Grammar of Visual Design

Grammar

I find the title of the book fascinating in relating visual communication with verbal communication. The particular point of interest for me is its claim that visual communication also has an independent structure and organization of its own like “grammar” of a verbal language: “In this book, by contrast, we will concentrate on ‘grammar’ and on syntax, on the way in which these elements are combined into meaningful wholes. Just as grammars of language describe how words combine in clauses, sentences and texts, so our visual ‘grammar’ will describe the way in which depicted elements – people, places, and things –combine in visual ‘statements’ of greater or lesser complexity and extension” (1).  

Social-semiotic approach

The second important aspect of the book is its “social semiotic approach” to the study of grammar, that “meanings belong to culture, rather than to specific semiotic modes” (2). So, the organization of images is largely culture specific.

Sign as motivated and conventional rather than arbitrary and conventional

Third use of ‘sign-making’ instead of ‘sign’ and its characterization as ‘motivated’ rather than merely ‘arbitrary’ is, I think, more appropriate to visual signs than verbal. This is again not something intrinsic to any of these signs but simply conventional. What I mean here is that due to the established system and conventions, the users of linguistic signs have to depend largely on the conventions, though they also have some possibilities of “sign-making” in some cases. Whereas in visual semiotics, the writers’ idea of “motivated” sign is more appropriate. This is due to more freedom and creativity possible in projecting new meanings and creating new signs. So, there is a lot of room for subjectivity in visual communication (blend of subjectivity with the communal). However, we need to be aware that this is only a relative thing. (Ex. “This is a heavy hill.”)

Visual and Verbal Modes

But I still cannot agree with the writers that “literate cultures have systematically suppressed means of analysis of the visual forms of representation.” This can be because I am still very poor in visual literacy so that I cannot see its immense potential. However, instead of placing so much of blame to literate cultures, we may need to see the essential difference in these two semiotic modes. Language (verbal) seems to me more systematic and closed whereas visual communication more flexible and thus more creative. The dominance of language is not only due to the demeaning of the visual mode by the elitists, it is also due to the relative directness of language and the ease with which the people can use it. It is true that an image can tell what a thousand words cannot, but equally true is the fact that it can cause thousands of confusion which the words are not vulnerable to. For instance, the markings of the child may mean almost anything, though the writers interpret them in a specific way.