Dear Colleagues,
Passing this post on for Ella Chmielewska.
She is having some difficulties posting. She
did not intend to send the post from
Willard McCarty.
Ella initially tried to send this on Saturday,
August 16, in relation to the thread on
the distinctions between the terms "design"
and "designing."
Yours,
Ken
Dear Ken and All,
The linguistic issue is even more nuanced, I think. It involves
semantics or, Karl Bühler would be happy to hear that, semantology.
It is about precision of meaning. And I speak here as a former
engineering designer (in fine mechanics), not a linguist.
It is less about the strict classification (verb vs. noun) than about
the semantic field of the words, their function (how they act upon
the environment of other words, processes and objects they deal
with), and their position in the "deictic field" (how they designate).
While "design" can act as a fully fledged verb, "designing" is locked
into its Gerund form and needs help from another verb to fully
function.
In the noun form: "a design" implies a tangible entity (a result of a
completed process), while "designing" retains its connotation of a
continuing activity. These words specify differently, they relate to
other objects and processes differently. While we can have "a design"
as an object "designing" requires specifying an object upon which
that process acts.
So, again, each form deals differently with its objects (designates
them differently). Also, it is important to consider the form of the
particular terms referred to by "design"/"designing", or even certain
accepted uses. While "designing women" most likely means "women who
design", "designing research" implies the process of designing of
research (a routine process in the sciences), here, it is the
research that is an object of our action ("research" as a noun). This
case is informative: if we reverse the situation, we can compare
"researching design", and "research design".
As a Slav, I deplore the way the word "design" has colonized Slavic
languages in general, and the Polish "design-speak" in particular.
(Yes, a strong value judgment on my part). The word contorts the
native phonetic regime and is plain ugly in the Polish context (now,
an aesthetic value judgment). My main problem with this invasion,
however, has been semantic. The Polish word for design is a process
word, "projektowanie", from "projekt" (a project). The Polish grammar
is rather precise and it requires much action upon each word in order
to specify its exact function. Once that is done, however, the
language message is very clear: "zaprojektowa£am", for example, alone
specifies a completed (za) action of "projektowanie" performed (in
the past) by my(female)self. It is a very spatial language that
clearly positions actions in relation to their objects and subjects.
Now, with the English "design" invading the field, the Poles trying
to be hip and cool (to join the global "cooltura") invented terms
such as (they use English spelling for this word though it is humanly
impossible to pronuance the word using the Polish strictly phonetic
rules): "designerzy" (male designers) and "designerki" (female
designers), "designowac' " (infinitive form), and .....
"designowanie" (designing!). So we are back into a process noun,
which we need for a number of reasons, yet by now we disposed off the
native term altogether, the word which meant exactly the same in its
active form. Could it be that there is a lesson here to be learned
for the design/designing dilemma within the colonizing language?
Best regards,
Ella Chmielewska
Dr. Ella Chmielewska
Research Associate, Study Centre
Canadian Centre for Architecture
1920 rue Baile
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H3H 2S6
t. 514 939 7000
f. 514 939 7020
|