Dear Klaus,
Language as the sole source of thought and the basis for designing troubles
me, even though I agree that to only see it as a tool could also be
troubling. I tend to agree with Terry. I have a number of reasons.
First, there is Sinatra's work in the 90s (don't have the reference on this
one) on modality preference. Sinatra suggests that from a very young age, we
chose the modality that we most prefer. If that was all I had, I'd probably
concede to your argument.
Second, there's Flower and Hayes' (1984) work that suggests that there are
many things that we know without language (such as directions), but need to
translate into language in order to communicate with others.
Third, there is Arnheim's, "Visual Thinking" (1969) which suggests that
cognition, in terms of the most important aspects of invention, happens
before we can verbalize it. We use language to capture that inventive,
imaginative stew. Arnheim certainly had an agenda, but he makes good points
about image and invention.
Forth, language is not very good at thinking about scene. It lacks the parts
of speech that might make it more effective (Jackendoff and Landau,1995).
And finally, there are visual ideas that are difficult to communicate
through language if the speaker and the audience don't share the same
history and interests. Language is much better at communicating statements,
questions, and demands (Olson, 1994) while images are much better at
communicating scene (Hagan, 2007). An audience might not be able to imagine
a starving child if they've never seen one. The textual or verbal
description becomes information that we can't really share. In this case,
it's the looking that provides evidence. Hill (2004) has referred to that
evidence by calling on Pierce's index.
I agree with Terry that language is sometimes the primary route to thought
and invention and sometimes not, so I agree with you part of the time. But
in other situations, I agree with Lubomir that language is a tool for
communicating. The situation, including the individual and the audience all
play a role.
Best wishes,
Susan
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose. Written
Communication, 1(1), 120-160.
Hagan, S.M. (2007). Visual/Verbal Collaboration in Print: Complementary
Differences, Necessary Ties, and an Untapped Rhetorical Opportunity. Written
Communication, 24 (1) 49-73.
Hill, C. A. (2004). The psychology of rhetorical images. In C. A. Hill & M.
Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
pp. 25-40
Jackendoff, R., & Landau, B. (1995). Spatial language and spatial cognition.
In R. Jackendoff (Ed.), Languages of the mind: Essays on mental
representation (pp. 99-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive
implications of writing and reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
On 9/24/09 9:03 AM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Erik and Klaus,
>
> I'm aware some people look inside themselves and all they see is language.
> Perhaps some people do everything through language.
> Certainly some people claim they do everything through language.
> I've also read some people say they do their designing visually.
>
> Some of us do not use language for everything.
> We can stop using language like stopping using 'thinking'.
> That means that language isn't a necessary and sufficient component of
> designing.
> It means, epistemologically, it doesn't make sense to make language the
> essential core of theories of design.
>
> An alternative - perhaps this would satisfy you - is to say that language is
> the basis for designing for those for whom language is the basis for their
> designing: others not.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Erik:
> Dear Klaus,
> Thanks for a great post. I agree with your view on language.
>
|