetic object”, the product of a subject-object dialogic relation. But how could a subject standing over an object (a person sitting behind a table, a visitor observing the panels in the exhibition) in the mode of “I-It” sensuous relation enter into the dialogic event of ‘”I-Thou”? These questions call for an ontological examination of Relation34 that will enable us to provide a processual account of Bakhtin’s dialogical model. Within ontological systems of categories seeking to define “the most general kinds of entities” (Norton, 1976, p. 107) Relation constitutes a Category. In Aristotle’s realist treatise of Categories (1984, pp. 3-24) Relation was first drawn upon as one of the ten Categories of genera35; in a conceptual approach in Critique of Pure Reason Kant36 defined the Category of Relation as one of the four37 a priori concepts underlying a pure understanding (1996, B106, p. 132); and Edmund
34 Relation with a capital R is used to indicate an ontological category.
35 Aristotelian System of Categories consists of the following: Substance, Quality, Quantity, Relation, Place, Date, Posture, State, Action, and Passion.
36 Bakhtin was influenced by Neo-Kantianism, a dominant school of philosophy at the turn of the 20th century (Holquist, 1990, p. 3; Bernard-Donals, 1994, p. 18). The compelling element of Kant’s philosophy for Bakhtin was Kant’s insistence on the mind’s relation to the world and their necessary interaction in generating thought (Bernard-Donals, 1994, p. 18). It is worth mentioning that, however, Bakhtin contested Kant’s theoretical account of ethics, “Categorical Imperative” in his book Towards a Philosophy of the Act (1993) by drawing on the fact that ethics and veridical judgments are equally impervious to one another (ibid., p. 4).
37 The Kantian System of Categories consists of: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Modality, each of which includes three sub-concepts. In his criticism of the Aristotelian system Kant believed that Aristotle had no principle for developing the Categories and “snatched them up as he came up with them” and later discovered another five categories (1996, A81 B107, p. 133). 167 Husserl in his descriptive approach distinguished the Category of Objects from that of meanings and drew attention to their law-like correlations (Smith, 2007, p. 139ff). The latter two accounts of Categories are of significance in the present study.38 The Category of Relation is an a priori concept that incorporates dialogue as its modality. In the study of the Category of Relation one must take into account what relations are in their “concrete architectonic” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 61), referring to ‘that-which-is’, and what relations mean in their “value-context” (ibid., p. 71), referring to ‘that-which-means’ in the observer’s aesthetic contemplation. What a relation between two entities is might be determined by what the relation means, and vice versa. For this reason, in order to define the sub-categories (or “species” in Aristotle’s term, 1984, pp. 3-24) of Relation an ontological-semantic system is required. Such an integrated system, which alludes to Kantian “Transcendental Synthesis”—“the dialogue as Bakhtin would come to interpret it” (Holquist, 1990, p. 4), is justified by reference to the fact that the relation between two entities is either given in our sensory reception, the relative “content-sense aspect of judgment” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 4), or constructed by giving meaning to a spatial or temporal congruence of the entities from the “value-centre” position of the observer, in the general sense of the term (ibid., p. 57). Relation can be defined ontologically and/or semantically. An ontological account of Relation refers to its formal-material structure given in sensory reception. For example, the letterforms on this page have an ontological relation with each other and a material support of a sheet of paper or a computer screen. A semantic account of Relation refers to the meaning potential of ontologically related entities, which in the case of the letterforms on this page is the text you are reading now. Due to its objectivity and receptive grounds, the ontological Relation often appears more readily accessible than the semantic Relation that calls for active engagement.39 We see the letters on the page, but may not understand their
38 For more contemporary Systems of Categories see Johansson (1989), Chisholm (1996), Grossman (1983), Hoffman and Rosenkrantza (1994), and others.
39 It is important to note that sometimes the semantic-active dimension of Relation is objectified and stereotyped and turns into a receptive state of intelligibility or what is called association of ideas (for a discussion on the theory of association of ideas see the chapter of utilitarianism in The History of Philosophy by Russell). 168 meaning. Indeed, we might shuffle the letterforms into arbitrary meaningless patterns but the ontological Relation would remain unchanged. The distinction is also found in Kompridis’s (2006, p. 34) account of “pre-reflective disclosure” and “reflective disclosure”. An ontological-semantic system is a descriptive system directed towards an exposition of the relation between an observing subject and the observed entity (or entities), between the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’, between the “two-plane character of the valuative determinateness of the world…” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 74). The relative entity to the Self, on the plane of the Other, can be an object, two (or more) related objects, a subject, two (or more) related subjects, and a related object- subject. Figure (5.1) presents these sub-categories of Relation between the Self and the Other.
Figure 5.1: The ontological-semantic system of Relation
In any of the modes of Relation, the observer’s “emotional-volitional” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 37) attitudes towards the various others are grounded in her “once- occurrent-event of Being” (Bakhtin, 1993), in her unique value-context. That is, the observer’s experience results from her unique position in space and time and from her secluded, impervious horizon of consciousness that remains entirely outside the value-context of the others. By extension, this refers to, and affirms, the equivocal nature of Relation and its meaning potential rather than universality and
169 ultimateness. The observer here is an active participant40 as she incessantly encounters others in concrete moments of her “once-occurrent-event of Being”. Observer-Object: In this sub-category of Relation an observer and an object can be ontologically accidentally related. The relation between a subject and a chair is an example, assuming the subject is not sitting on the chair. In other words, there is no interaction between the subject and object. An observer and an object can turn into an ontologically productive Relation; a carpenter and a saw that can collaboratively produce the third object. A shelf is an example. An observer and an object can appear in an ontologically monological Relation. The course of production is always grounded in an ontologically monolingual Relation between the object being produced and a producing subject. For example, a potter who makes a bowl for others has no relation to the bowl other than that of production. However, an observing subject and an object can also be ontologically dialogically related. The dependence of a disabled subject on a wheelchair and, in turn, the subject’s maintenance of the wheelchair illustrate an ontologically dialogical Relation. The Relation between a subject and an object can be either semantically significant or insignificant. For instance, in an ontologically accidental mode of Relation (a subject and a chair) the relation between the subject and object is insignificant insofar as the subject holds no emotional-volitional attitudes towards the object in a pre-reflective mode of consciousness. As the subject produces or takes possession of the object or the object serves the subject’s purposes the relation between the subject and object, irrespective of their possible non-dialogic ontological relation, turns into a semantically dialogical Relation. Although there is an ontological productive relation between a carpenter and a saw, the emotional- volitional attitude of the carpenter towards the saw causes the contrapuntal construction of meaning and value of the subject and object. This also applies to the relation between the carpenter and the shelf: the shelf results from the activity
40 As Mulhall (2005, p. 39) noted in the tradition of Western philosophy at least since Descartes the relationship between human and the external world has been considered from “an unmoving point of view upon the world.” This is evident in Descartes’ well-known wax argument as the observer sitting next to the fireplace (ibid.); in Hume’s imagination of himself as the spectator of a billiard game or Kant’s account of himself as the spectator of a ship moving in the river (ibid.). Bakhtin and Heidegger place great emphasis on the unique conscious horizon and “mineness” (Heidegger, [1927], 2008, p. 68) of an active observer in relation to, and in Being-in, the world. 170 of the carpenter and, in turn, the shelf credits its producer with an “emotional- volitional tone” (ibid., 34) of, actually affirms the meaning of, a carpenter.41 Observer-(Object-object): In this sub-category the relation between two objects can be accounted for insofar as it springs into a subject’s value-context and understanding. In other words, in the observer-(object-object) relation the object of observation is the “event-relation”42 (ibid., p. 71) between two objects and not the objects themselves in their self-sufficient architectonics. Although two objects might seem correlated in that they are congruent in space, between their concrete architectonics, there is always an ontologically accidental relation whether they appear as two separate entities or as parts integrated into the wholeness of an entity. In Heidegger’s ([1927], 2008, pp. 81-2) observation, things are not capable of being “encounterable” for each other, as they are “worldless in themselves, they can never touch each other, nor can either of them ‘be’ ‘alongside’ the other” (emphasis in original).43 The ontologically accidental relation between the two objects is either semantically significant or insignificant within the observer’s value-context.44 Objects on a mantelpiece can be semantically insignificant as they generate no particular meaning for a given observer in a pre-reflective mode of consciousness but the same objects are semantically significant if they are interpreted as ’household objects’ or are associated with personal memory. If the relation between two accidentally related objects is semantically significant they might be
41 This is also found in Heidegger’s thesis on The Origin of the Work of Art where he argues for the correlative origins of a work of art and an artist (Heidegger, 2008, p. 143).
42 “[T]he relation that is an ongoing event” (ibid., p. 100).
43 The similarity between Bakhtin and Heidegger’s philosophy is noticeable in many respects. Both attempted to ground the nature of Being in the concrete experiences of everyday life and encounter with others. In Towards a Philosophy of the Act (1921) and Being and Time (1927) Being is referred to as a “once-occurrent event” and “world disclosure” respectively with a specific reference to the thinking being (human being) as the sole constituent of truth and significance. This can be seen in the following quotes: “All possible being and all possible meaning are arranged around the human being as the centre and the sole value; everything … must be correlated with the human being, must become human” says Bakhtin (1993, p. 61); and Heidegger (2008, p. 269) holds that “’There is’ truth only in so far as Dasein is and so long as Dasein is” (emphasis in original). For a discussion of the similarity between Bakhtin’s notions of responsibility and architectonics and Heidegger’s Being and Time see Clark and Holquist’s Mikhail Bakhtin (1984, p. 94).
44 In Kant’s System of Categories the three conceptual sub-categories of Relation, categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive refers to the relations being semantically significant. 171 then productively, monologically or dialogically significant. In the semantically productive mode, the relation between two objects gives birth to a third meaning. Examples include the letterforms on the present page out of which textual meaning emerges; the act of Gestalt reification (i.e., the co-existence of two visual objects that yields a third percept; Federation Bells as pitches producing melodic lines; and polyphonic music). Polyphony is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of dialogue. In polyphonic music – whose analogical application in Bakhtin’s thought was discussed in the first chapter (see page 2)—relatively independent melodic lines (ontologically accidentally related) are contrapuntally arranged to produce the compositional design. Although the emotional-volitional tones of the melodic lines are instrumentally directed towards an end (the third object which is their ultimate design), they project a degree of dialogicality within and through their contrapuntal composition. In the semantically monological mode, the relation between two objects results in the supremacy of one over the other, of which ambigrams, such as FALSE/true by Scott Kim, are an example. Here one word is instrumental and merely serves the morphological unity and intelligibility of the other. Other examples include the dominant presence of one set of letterforms over another in the public domain (e.g., English in relation to non-English texts in most public spaces in Australia), monolingual stylistic bilingualism, allusion, commentary and translation (Grutman, 1993) (see page 9 for a discussion). In the semantically dialogical mode exemplified by the hybrid forms, the relation between the two objects defines their meaning. In addition to the dialogical coding system, other examples include dialogical stylistic bilingualism (ibid.), and the dialogic form of Dostoevsky’s novels, “a whole formed by the interaction of several consciousnesses, none of which entirely becomes an object for the other…” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 18). In a dialogic mode of Relation the emotional-volitional tones of the entities are indissolubly directed towards one another. This is beyond mere plurality where voices have passive characters towards one another as being isolated in their self- referential boundaries and polyphony where the voices actively serve an external end imposed by the compositional design. Hence, the equivocal terms ‘plurality’,
172 ‘polyphony’ and ‘dialogue’ in Bakhtin’s works are the products of the semantically accidental, productive and dialogic modes of Relation respectively. Subject-subject: Two subjects can be related in any of the four ontological modes, (i.e., accidentally-, productively-, monologically-, or dialogically-related). Strangers sitting together on a plane or in a restaurant are in the mode of an ontologically accidental Relation. The division of labour,45 economic partnerships producing profit for both parties, and parental relationships that bring a child into being, are examples of an ontologically productive mode of Relation between two subjects. The existence of the third body (either an object or a new subject) can be either continuously dependent on the related subjects (a temporary economic partnership) or independent of the related subjects once the third entity comes into existence (parents and a child). The relation can also be set to serve one party’s interest in such a way that he or she systematically possesses the result of the other’s labour. An ontologically monological-productive mode of Relation objectifies human relations, as defined in the theory of Marxist reification (Burris, 1988). Master and slave are ontologically monologically related. The relation between two subjects who can only live with the physical or psychological support of the other depicts an ontologically dialogical mode of Relation between two subjects, of which the interdependent relation of two people with a disability living together is an example. Between two subjects, in any ontological modes of Relation, dialogue exists at a semantic level. There is no insignificant and even non-dialogically significant subject within the value-context of another subject. In other words, dialogue is ubiquitous in human emotional-volitional attitudes towards the world. This is evident in Bakhtin’s (1984, p. 40) observation of “essential dialogicality” laid at the heart of human life with reference to the dialogical nature of Dostoevsky’s novels:
“The polyphonic novel is dialogic through and through. Dialogic relationships exist among all elements of novelistic structure; that is, they are juxtaposed contrapuntally. And this is so because dialogic relationships
45 Social solidarity can be understood as the result of the ontological productive mode of Relation in modern organic society. For a discussion of social solidarity and the division of labour see Durkheim’s The Division of Labour in Society (1893). 173 are a much broader phenomenon than mere rejoinders in a dialogue laid out compositionally in the text; they are almost universal phenomenon, permeating all human speech and all relationships and manifestations of human life – in general, everything that has meaning and significance” (emphasis in original).
Hence, any two subjects, insofar as they encounter each other in a reflective mode of thinking, are always semantically dialogically related. That is, whether two subjects are in ontologically accidental, productive, monological, or dialogical relation the meaning and value of the related subjects are always dialogically grounded. There is no meaning of lordship without bondage and no meaning of parenthood without a child. Much like the sub-category of observer-object semantically dialogical meanings lie at the heart of the sub-category of subject- subject relation. The ontological modes of Relation between subjects are in a constant state of change; there is a multiplicity of modes in which a subject (self) experiences a sole subject (an other) or diverse subjects (others) in various ontological modes of Relation. observer-(subject-subject) and observer-(subject-object): The observer’s understanding of a subject can be grounded in the subject’s relation to another subject or an object. Indeed, the observer knows the subject through the subject’s relation to the third entity. The involvement of the third entity renders the relation as the prominent representation of the subject or the primary object of observation. From an ontological perspective, in the sub-category of the observer- (subject-subject) the related subjects can be situated in accidental, productive, monological, or dialogical modes of Relation, as defined and exemplified in the sub- category of subject-subject. However, the observer’s emotional-volitional association with the related subjects, in any of the ontological modes, is always a semantically dialogical relation as long as the observer remains and proceeds in her emotional-volitional association with the subjects. An example for this sub- category is an employee that is close to his or her manager (an in-group employee in an organisation) being seen and interpreted by the other employees differently from those who belong to the out-group.
174 Similarly, in the sub-category of the observer-(subject-object) although the related subject and object can participate in any ontological modes of Relation, their relation is always semantically dialogic. An example for this sub-category is the style of a subject’s handwriting that becomes a determinant in the interpretation of the subject’s character. The ontological-semantic analysis of the Category of Relation laid out ‘an infinite system of relations’ into which the observer is located. This infinite system of relations constitutes the observer’s Being, which has Being-in-the world as its essential state” (Heidegger, [1927], 2008, p. 80) (emphasis in original). At an ontological level, within the system of relations there are varying modes of Relation, whereas at a semantic level the dialogic mode of Relation is an indispensible condition to the observer’s understanding of the world. The semantically dialogic mode of Relation permeating through the observer’s Being implies that meaning and value of the Self and the Other is never finalised or fully actualised; it is only intelligible and bears its actual value within the infinite system of relations. In any concrete moment in a once-occurrent event of an encounter the Self is enmeshed within a set of categorical and potential relations that might be termed a ‘differentiated Relation-context’—the Self and the Other can experience diverse ontological modes of relations with each other in an encounter—out of the infinite system of relations. In virtue of an unavoidable differentiated Relation-context the Self is disclosed to itself through the relation to the Other. In other words, the Self-Self relation is incessantly conditioned by an infinite system of the Self-Other relations. Independent of their ideological positions, the Self and the Other mutually inform their understanding of themselves; they are never known in isolation. The infinite system of relations is in fact an open source of meaning potentials, within which there is nothing dead; it is an expanse filled with the contingency of meaning yet to come; “every meaning will have its homecoming festival” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 170). Nevertheless, the Being-in-the world of the Self and the Other is dominated by ontologically non-dialogic modes of Relation. It can be said that the objective reality of ontologically non-dialogic modes of Relation prevails over the abstract reality of semantically dialogic modes of Relation. The “I-It” relation is rooted in the ontologically non-dialogic modes of Relation, which are closely related to the 175 concept of mechanical wholes, which Bakhtin defines in his short essay Art and Answerability46 ([1919], 1990, p. 1) as follows:
“A whole is called “mechanical” when its constituent elements are united only in space and time by some external connection and are not imbued with the internal unity of meaning. The parts of such a whole are contiguous and touch each other, but in themselves they remain alien to each other.”
Hence the unification of two entities that emerges from the ontologically non- dialogic modes of Relation determined by the forces from without is in fact only a mechanical unification (e.g., people in a bureaucratic system, letterforms on the present pages). In the mechanical unification the Self and the Other are drawn to a given pattern of Being and regulated by external forces which are at best justified with regard to their veridicality, whereas at the semantic level the relation is the very cause of their contrapuntal Being. At the most fundamental level the mechanical nature of non-dialogic modes of Relation results from the self- sufficiency of ‘method’, a procedure for accomplishing a goal. The method in its impervious unity is unable to understand and assess the moral value of the pursued goal. Method is never invalidated but abandoned by the mere judgment of the pursued goal or setting of a new goal. As Bakhtin (1993, p. 4) observes “the irreproachable technical correctness of a performed act does not yet decide the matter of its moral value.” Method is grounded in the “calculative thinking”, in Heidegger’s term (1966, p. 46). In Memorial Address47 Heidegger distinguishes between “calculative thinking” and “meditative thinking” as follows:
“Its particularity consists in the fact that whenever we plan, research, and organise, we always reckon with conditions that are given. We take them into account with the calculated intention of their serving specific
46 Bakhtin’s 1919 short essay of Art and Answerability is the only piece he published under his own before his book on Dostoyevsky came out ten years later (reported by Holquist in the introduction of Art and Answerability, p. xvi).
47 Memorial address, which was first published in 1959 along with Conversations on a Country Path About Thinking under the title of Discourse on Thinking, is the name given to the speech presented at the celebration of the 175th birthday of the composer Conradin Kreutzer on October 30, 1955, in Messkirch” (1966, p. 43). 176 purposes. Thus we can count on definite results. This calculation is the mark of all thinking that plans and investigates. Such thinking remains calculation even if it neither works with numbers nor uses an adding machine or computer. Calculative thinking computes. It computes ever new, ever more promising and at the same time more economical possibilities. Calculative thinking races from one prospect to the next. Calculative thinking never stops, never collects itself. Calculative thinking is not meditative thinking, not thinking which contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is” (ibid).
Apart from indispensible applications of the calculative thinking characteristic of method, it begins and ends within “circumstances that are already given” (Dalla Pezze, 2006, p. 99). The “theoretical veridicality” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 4) and calculative grounds of method remains indifferent to the semantically dialogic mode of “once-occurrent Being-as-event” (ibid., p. 34). Between the predictable world of method determined according to the requirements of the goal and the imminent world of semantically dialogic relations and yet-to-come meaning there is no intersection; they are mutually impervious to one another. The retrospectively grounded veridicality of a methodical judgment is at odds with the mineness and once-occurrent event of a performed act or deed. The former is a matter of accumulative knowledge and the latter of the disclosure of the Self and its world. The disclosure of the Self and its world is never achieved in an unmediated manner. That is, it comes about and is possible indeed by Being-in-the world, being in the infinite system of relations, of which in any concrete moment the Self is situated in a differentiated Relation-context. In other words, the Other is not only present in and through the disclosure of the self and its world but also enables it. The Self is that which is closest to, yet paradoxically concealed to, itself. This is brought into a tangible experience in the DCS where the Other’s letterforms are foundational for the Self’s reading of its own letterforms. In the aha moments the Self recognises itself and in the parallel or successive oho moments the Self comes to the realisation that the recognition of itself was only possible by
177 the presence of the Other. The primary word of I-Thou in fact arises from the observer’s exposure to the semantically dialogic content of the oho moments. Once two entities occupy a distinctive space and project their substantial properties, forms, and motion into one another mechanical forces become superfluous and the entities are located on the threshold of the I-Thou relation. At this point an observer must arrive to consummate the entities by grasping the nature of such a semantically dialogic relation and, in turn, be consummated by being filled with the content of the aha and oho moments of revelation and achievement. In summary, dialogue is metaphysically ubiquitous. No ontological realities can ever interrupt the flow of dialogue through and within life; “to kill does not mean to refute” (Bakhtin, [1961], 1984, p. 284). However, if dialogue is uprooted from the soil of objective reality, of which letterforms as a communicative system are part, then the remainder is only a matter of psychologism. The seeming superiority of ontologically non-dialogic modes of Relation lies on the objective side of Being. The affirmation of ethical norms, which is in character retrospective, often resulted from the perceived objectivity of non-dialogic relations. This is why Bakhtin (1993) argues for an answerable participation and actualisation of one’s self in one’s once-occurrent Being-as-event, which is always yet to come and never equated with the past. In other words, the passive presence of voices in plurality, the instrumentally conditioned actions of voices in polyphony must turn into the answerable actions of voices in dialogue. The dialogic coding system instantiates this dynamic relationship. The retrospective and predetermined nature of non-dialogic modes of Relation establishes a familiar order of things in which a formal-material structure of the semantically dialogic mode of Relation is unsettling and subversive. The “aesthetic object”, the primary word of I-Thou, and the dialogic state of consciousness begin with undermining the given objective laws of non-dialogic modes of Relation. In order to experience dialogue the predetermined order of things must be continuously challenged. Even if only for a moment a formal-material structure of dialogue appears on the objective plane of reality in which consciousness is rooted and able to “become a viable fact” (emphasis in original, Voloshinov, 1973, p. 11).
178 In the next section I will examine the architectonics of this formal-material structure with regard to the DCS.
5.3. The problem of form, material and colour in the DCS
In the sub-category of the observer-object relation the objective structure and properties of the dialogically coded object is foundational for the subject’s experience of dialogue. To understand how the DCS promotes dialogue we need to understand how it defamiliarises the reading experience. To do so, the non- dialogic mode of relations within and between printed letters will now be compared with the dialogic mode of relations constitutive of the hybrid forms displayed in the exhibition. The former results in and from “the automisation of perception” (Shklovsky, 1990, p. 5) while the latter calls for the subject’s aesthetic activity or creative act of cognitive synthesis. Aristotle’s ontology of the primary substance offers a useful key to the analysis. Although Aristotle’s ontology has been called into question by other systems such as Descartes’ rationalist system48 or Whitehead’s philosophy of organism,49 in the particular case of letterforms it provides a working system of analysis which can pave the way for a better understanding of the nature of the relation between form and material in the construction of letterforms. In Aristotle’s ontology of substance or hylomorphism (hylo = matter; morph = form) every substance of categories manifests itself as a compound of form and matter (Aristotle, 1984, Z3, 1029a35, p 1624). That is, every substance results from an indivisible unity of two elements, which underlie the very existence of one another; form delineates matter and matter, in turn, objectifies form. However, Aristotle asks which of the two elements is primary. In Metaphysics he argues that
48 In Discourse on Method and Meditations of First Philosophy Descartes ([1637, 1641], 1998) introduced his rigorous sceptical method of reasoning and casts doubt upon the sense experience as the primary source of truth by way of the Wax argument in the second meditation (p. 67), which is central to Aristotle’s thesis of primary substance.
49 In the second chapter of Process and Reality ([1929], 1978, pp. 18-30) Whitehead introduces his comprehensive ontological system, which holds that the world is based on the process of change and becoming rather than enduring primary substances as proposed by Aristotle. 179 “[the] essence of each thing is what it is said to be in virtue of itself” (ibid, Z4, 1029a15, pp. 1625-26). But could the primary substance (essence) of each thing be a compound of form and matter? He contends that the primary element could not be a compound; therefore, either of the elements (form or matter) must serve as the essence (ibid, Z3, 1029a30, p. 1625). In his theory of hylomorphism matter could not be a justified candidate for the essence, since it does not fulfil simultaneously both criteria defined by Aristotle as “separability” (i.e., existing independently from the substance of which it is the matter) and “individuality” (i.e., as a distinctive object of reference). In Aristotle’s ontology, matter cannot be separated from substance as it derives its individuality from the substance of which it is the matter. For example, a batch of wood is that which is understood by reference to the tree of which it is the matter. In addition, one matter can be composed of diverse substances; bronze can be the matter of a goblet or a statue. Hence, form or the structure of a substance serves as the primary cause of being, as the nature and principle of the substance that according to which matter is designated and enframed (ibid, Z17, 1041b, p. 1644). By drawing on the theory of hylomorphism a model of the formal-material structure of letterforms is now possible.
5.4. The formal-material structure of letterforms
According to Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism letterforms, as mere objects of perception, can be described as compounds of form (i.e., the morphological primitives) and material (e.g., ink, pixels, etc). Yet the linguistic content that letterforms carry are solely grounded in form. In other words, the primary substance of letterforms is form and material occupies the fundamental structure of form. Whether presented as sculptural objects or printed on paper, letterforms are defined and recognised solely by reference to the fundamental structure of their forms (topological content and geometric expression), which could be instantiated by variable materials. In other words, the code is entirely carried by form and remains outside of material properties, such as colour (except to the extent that a contrast must exist between the letterform and the ground). The hylomorphic compound of form and material is disassembled as a letterform is 180 read since it makes no contribution to the linguistic code.50 The code is fully organised and delivered by form. Form establishes itself as ‘figure’ (i.e., as the primary element of the code) independent of material and colour, which constitute the ‘ground’ whose non-linguistic meaning potential lies outside the unitary code of form. In short, form and material are integrated in an ontologically monologic mode of Relation. As I will go on to discuss, our knowledge of letterforms is rooted in an automised perception of the unitary code of form, which constitutes a non-dialogic experience. The process of assemblage enables the de-automisation of the reading process. At the same time, the DCS brings material and colour together with form in a hylomorphic compound of letterforms, allowing the defamiliarisation of the reading process and hence the experience of dialogism.
5.5. Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic
Aristotle’s hylomorphism bears some epistemological implications, which are elaborated in Kant’s concept of the “transcendental aesthetic” (1996, pp. 71-75). Kant’s examination of the issue of a subject’s a priori and a posteriori knowledge in relation to an object of perception provides a working theoretical framework to further investigate the problem of form, material and colour with respect to letterforms. The issue of how letterforms are known is epistemological, which goes beyond a subject-independent ontological account of letterforms. This fills in the gap between what letterforms are as independent objects consisting in form, material and colour and how they are known in terms of their strictly linguistic content. It shifts the point of emphasis from the being-in-themselves of letterforms to the being-in-relation of letterforms towards subjects. According to Kant an object is cognised only by intuition, which is itself possible due to the subject’s capacity of receptivity or sensibility (ibid, p. 72). The effect of a given object on a subject is the sensation with which the associated
50 Of course, colour and material contribute significantly to the non-linguistic meaning of letterforms, such as in the marker’s red pen or the advertiser’s blue neon. 181 intuition is called “empirical intuition” (ibid.). The yet unknown object of empirical intuition is “appearance” in which matter corresponds to the sensation posteriorly and form relates to “the fact that the manifold of the appearance can be ordered in certain relations” (ibid., p. 73). In other words, form refers to the assimilation and collation of the manifold intuition of matter in the body of one’s consciousness. Kant argues that no object can be cognised without the common act of apperception between its presentations; in the concept of an object the manifold intuition of its presentations are synthesised. Kant describes the course of synthesis as “the action of putting different presentations together with each other and comprehending their manifoldness in one cognition” (ibid, p. 130). In the light of this account of the transcendental aesthetic, the hylomorphic description of letterforms can be brought together with the subject’s cognitive act of understanding. At the subjective level, a letterform is given to a subject in a wide range of forms that nevertheless coincide with the letterform’s fundamental structure. However, a condition of possibility for consistent cognition of the letterform requires the emergence of a unified prototypical image in the subject’s consciousness (For a discussion of the prototypical image of a letterform see page 55). Such a unified prototypical image is generated by the subject’s creative act of cognitive synthesis of the letterform’s experienced variations. It is in a productive mode of relations that given forms presenting the letterform fabricate and finalise the prototypical image. It is exactly in this finalised prototypical image that the “automised perception” (Shklovsky, 1990, p 5) of the given letterform is grounded, and by which an understanding of the letterform is simply reduced to a sense experience. By virtue of an immediate correspondence of an experienced form with its unified prototypical image the subject’s creative act of cognitive synthesis appears superfluous. In fact, once the act of cognitive synthesis ends the perception is on the threshold of automisation. No aesthetic activity can be promoted when the sense experience appears equivalent to “the synthetic unity of apperception” (ibid, p. 180) of the object. The object in any of its numerous standard presentations is no longer perceived reflectively. Rather, the object reveals itself, much like a signal, to the subject under the influence of its prototypical image, the code of a signal, 182 stored in the subject’s consciousness, as a result of her exposure to countless variations of the same form. A sense-experience of letterforms continuously produces and reinforces the I-It non-dialogic relation in the sub-category of observer-object relation. The subject’s non-dialogic experience is devoid of aesthetic content of the aha and oho moments. Thus, the monological mode of Relation between form and material of every form of a given letter provides no opportunity for a subject’s aesthetic activity or creative act of cognitive synthesis in reading letterforms. The non-dialogic relations are obstacles to the occurrence of an aesthetic object, of a primary word of I-Thou. The automised perception gives rise to an invariant fixed construct, to a common univocality of an object. The distinctiveness of an object in space and time is obscured by its immediately available cognition. This contradicts in principle the process of a creative act of cognitive synthesis, the praxis process of mental reproduction of the object through which distinctive concepts are likely to be achieved by subjects with different histories and experiences. In contrast, the dialogic mode of Relation yields an unfinalised ambiguous system of related objects in which “the unity, meaning, and value” of each and every object “is not given but imposed as a task still to be accomplished” (Bakhtin, 1990, p. 98). In such a system of relations, meaning is continually being formed. Within the dialogic coding system the hylomorphic compound of form and material continues to retain its unity and operates as a whole. The monologically coded form is defamiliarised by, and opens to, an unprecedented productive relation between form and material whose result is manifested in the hybrid form of dialogically related bilingual letterforms. As Bakhtin (ibid., p. 99) puts it, “object [form] is turned outward, where it exists axiologically only in and for the other, where it is part of the outside world, and where from within itself, it does not exist… ” Material and its ever-present attribute ‘colour’ are no longer subsidiary but a substantial part of the code without which form is rendered devoid of meaning. In short, within the dialogic coding system the coded form turns into the unity of coded-hylomorphic compound.
183 The coded-hylomorphic compound of the DCS gives rise to a formal-material counterpoint. In other words, the passive plurality of bilingual letterforms on a material support (e.g., a paper, a digital screen, etc.) turns into a dialogically coded co-existence where every letter of a language is read only by reference to the counter-letter of the other language. One’s act of reading is therefore an act of confirming the other. One might contest the content of one’s reading (with the exhibition it is, for example, the first article of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights) but this is only possible through the confirmation of the other. In other words, the metaphysical ubiquitousness of dialogue comes into an objective reality within which every act of ontological being is permitted and can proceed only by a confirmation of the other’s being. The subject of disagreement becomes available only by allowing the other to be. Every aha and oho moment is a moment in which the other’s being is validated and equally privileged. This proves the primary significance of formal-material architectonics of discourse. The formal-material architectonics of discourse, independently of the content it carries, has a discursively intrinsic value.51
5.6. The issue of legibility
The issue of apparent illegibility of the dialogic coding system was raised at the end of the methodology chapter. Thanks to the hybrid forms and the unity of coded-hylomorphic compound, the dialogic coding system appears complex and laborious in comparison with the regular printed manifestation of letterforms. This section will consider the nature of legibility as a teleological attitude of letterforms, which can be examined with respect to the automisation of perception. The question of ‘what ought letterforms to do primarily?’ is a teleological question that seeks to establish a primary purpose. ‘To be legible’ is a seemingly primary end that needs to be served mainly for ease of reading. Beatrice Warde’s rhetorical-aesthetic monograph The Crystal Goblet (1955) argued for the universal
51 The primacy of form over content can also be found in McLuhan’s (1994, p. 8) observation that the properties of the mediums are far more important than the “content” they carry. 184 value of clarity and invisibility, nicely illustrating the centrality of legibility in modernist accounts of typography. However, the premise that letterforms are purely material embodiments, revealing speech signs as a crystal-clear wine glass reveals wine has been widely contested since Derrida’s Of Grammatology (1967) which called into question the long assumed supremacy of speech over writing. The ‘text ought to be legible’ is a teleologically valid obligation within operational contexts (e.g., literary texts, advertising, media publications, etc.) in which the transmission of linguistic content is a primary end. The primacy of linguistic content reduces the formal-material value of letterforms to that of speech and, as such, letterforms are rendered passively instrumental. Although legibility is certainly desirable in the overwhelming majority of textual relations, it cannot be extended as a primary a-historical value to all contexts and moments of writing practices. In the cases where formal-material architectonics of letterforms are endowed with discursively intrinsic value and linguistic content is secondary, then the moral grounds of legibility—accomplished by the instrumentalisation of the formal- material architectonics of letterforms—are suspended (i.e., legibility has moral grounds because it is a formal-material character of letterforms which is entirely directed toward the other). For instance, to use a banal contemporary example, letterforms might serve as an online system of identification CAPTCHA, an acronym for “Completely Automated Public Turning test to tell Computers and Humans Apart” (Kale, Mehrotra and Manza, 2008, pp. 1516-23); in calligraphy, as purely visual elements in media such as painting (e.g., Passage, 1962; Periscope, 1963 by Jasper Jones, cited in Orton, 1994, pp-38-9); or in the fashion of postmodern typographic works of David Carson (Carson, 2003). The defining factor of legibility, namely, familiarity in its implications as common formal features, is a matter of regularity and automisation of perception within the cultural milieu of a particular kind of writing. In other words, the moral grounds of legibility are highly time- and genre-specific. A particular typeface or a calligraphic hand may seem legible at one time or context and illegible at another. For instance, Gothic scripts that served certain communicative and aesthetic ends in a particular sociocultural context may not appear legible to reading subjects today simply because of the scripts’ unfamiliar forms that contrast with the 185 subjects’ automised perception of commonly simple and clear forms. As Bakhtin (1993, p. 5) observes “[t]here is no aesthetic ought, scientific ought, and—beside them—an ethical ought; there is only that which is aesthetically, theoretically, socially valid, and these validities may be joined by the ought, for which all of them are instrumental.” Familiarity and legibility are deeply rooted in repetition of a given ontological and prototypical fashion of letterforms. They belong to sense experience and are fulfilled where letterforms are conceived as convenient conduits for speech sounds. Yet letterforms are never passive; they always bear meaning potential and speak on their own. Within the DCS, letterforms assume an unprecedented position. That is, dialogue always takes place in language and is driven merely by the semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic signs but in the DCS the formal- material aspects of signs drive the dialogic discourse and, as such, function as the medium of dialogue. Within the DCS, the premise of letterforms as passive and convenient conduits for speech sounds is interrupted subversively in favour of the subject’s aesthetic act of contemplation and meaning making. According to Shklovsky (Lemon and Reis, 1965, p. 12) defamiliarisation of forms is essential “to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.” The prolonged process of perception yields a required transitional field through which the subject could proceed into the world of I-Thou where the content-sense of sensory reception is unknown. As Bakhtin (1984, p. 43) notes “[a]rtistic form, correctly understood, does not shape already prepared and found content, but rather permits content to be found and seen for the first time”. The hybrid structures of letterforms and their sequential disclosure, through the aha and oho moments, extend the process of perception and calls for the observer’s active and creative engagement. The struggle for meaning is essential for the dialogic condition.
5.7. Formal discourse analysis of letterforms
Bakhtin’s observation that in a dialogic encounter two bodies retain their unities and characteristic distinctivenesses and do not renounce themselves—“forget 186 nothing”—while they are consummated in a mutually enriching relationship is central to his project of dialogism (1986, p. 7). But a series of crucial questions remains unexplored in Bakhtin’s thesis of dialogism: what constitutes the characteristic distinctiveness of an object, of a subject, or of a culture in the event of a dialogic encounter? In other words, where is the border of the characteristic distinctiveness of one’s self from which one must not retreat further? How can one forget nothing about one’s self, renounce nothing, remain unchanged and yet be enriched in an encounter with the other one? Certainly the answers to these questions in the heterogeneous realm of culture and the subjective realm of self- consciousness are beyond the scope of the present discussion. But these questions can be discussed by reference to application of the dialogic coding system to English and Farsi letterforms as exemplified in the exhibition. The issue of characteristic distinctiveness with respect to letterforms raises a potential criticism of the dialogic coding system. The geometry of the hybrid forms might appear to imply the glyphic and geometric superiority of the English letterforms over the Farsi letterforms, which are traditionally based on rhythmic repetition of elegant curvatures, variable strokes, and base lines reflecting their calligraphic origins. The calligraphic image of the Farsi letterforms has been established through the persistent reproductions of certain historically prominent styles and hands at both individual and institutional levels. Farsi and non-Farsi speaking scholars and practitioners have treated the Farsi letterforms as a closed formal entity by disregarding an extensive library of equally legitimate forms to represent the Farsi letterforms. Such a reductionist view constructs a mental association, an automised perception particularly for a non-Farsi speaking outsider towards the Farsi letterforms. The result is that an English-speaking observer is more likely to recognise the Farsi letterforms in their calligraphic forms than in the simplified hybrid forms of the dialogic coding system. This given mental association in fact unifies the varied Farsi letterforms into a single image, code, or signal, distinguishing them from English letterforms. Due to a lack of competency, a non-Farsi reading observer has access only to a particular glyphic surface and not to the fundamental structure of the Farsi letterforms by which they are primarily distinguished from English letterforms. 187 The extension of the characteristic distinctiveness of letterforms to their particular traditional forms or generally to the variable glyphic surface of letterforms epitomises an invalid “aesthetic ought” (Bakhtin, 1993, p. 5). Simplicity is by no means an inherent and distinctive attribute of the English letterforms. Simplicity is an outcome of the formal evolution of letterforms as the history of Latin letterforms shows a substantial formal contrast between pre- and post- printing press times (consider, for example, the formal disparity between blackletter script and Bodoni typeface). Such a shift is apparent in the histories of other writing systems. The long history of the simplification of Chinese characters culminated in significant changes during the Cultural Revolution aimed at improved literacy levels and emancipation from tradition (Jiang, 2007, p. 13). Similarly, the program of simplification of Arabic letterforms initiated by the Cairo
Academy of the Arabic Language in 1945 for ease of reading (Haralambous, 1998, p. 138) reveals that simplicity as a factor of legibility is instrumental in serving certain common societal purposes. In essence, we see a move from a hieratic/scholarly class to a more democratic system. The DCS enables us to reframe the analysis of distinctiveness in terms of the letterforms’ two categories of properties: glyphic surface and fundamental structure. The former is an open variable category of properties, namely, glyphic features and geometric expression, of which simplicity is an attribute. The latter, consisting in topological content and geometric expression, is a closed invariant category of properties, by which a set of letterforms retain its unity and consistent operation irrespective of its variable glyphic features. The characteristic distinctiveness must lie in the fundamental structure of letterforms, since a variable property of an object cannot portray its distinctiveness. The glyphic surface merely constitutes the characteristic distinctiveness of typefaces, and not letterforms, as noted in the general paradigmatic and syntagmatic arguments (see pages 65-6). The meaning potential of the glyphic surfaces of letterforms arises from mental associations grounded in the experience of either teleologically familiarised or discursively finalised representations of letterforms. Neither the mental association of simplicity with the English letterforms nor a calligraphic image with the Farsi letterforms is inherent to their fundamental structure. Dialogue results 188 from the subject’s exploration of the fundamental interconnection and not from a glyphic evaluation of letterforms, which is a matter of value judgment. The assumption of the achievement of dialogue in bilingual typographic practices lies entirely in glyphic evaluation of two accidentally related sets of letterforms by a material support.
5.8. Discourse analysis of the architectonic forms of the DCS
Hybrid forms and the unity of the coded-hylomorphic compound in the dialogic coding system constitute an objective condition necessary for the fleeting moment of dialogic experience. The meaning is not given; rather it comes in the event- relation of the primary word of I-Thou, of the aesthetic object whose structure is defined by Bakhtin as “the architectonic forms” (1990, p 270). This section considers discursive implications of the architectonic forms in relation to the subject’s consciousness and interpersonal communication. The formal-material structure of the dialogic coding system, as Bakhtin puts it, thus serves to fulfil the architectonic forms of the system, what it is in its distinctive wholeness (ibid., p. 270). Bakhtin describes the architectonic forms as follows:
“Architectonic forms are forms of the inner and bodily value of aesthetic man [sic], they are forms of nature – as his environment, forms of the event in his individual-experiential, social and historical dimensions, and so on. They all are achievements, actualisation; they serve nothing, they are tranquilly sufficient unto themselves. They are forms of aesthetic being in its distinctiveness” (ibid.)
In Bakhtin’s observation “architectonic forms” are the actualisation of an “aesthetic object” by the object’s compositional devices (Bakhtin, for example, introduces “tragic” or “comic” as architectonic forms realised by the compositional device “drama”, ibid., p. 269). The architectonic forms beyond the material givenness of an object are revealed in the moment of encounter, within and through the observer’s aesthetic contemplation. At one and at the same time the object of perception that is speaking with its author’s emotional-volitional tone turns into 189 an autonomous voice that within a differentiated Relation-context its own emotional-volitional tone is contrapuntally defined by that of the Other. This is a dialogic situation, which undermines the dominant social milieu. Here a further significant aspect of de-automisation of perception comes out: a point of entry into the subject’s self-referential and undisrupted consciousness. In his historical paper On Denoting (1905) Russell accounts for two modes of knowledge, which can be obtained either through “acquaintance” or “denoting”. Hence, from the standpoint of epistemology an object of study can be grasped in two ways: primarily through a direct observation; secondarily through socially established knowledge and discourses as a pervasive series of linguistic and non- linguistic representations of the given object. The secondary method, in which the object is detached from its spatial-temporal context and encountered discursively, is detrimental to the emergence of a dialogic Relation. Representation can only serve as an opening move to achieve a dialogic relation. It is only through directly exploratory acquaintance with the object in its once-occurrent Being-as-event in space and time and in its differentiated Relation-context with other objects that a dialogic relation comes about. One’s reading of Shakespeare’s words—denotative- discursive knowledge—never results in one’s dialogue with him; rather dialogue comes about in the direction of one’s experience, reflection and exploration of Shakespeare’s words in a vast differentiated Relation-context with the precedent and subsequent texts (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 5)—an exploratory acquaintance. The epistemological limit of representation is evident in Bakhtin’s (ibid., p. 7) emphasis on the significance of the other’s vision in one’s understanding of one’s self: “one cannot even really see one’s own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirror or photographs can help…” No mirror and photographs can help because of their inherent lack of context, which renders the body detached from its unique position and motion in space and time and isolated from its surroundings. Only the eyes of the other can supply that primary image of the self. Not only is the word a shared territory (Voloshinov, 1978, p. 86), the self itself is shared, brought into full consciousness by the presence of the other. Nevertheless, observation alone may result in the creation of representation (scientific or literary publications); this is only the process of observation, much like the aha and oho moments, that offers a framework for the occurrence of a 190 dialogic experience. Representation belongs to the world of I-It relations and active observation and exploration is a path towards the world of I-Thou. Depending on their significations, representations might be discursively significant or insignificant. Discourse is a repository of socially established knowledge, of various different representations ordered and related in a particular fashion by particular devices and mediums. According to Foucault (2010, p. 38) discourse is a network of institutional relations between and among dispersed information, statements, and thematic choices concerning an object of perception. Following from this, the power of discourse lies in its vast network of relations in which accidentally and inconsistently related representations are more or less orchestrated and rendered productive of coherent social meanings. Within a discursive body of cultural representations the knowledge of an insider towards an outsider (for example, a member of the other of a different cultural or ethnic grouping) is rarely grounded in a direct and careful observational study, as Said (1978) demonstrated in his study of “Orientalism”. Rather, it originates discursively from an indirect experience of the Other’s dispersed representations available in linguistic (e.g., letterforms, spoken and written texts) and non- linguistic forms (e.g., images, foods, rituals, etc). The denotative-discursive experience uproots the Other by objectification devoid of emotional-volitional tone and spatial-temporal context and consequently results in the Self’s deceptive knowledge of itself, which is always mediated within an infinite ubiquitous system of relations with the Other. In the social context of Australia, the country in which the DCS was demonstrated, Farsi-speaking visitors are outsiders and their relations to the English-speaking majority illustrate the discursive social milieu noted above. Analysis of the architectonic forms of the dialogic coding system must account for such discursive social milieu where a majority constituency (monolingual English- speaking visitors) exists alongside a minority constituency (bilingual Farsi- speaking visitors). As cultural artefacts wherever letterforms appear together (on website, newspapers, signs, fliers, etc.) they represent and reproduce such hierarchical subordinations due to an ontologically non-dialogic mode of Relation between observers in the discursive social milieu.
191 The architectonic forms of the dialogic coding system, communicating both Farsi and English letterforms and the unity of a coded-hylomorphic compound challenge such ontologically hierarchical subordinations. Such a subversive practice is potentially emancipatory for both dominant and subordinate subjects. A Farsi-speaking visitor’s comment alludes to this point. It is the first time that I could see my language [Farsi] is as important as English. The English language has to derive its characters from my language [Farsi] in order to be able to speak (Appendix, Q4, B1). The encounter of an unknown yet familiar, silent yet communicative object momentarily calls into question the self-assured cognition and authoritative status of the dominant subject. The subject’s linguistic knowledge and competency, strives to find a way into the architectonic forms of the object of perception. Yet, at the outset, the object appears unintelligible for the object’s place and relation in the chain of known objects within discourse is indeterminate. The object then begins to thrust the marginalised representations of the subordinate subject to the centre of the dominant subject’s discursive field of representations such that no matter what one’s representations look like, they would appear unintelligible without the Other’s representations. Hence, a momentary rupture in the unity of discourse occurs. But the object is very soon placed within the structure of the discourse; in other words, discourse enfolds and makes it its own by putting it in the system of relations with other objects. Dialogue is thus a fleeting emancipation from the discursive social milieu, and is experienced at once with the emergence of a brief rupture in the discourse and fades away as the discourse regains its coherence and unity. Social discourses define the meanings of subjects and objects by stressing the ontologically non-dialogic differences and ignoring their underlying semantically dialogic relations. The dialogic coding system subverts the dialectical supremacy of established definitions/identities over Relation by emphasising the essential and fundamental significance of their dialogic relation, the cause of their Being as Relation-event. It does so by altering the position of a subject from being passively competent (the position that is caused by both automised perception and discursive situation) to actively observing, from confidently speaking to attentively listening, wondering and being open to the Other. 192 5.9. Subject’s competence and the architectonic forms This section examines the premise that the disparate statuses of two subjects could thwart the dialogic experience at a very early stage of their encounter (consider, for example, a university professor and a student). In discourse analysis the disparity between the status of subjects is an “enunciative modality”, a social-political order that realises a discourse along with subject’s positions and institutional sites (Foucault, 2010, pp. 50-3). The subject’s status refers to both subjective and objective states of being and derives its authenticity from a set of discursive factors in “a system of differentiation and relations” (ibid., p. 50). In other words, the subject’s status discursively originates from an array of characterising definitions and conditions such as institutional positions, legal or symbolic authorities, competence and expertise. The discursively constructed statuses underpin an evaluative frame of reference, a set of mental associations in social determination of the subject’s right to speak. The subject’s status at once originates from and is constitutive of the immediate discursive social situation. To preserve her authoritative status, or non- dialogic relation with subordinates, the subject requires continuous institutional verification and public confirmation of dominating competence, which is in some measure produced by automisation of perception on the part of subordinates. For instance, consider the relationship between an academic and a non-academic speaker in a debate. The former’s status is grounded in her institutional credentials, media endorsement, and the conventions of everyday discursive conditions (“Prof.” v. “Ms.” or “Mr.”). But what if the subject’s competence suddenly breaks down? What if the subject’s normative bond with the object of discourse is disrupted? What if discourse forfeits its all-encompassing and coherent means of expression? Such a disruption has an immediate effect: the subject’s competence and knowledge becomes momentarily inapplicable to the object of discourse, the subject’s status is no longer recognised and no longer rules the object of discourse; rather the defamiliarised order of the object prevails and rules the subject’s perception and places both dominant and subordinate subjects in equal positions of wondering. However, such an equalised state of structural differences, role differences, and role-unequal interaction between participants in communication 193 events (Cissna and Anderson, 1998, p. 70) holds the discourse in abeyance only momentarily and is defeated as the object reveals itself and becomes familiarised. An aesthetically defamiliarised object not only reveals itself by the creative activity of the observer, but will also consummate the observer with values “transgredient”52 to her “possible self-experience” from within herself (Bakhtin, 1990, p. 67). Metaphorically speaking, the object functions as a lever to momentarily transpose the observer’s consciousness. As Cissna and Anderson (1998, p. 79) put it, “[d]ialogue… is more likely to be surprising, raucous, and momentary than predictable, orderly, and sustained.” The de-automised perception overlaps with the aesthetic moment of dialogue. The subject does not find herself only in relation to an unfamiliar object, but also to an unfamiliar self, to an unprecedented state of Being. As Bakhtin maintains, (1990, p. 63) “aesthetic value is actualised at the moment when the contemplator abides within the contemplated object; at the moment of experiencing the object’s life from within the object itself, the contemplator and the object contemplated— ultimately—coincide.” In other words, the observer begins to draw connections between seemingly scattered, disordered pieces, and by doing so, the subject takes up the position of author of not only the object but also of herself from an exploratory-observational rather than a discursive-automised perspective.
5.10. Asymmetric dualism of letterforms
From a different point of view, the architectonic forms of the dialogic coding system can also be considered by reference to the theory of “asymmetric dualism of linguistic signs” (Karcevskij, [1929], 1982) that argues for the inherent polyphony of linguistic signs. This theory can be explained as follows: a signified tends to be implied by multiple signifiers, and a signifier tends to imply multiple signifieds (ibid., p 49).53
52 Transgredient, in Bakhtin’s sense of the term, refers to the mode of consciousness beyond one’s possible consciousnesses of one’s self from inside.
53 Bakhtin’s (1986, p. 170) observation on unfinalisability and flow of meanings in renewed forms here is relevant: “Nothing is absolutely dead: every meaning will have its homecoming festival.” 194 This means there is an asymmetric dualism of linguistic signs in both directions. However, in the domain of letterforms this is relevant only in one direction, which is evident in the first general argument of the theory of letterforms: variable forms are able to denote a particular letter. In contrast to the spoken signs in the domain of letterforms there is only a single signified and not multiple signifieds for a given signifier (A as a written sign provokes solely letterform A). The second direction (signifier/signifieds) is thus invalid, as no variable or plural letters denotable by a single invariant form exist. Hence, in the domain of letterforms the asymmetric polyphony of signifier/signifieds turns into a symmetrical monophony of signifier/signified. In other words, the otherness of the sign, its polyphonic aspect, is eliminated and the sign becomes monophonic remaining in its uninterrupted domain of the self, in the “category of the self” (Holquist, 1990, p. 175). In the dialogic coding system, however the asymmetric dualism of letterforms is realised in both directions. A single signifier no longer expresses a single signified, rather it turns out to be a hybrid form that swings between two signifieds, two letters. With a monolingual encounter, although the observing subject may not be able to experience the asymmetric polyphony of the observed sign, the subject’s cognitive endeavour could be viewed as a momentary, subtle detachment from the plane of his or her self towards the other. The embodiment of the asymmetric dualism of letterforms in the hybrid forms has a polyphonic character of which the subject’s experience could give rise to a transgredient “dialogical self” with a dynamic “multiplicity of I positions” in space and time (Hermans et al., 1992, p. 30). Analogically speaking, a dialogical self not only contains the traces of others, it is constituted by them. It is a cubist image of the self.
195 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION
6.1. Summary The study set out to extend the application of Bakhtinian dialogism to letterform studies and bilingual typography in particular. It sought to answer the following questions: Could two sets of bilingual letterforms be integrated such that one without the other becomes impossible? More specifically, could a formal-material system of relations based on letterforms be generated through which readers of both languages could experience a dialogic moment? By asking these questions the centre of the dialogic experience was transposed from the linguistic content of discourse to the formal-material architectonic of discourse whose significance has been passed over by scholars in the theoretical literature of dialogism and practice-oriented literature of typography. In response to the questions the practical and theoretical achievements of the study can be summarised as follows:
1. The study advances the theoretical literature of typographic bilingualism by introducing the significance of morphological relations between two sets of letterforms in correspondence to the stylistic dialogical bilingualism.
2. The study contributes to our knowledge of letterform by developing the Theory of the Letterform Genome (TLG). This theory explains the common fundamental structure of letterforms across alphabetic systems and presents the foundational possibility of dialogic relation between letterforms. The TLG can be applied to the investigation of any written text; it provides design practitioners and theorists with a powerful tool for the description and interpretation of typefaces and calligraphic works.
3. The study contributes to the experimental field of bilingual typography by developing a Dialogic Coding System (DCS), which renders letterforms as the formal-material architectonic of dialogic discourse.
196 4. The study informs Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism through an ontological- semantic exposition of the category of Relation. This study accounts for the processual nature of dialogic experience, the aha and oho moments, and enriches our understanding of the ubiquitousness of the dialogic relationship.
In consequence, the study itself serves as a dialogic point of encounter at which Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism and the theory and practice of bilingual letterforms by their surplus and distinctive visions are mutually informed and extended.
6.2. Communicative implications
The dialogic coding system instantiated in the exhibition constructs a micro experiment of formal-material architectonics of dialogic discourse. However, it can be used as an analytical tool/dialogical process in other intercultural practices far removed from writing systems. The principles of the DCS, derived from Bakhtin’s aesthetic principles of dialogicality, as a general system of relations offers an analytical model for understanding and organising the relation between signs within the formal-material structure of other mediums. Apart from variable semantic content of discourse containing a series of rejoinders, the formal-material architectonics of discourse provide a concrete system that foundationally ensures the realisation of the semantically ubiquitous dialogue discussed in chapter five. The dialogic nature of Dostoevsky’s novels is rooted in their formal dialogicality and not in the semantic content of particular conversations in which characters participate, although semantic content enriches our understanding of this formal dialogic underpinning. As established in the introduction, the formal- material architectonics of dialogue is of significant cognitive-aesthetic value in intercultural discourses. It lies behind and inexorably conditions any semantic contents; it serves as the concrete points of encounter through the communication event and renders ontologically monologic disagreements and conflicts dialogical. The formal-material architectonics of discourse sets up a structure of awareness that transforms the way of understanding the Other. The cognitive effects of semantic content conceal the moral dimension of formal-material architectonics of discourse, which fundamentally conditions the emotional- 197 volitional addressivity of semantic content. In a confrontation with a dialogically coded medium, the observer is drawn into a system of relations, into an ontological space in which there is nothing meaningful from within itself. The dialogic potential of formal-material architectonics of discourse attains its highest capacity where the encounter is, by definition, facilitated by a medium with no linguistic content. For instance, in painting, sculpture, photography, architecture or music the formal-material architectonics of discourse solely constitutes the ground of dialogicality. In these media content and form are one and the same; they are inseparably merged into the unity of the object of aesthetic contemplation. In the relation-events where content is not understood independently or it appears to be seemingly an obstacle to the emergence and experience of dialogue – for ideological reasons or inaccessibility of its code – dialogue comes about and proceeds only at the formal-material level.
6.3. Cultural implications
In a broader cultural perspective, the formal-material architectonics of the dialogic coding system, which results in a momentary experience of transgredient consciousness, is a rejection of the social and cultural propensity for mechanical orderliness and certainty of life. Such mechanical orderliness is simply another definition for the automised perception of reality, which Bakhtin referred to as “monologism” (Morson and Emerson 1990, p. 28). At the micro-level, monologism means the sign is fully complete in its material-compositional form; is an orderly system that could be readily deciphered if the subject only had the code (ibid.). But with language at the macro-level there are two major cultural discourses that can be characterised as cultural monologism. Due to the rules of legibility letters in print culture in their regular material- compositional forms portray a pervasive monologism in that they appear as an orderly system, as a definitive whole enwrapped in itself. The institutional- discursive forces, which Bakhtin (1981, p. 270) referred to as “centripetal forces”—the main cause of automisation of perception in culture—are orchestrated and directed towards the preservation of the given rules both in production and consumption. These institutional centripetal forces exist and 198 operate at two major levels: intra-cultural reserves of signs and inter-cultural reserves of signs. As a politically charged and culturally valued system of signs letterform tends either to accommodate to the dominant discourses at the inter-cultural level of signs (e.g., the Turkish government’s replacement of Ottoman script with the Latin alphabet) or resists it (e.g., the belief that Farsi is “as the most effective weapon possessed by Iranians against the encroaching civilisation of the West” [Boroujerdi, 1996, p. 61]). Both tendencies are essentially monologic. The former leaves the self behind in favour of the other, and the latter denies the other in favour of the self. The former tends towards cultural assimilation and the latter towards cultural isolation.54 Only one voice speaks at the expense of the others. Between the self and the other, the point of reference is either/or and not both/and. Neither of the discourses accounts for the “mutuality of differences”, the master concept of Bakhtin’s dialogism (Holquist, 1990, p. 41); instead both stress the completeness of the sign from within itself. No sign can be understood by reference only to itself; signs find meanings within a system of relations; in other words, the meanings of signs are effects and brought into being by the primary cause of relations (ibid., p. 35). In his reading of dialogism Holquist contends that “[existence] is not only an event, it is an utterance. The event of existence has the nature of dialogue in this sense; there is no word directed to no one” (ibid, p. 27). As Voloshinov (1978, p. 86) notes, a word “is precisely the product of the reciprocal relationship between speaker and listener, addresser and addressee… a word is territory shared by both addresser and addressee, by the speaker and his interlocutor”. The meaning of a word and by extension the whole of communication as a process of meaning making is an outcome of a productive relation between addresser and addressee. But the productive relation between addresser and addressee illustrates only one
54 I grew up in post-revolutionary Iran characterised by cultural isolation and political monologism sustained by decades of hostile relations with the West. In this cultural context, I first became interested in exploring the nature of dialogism. Since it would have been difficult to develop my research in that context I chose to study in Australia. However, in compliance with the linguistic requirement of the Australian education system for non-native speakers of English, I was granted admission into the program once an official gatekeeper had gauged and approved my competence in English. I am myself therefore a product of the inevitable experience of both cultural isolation and cultural assimilation. 199 of the two relational axes in every moment of communication. That is, in the moment that a word is uttered two relational axes develop simultaneously: a word comes into life as two subjects coincide in the emerging meaning of the uttered word; the word becomes the shared part of both subjects, and in turn, even momentarily, the subjects’ consciousnesses are filled with and consummated by the meaning enriched by the presence of the other. The noted dialogic process occurs when meaning reigns equally in the interests of both subjects’ intellectual cultivation and knowledge. The dialogic coding system is indeed a formal-material enforcement of the dialogic aspects of linguistic communication. The dialogic aspects of the relation between a subject and a word in the event of interpersonal communication can be extended to the study of intercultural encounter. In a broader view, the whole world of cultures is an utterance in which distinctive cultures stand as words, none of which can exist independently of the others. In an intercultural encounter, two cultures meet through their linguistic or non-linguistic representations beyond their self-subsistent uniformity. This outward motion of cultures renders an essential alternative perspective possible. As Bakhtin (1986, p. 7) maintained “[in] the realm of culture, outsideness is a most powerful factor in understanding”. The concept of outsideness, coming into contact with others, puts an end to existing monologic intercultural discourses. The experience of outsideness provides a complementary vision, which Bakhtin referred to as “surplus of vision” (Morson and Emerson, 1990, p. 241). That is a surplus of knowledge which one possesses with respect to the other’s bodily existence, and vice versa. Morson and Emerson (ibid.) describe it as follows:
“One person can see the back of another’s head, and can appreciate the “blue sky” constituting the background to the other’s suffering. One can know what the other looks like when he is unself-conscious of his appearance, knowledge forever inaccessible to the other.”
We can never be fully aware of our bodily existence, unless we are able to move outside of ourselves. In other words, our position of authorship of our being is always defective, since the available source of knowledge by definition falls short of completeness. With monological intercultural encounters both discourses mentioned above, the supremacy of intra-cultural reserves of signs over inter- 200 cultural reserves of signs or vice versa, systematically dispenses with the surplus vision of either the self or the other. As a system of dialogic relations between the representations of two cultures the DCS objectifies an abstract unification of the one’s incomplete vision and the other’s complementary surplus of vision, and vice versa. The concepts of outsideness and surplus of vision both draw attention to the significance of mutuality of differences and how fundamental and essential are differences (the others’ differences) in consummation of the one’s consciousness; they are in fact the conceptual underpinnings of the dialogic event of co-being, of the state of intercultural I-Thou relations.
6.4. Political implications
International political conflicts such as the long-standing disputes between Iran and West or between Palestinians and Israelis, and Kurds and Turks originate from a quest for the recognition of rights, independence, freedom, etc. According to Fukuyama (1992, p. xvi)55, in the Republic Plato “noted that there were three parts to the soul, a desiring part, a reasoning part and a part that he called thymos,” which is in Fukuyama’s view the origin of the “the propensity to self-esteem,” or of the one’s sense of self-worth and quest for recognition accordingly. “Thymos” can be directed towards the establishment of one’s supremacy over the other, which Fukuyama termed as “Megalothymia”, or towards the establishment of one’s equal position to the other, which he referred to as “Isothymia” (ibid., p. 182). The political and ethnic conflicts, the quest for self-identity and recognition arise from “megalothymia”, which in principle sustains and promotes a monologic relation between the Self and the Other. In megalothymia the differences become the pretext for discrimination, domination, violation, and in extreme cases for genocide. Such megalothymic orientation towards others is in various degrees an act of self-renunciation. That is due to the fact that through the eradication of the Other, in fact the Other’s surplus of vision, an irreplaceable source of self-
55 Although Fukuyama has been roundly criticised with some justification for his End of the History and the Last Man the premises of his argument are of significance in the present discussion. 201 knowledge, which one could be granted, is eradicated too. The victor is left with a seemingly dominant yet truly incomplete self. Nevertheless, the world of realpolitik governed by law and power relations is the world of a systematic negation of the universal dialogic mode of Relation. In the world of realpolitik where the Self and the Other both constantly pursue their own interests and act according to their own desires and beliefs, there is little room for dialogic Relation. In international relations far removed from philosophical premises of dialogue, states are firmly entrenched in their immediate interests that belong to the category of the Self where others are only instrumental. Issues as diverse as environmental crisis, political disputes and social-cultural conflicts all result from persistently held and naturalised non- dialogic modes of Relation.
6.5. Final remarks: a failed yet still prospective project
As I have argued, every discursive position realises its potential meanings and values only vis-à-vis the other positions within the broad differentiated Relation- contexts charged by laws and standards. The history of ideologies is the history of systematic attempts at denaturalising and repudiating the dialogic relation existing at the most fundamental level of Being. There is no meaning or value inherent to a subject; rather the meaning and value are historically and socially produced in differentiated Relation-contexts. What exists is only the dialogic mode of contrapuntal relations that underlies the subject’s being as a continuously emerging meaning and value. The non-dialogic modes of relations are materialistic concealing modes of relations by which all meanings and dialogically grounded value are muddied and camouflaged. An entity is what it is by virtue of not what it is in itself but also what it is not. Being and nothingness are essential parts of one another. The life of the last soldier in the army of one’s enemy is essential to the meaning and value of one’s own being. For this reason no revolution ends once the ruling power is overthrown. The continuously symbolic reincarnations of the overthrown power are essential for the revolutionary civilians to retain their moral integrity and self-identity. Any
202 deviation, however slight, from their established moral values is likely to mark the beginning of their end. The dialogic coding system was originally planned for simultaneous exhibition in Tehran and Sydney. As part of a system of dialogic relations, the installations were to have identical panels and compositions in the two cities and transmit a live relay of the visitors’ reactions, as they engaged with the panels, via small cameras installed within the panels. This was intended to give more dialogical depth to the installation by enabling one to be exposed to the Other’s wondering gaze in search of traces of meaning within the same object and, as such, creating a sense of co- experience. In January 2012 I travelled to Tehran to negotiate and resolve the legal and contractual issues with the Iranian Academy of Arts, one of the major government academies in Iran. A formal letter of request and a project proposal were submitted to the Department of International Relations and Visual Arts at the Academy upon their request. In spite of numerous telephone and email contacts made since then, I received no response, which perhaps reflects the highly sensitive nature of such a project in the context of contemporary Iranian politics. The non-dialogic modes of Relation continue to exist insofar as the established order of entities serves the megalothymic purposes of one of the sides in a ubiquitous yet concealed dialogic mode of Relation. I continue to hope that the installation will eventually be realised and promote more meaningful connections not just between Farsi and English letterforms, but also Farsi- and English-speaking peoples.
203 References
AbiFarès, H (ed.) 2010. Typographic matchmaking in the city. Amsterdam: Khatt Books.
Adamenko, V 2007. Neomythologism in music. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press.
Alfredsson, G & Eide, A 1999. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Aristotle 1984. The complete works of Aristotle. ed. Barnes, J. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Bakhtin, M 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Trans, ed. Emerson, C. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M 1993. Toward a philosophy of the act. eds. Holquist, M & Liapunov, V. Trans. Liapunov, V. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M 1981. The dialogic imagination. ed. Holquist, M. Trans. Emerson, C & Holquist, M. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. eds. Holquist, M & Emerson, C. Trans. McGee, V. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin and the Visual Arts, Haynes, D. In. Smith, P & Wilde, C 2002. A companion to art theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Battarbee, K 2004. Coexperience. Helsinki: University of Art and Design in Helsinki.
Baur, R, Felsing, U, Bao‐Goetsch, N, Moser, J, Wu, J, Tam, K & Wilhelm, R 2012. Koexistenz der Zeichen – Multilinguale Typografie. Swiss Typographic Magazine, (4/5/2012), pp.1‐120.
Bernard‐Donals, M 1994. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blankenship, S 2003. Cultural considerations: Arabic calligraphy and Latin typography. Design Issues, 19(2), pp.60‐63.
Boltjanskij, V, Efremovič, V & Shenitzer, A 2001. Intuitive combinatorial topology. New York: Springer.
Borsley, R & Roberts, I 1996. The syntax of the Celtic languages. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. cciv Boroujerdi, M 1996. Iranian intellectuals and the West. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Bryman, A 2012. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buber, M 2010. I and thou. 1st ed. Trans. Smith, R. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing.
Burris, V 1998. Reification: a marxist perspective. California Sociologist, 10(1), pp.22‐43.
Carson, D 2003. Trek. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Chen Johnsson, M 2013. Practitioner meets philosopher: Bakhtinian musings on learning with Paul. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(12), pp.1252‐1263.
Chengalur, S. N, Rodgers, S. H & Bernard, T. E 2004. Kodak’s ergonomic design for people at work, 2nd ed., New York: Willey.
Chisholm, R 1996. A realistic theory of categories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cissna, K & Anderson, R 1998. Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber‐ Rogers position and postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8(1), pp.63‐104.
Clark, K & Holquist, M 1984. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Crotty, M 1998. The foundations of social research. London: Sage Publications.
Coles, S & Stephen, T 2012. The anatomy of type. New York: Harper Design.
Collins, H 2010. Creative research. Lausanne: AVA Academia.
Cooper, J 1993. Bilingual Bible: Cuneiform texts in two or more languages from ancient Mesopotamia and beyond. Visible Language, 27(1‐2), pp.68‐96.
Crawford, A 1987. Bilingual typography. Visible Language, 21(1), pp.42‐65.
Creswell, J 2003. Research design. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Cullen, K 2012. Design elements typography fundamentals. Beverly, MA: Rockport.
ccv Dalle Pezze, B 2006. Heidegger on Gelassenheit. Minerva An Internet Journal of Philosophy, 10, pp.94‐122.
Daniels, P & Bright, W 1996. The world's writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Descartes, R 1998. Discourse on method and meditation. 4th ed. Trans. Cress, D. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.
Derrida, J 1976. Of grammatology. Trans. Spivak, G. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Discussion Between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger, Trans. Slade. Fr. In: Langiulli, N (ed.) 1997. European existentialism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction
Emerson, C 1997. The first hundred years of Mikhail Bakhtin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Evans, F 1998. Bakhtin, communication, and the politics of multiculturalism. Blackwell Publishers, 5(3), pp.403‐23.
Federationbells.com.au 2014. Federation Bells. [online] Available at: http://federationbells.com.au/ [Accessed 19 Jul. 2014].
Fellezs, K 2011. Birds of fire. Durham: Duke University Press.
Flegg, G 2001. From geometry to topology. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications.
Foucault, M 2010. The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Trans. Sheridan Smith, A. New York: Vitage Books.
Fukuyama, F 1992. The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.
Garbutt, M 1996. Figure talk: reported speech and thought in the discourse of psychotherap. Unpublished PhD thesis. Macquarie University.
Glaser, B & Strauss, A 1965. Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.
Gon\ccalves, M & Guilfoyle, M 2006. Dialogism and psychotherapy: therapists' and clients' beliefs supporting monologism. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19(3), pp.251‐271.
Graham, l 2005. Basics of design: layout & typography for beginners. New York: Delmar.
ccvi Grossmann, R 1983. The categorical structure of the world, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Grutman, R 1993. Mono vs. stereo: bilingualism's double face. Visible Language, 27(1‐2), pp.206‐27.
Haralambous, Y 1998. Simplification of the Arabic scrip: three different approaches and their implementations. In: Hersch, R., André, J & Brown, H (eds.) 1998. Electronic publishing, artistic imaging, and digital typography. New York: Springer, pp.138‐56.
Heidegger, M 1969. Discourse on thinking. New York: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, M 2008. Basic writings. ed. Krell, D. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought.
Hermans, H, Kempen, H & Van Loon, R 1992. The dialogical self: beyond individualism and rationalism. American Psychologist, 47(1), pp.23‐33.
Hodgson, R & Sarkonak, R 1987. Graphic collisions: languages in contact. Visible Language, 21(1), pp.18‐41.
Hofstadter, D 1987. Ambigrammi. Firenze: Hopeful Monster.
Holquist, M 1990. Dialogism. London: Routledge.
Husserl, E 1970. Logical investigations. London: Routledge and K. Paul.
Introspections.org 2008. The ambigrams of Douglas Hofstadter | Introspections. [online] Available at: http://www.introspections.org/2008/07/22/the‐ ambigrams‐of‐douglas‐hofstadter/ [Accessed 19 Jul. 2014].
Jacquette, D 2002. Ontology. Montreal: McGill‐Queen's University Press.
Jiang, J 2007. Burden or legacy. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Johansson, I 1989. Ontological investigations, New York: Routledge.
Joshi, K 1983. Introduction to general topology. New York: Wiley.
Kim, S 1997. Elise Diamond. [online] Scottkim.com.previewc40.carrierzone.com. Available at: http://www.scottkim.com.previewc40.carrierzone.com/inversions/gallery/elise.h tml [Accessed 19 Jul. 2014].
ccvii Kale, K, Mehrotra, S & Manza, R 2008. Advances in computer vision and information technology. New Delhi: I.K. International Pub. House.
Karcevskij, S 1929. The Asymmetric dualism of the linguistic signs. In: Steiner, P. (ed.) 1982. The Prague school: selected writings, 19291946. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
Kim, S 1988. Origami (English/Japanese). [online] Scottkim.com.previewc40.carrierzone.com. Available at: http://www.scottkim.com.previewc40.carrierzone.com/inversions/gallery/origa mibilingual.html [Accessed 19 Jul. 2014].
Kompridis, N 2006. Critique and disclosure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lapan, S, Quartaroli, M & Riemer, F 2012. Qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
Lawson, A 1990. Anatomy of a typeface. Boston: Godine.
Lubell, S 1993. Bilingualism in the Hebrew text. Visible Language, 27(1‐2), pp.162‐ 204.
Lupton, E 2004. Thinking with type. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
McLuhan, M 1994. Understanding media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Matusov, E 2007. Applying Bakhtin scholarship on discourse in education: A critical review essay. Educational Theory, 57(2), pp.215‐237.
Merriam, S & Merriam, S 2009. Qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
Morsink, J 1999. The universal declaration of human rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Morson, G & Emerson, C 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press.
Mulhall, S 2005. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Heidegger and Being and Time. London: Routledge.
Nørgaard, N 2009. The semiotics of typography in literary texts ‐ A multimodal approach. Orbis Litterarum, 64(2), pp.141‐160.
Norton, B 1976. On defining ‘Ontology’. Metaphilosophy, 7(2), pp.102‐115.
ccviii Orton, F 1994. Figuring Jasper Johns. London: Reaktion Books.
Pascale, C 2011. Cartographies of knowledge. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
Rawlinson, G 1976. The significance of letter position in word recognition. Unpublished PhD thesis. Nottingham University.
Rjeily, R 2011. Cultural connectives. New York: Mark Batty Publisher.
Robinson, W 1951. The logical structure of analytic induction. American Sociological Review, pp.812‐818.
Rosch, E & Lloyd, B 1978. Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Ruder, E 1981. Typographie. New York: Hastings House Publishers.
Russell, B 1905. On denoting. Mind, pp.479‐493.
Said, E 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Sarkonak, R 1993. Seeing in‐depth: the practice of bilingual writing. Visible Language, 27(1‐2), pp.6‐39.
Sciullo, P 2003. Pierre di Sciullo. Paris: Pyramyd.
Seckel, A 2004. Masters of deception. New York: Sterling Pub. Co.
Shklovsky, V 1990. Theory of prose. Trans. Sher, B. Elmwood Park, IL, USA: Dalkey Archive Press.
Sidorkin, A 2002. Lyotard and Bakhtin: engaged diversity in education. Interchange, 33(1), pp.85‐97.
Smith, D 2007. Husserl. London: Routledge.
Stevenson, A 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stöckl, H 2005. Typography: body and dress of a text‐a signing mode between language and image. Visual Communication, 4(2), pp.77‐86.
Tam, K 2012. Bilingual typography: Hong Kong case studies. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/infodesignlab/bilingual‐typography‐ ccix hong‐kong‐case‐studies [Accessed 19 Jul. 2014].
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. [online] united nations human rights. Available at:
Voloshinov, V 1973. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Trans. Matejka, L & Titunik, I. New York: Seminar Press. von Helmholtz, H. L. F 2007, On the sensations of tone, New York: Cosimo Classics.
Warde, B 1955. The crystal goblet: sixteen essays on typography. ed. Jacob, H. London: Beatrice Sylvan Press.
Whitehead, A 1978. Process and reality. eds. Griffin, D & Sherburne, D. New York: Free Press.
Wierzbicka, A 2003. Crosscultural pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Znaniecki, F 1968. The method of sociology. New York: Octagon Books.
ccx APPENDIX
The following is the transcription of the visitors’ (including monolingual English‐ speaking and bilingual English‐ and Farsi‐speaking) answers to the questions:
Q 1: Could you read what is written on the panels? Monolingual visitors: M1. Struggling with the first panel, but then it became easier with the other panels.
Bilingual visitors: B1. I could eventually read the text in English and Farsi but it was hard at first.1
Q 2: If so, what did you understand? Monolingual visitors: M1. ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ in English.
Bilingual visitors: B1. ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ in English and Farsi.
(Note the cooperative nature of the experience – co‐experiencing).
Q 3: How many languages is the text written in? Monolingual visitors: M1. I could read one language but it seems to me there is another language involved in it. M2. I could read only one language.
Bilingual visitors: B1. I could read two languages.
1 In this context bilingual refers to native‐Farsi speakers living in Australia. The subjects were interviewed in Farsi by the author, and their responses were subsequently translated into English by the author.
ccxi
Q 4: Can you describe your reading experience? Monolingual visitors: M1. Experience was enhanced through. M2. The interaction with space, with positive and negative space in particular was interesting. M3. It was interesting trying to decipher the words at first and then it became easier to read the messages. M4. Physical as opposed to digital layering of information. M5. The same sentence is written in two languages at the same time suddenly brought two very different cultures closer.
Bilingual visitors: B1. Farsi speaking woman: It was the first time that I could see my language (Farsi) is as important as English, and English has to derive its characters from my language (Farsi) in order to be able to speak. B2. An Iranian‐Australian couple: Amazing experience how we could read our languages through one another.
Q 5 and 6: What does the model say? What does it mean to you? Any further comments?
The collected comments can be put into two broad categories: concept‐related and application‐related comments. By concept‐related comments I mean those statements referring to the object itself, to the code, and the meanings associated with it. Such as:
1. The interactive nature of perception; the parallel existence of two languages; there is neither right nor wrong between cultural differences; equality of voices.
By application‐related comments I mean the comments of those subjects who were interested more in the practical uses of the code in various areas. Such as:
1. The system can be used as a means of advertising in multilingual social contexts; such integration of letterforms can be carried out through an algorithmically coded software for common uses; the system can be useful for
ccxii educating young kids bilingually; the method of letterform analysis can be employed in Optical Character Recognition (OCR) systems.
ccxiii