Carto-semiotics, a method of decoding maps
A critical reading maps.
“Every map is at once a synthesis of signs and a sign in itself: an instrument of depiction - of objects, events, places - and an instrument of persuasion — about these, its makers and itself.”
Denis Wood & John Fles, Designs on Signs/Myth and meaning in maps. (Wood & Fels, 1986)
This article will start with highlighting some of the contextual aspects of carto-semiotics used by the geographer Schlichtmann to describe the map in the first place (Schlichtmann & Saskatchewan, 2015) : the mapped territory, the identity of its author, the advents of tools and technologies used in its production, the intended goals from its production and its consequences. It is worth mentioning that these aspects are rather descriptive than analytical. Yet, this elementary descriptive knowledge is considered the basis of the critical reading of the maps. A sort of a basic layer that would show the social, political and historical context of the process of mapping in the first place. The next step would be looking at the map as a product, a representational sign.
To decode the semiotics of power in colonial maps, they should be seen as a complex system of representation or a meta-language as labeled by Roland Barthes, in which the language used is no longer a linguistic but a compound of subsidiary languages of images and signs (Barthes, 1964). In his book Mythologies, Barthes argues that the myth is constructed from a semiological chain which existed before it. It occurs when a sign (a combination of a concept and an image) in the first system becomes a mere signifier in the second system (Figure B) (Barthes, 1984). The reading of Designs on Signs/Myth and Meaning in Maps by Denis Woods and John Fels draws our attention to several aspects that must be investigated for a critical reading of maps:
1. The legend
They argue that the role of the legend is to function as a sign in itself rather than to clarify the meaning of this or that symbol on the map (Wood & Fels, 1986). They claim that ‘the legend as a whole is itself a signifier’. It does not refer to the map only, but also to the interests of the cartographer. To use Barthes’ words, the legend is a denotation when regarded as a tool of decoding the symbols on the map, yet it is a connotation of the purpose of the map in the first place, the image it is supposed to signify. The intensity of using a certain symbol from the legend on the map, shows what is it the cartographer wants to say about the mapped area. Woods and Fles move to a more detailed level. They draw our attention to the possibility that the signs that comprise the legend are in themselves signifiers in another semiological system cantilevered out from the first one of the map itself (Wood & Fels, 1986). In this case it would be necessary to look at the basic visual qualities of these symbols; their colors, sizes and location within the maps and even their order within the legend.
2. The Codes
Which they defined as ‘an assignment scheme or a rule coupling or appropriating items or elements from a conveyed system (the signified) to a conveying system (a signifier)’ (Wood & Fels, 1986). They argued that a code is a rule or a law that assigns a signifier from the plane of expression to a signified on the plane of content. It establishes and regulates this exclusive correlation that allows a sign to exist. Thus, it is the codes that must be investigated to decode or encode a map. They categorized these codes into two main types the intrasignification codes; those which the map use to operate and speak within itself at the level of language. And the extrasignification codes that operate and speak outside the map on the level of myth (Wood & Fels, 1986). They argued that the second was the most crucial since these codes distorted the meaning of the earlier codes (those at the level of the language) subvert it into their own.
The codes of intra-signification
Iconic codes: designates events or things with whose relative location the map is enrapt.
Linguistic codes: that classify ownership through identifying, naming and assigning.
Tectonic codes: shows the relationship between the earlier designated things/events in space. Thus it is a scalar code.
Temporal codes: are those that represent the factor of time as they show the relation/intensity of events or things with in a given interval of time.
Presentational codes: that are more concerned by the presentation of the panel itself, what is in the center and what is at the edge, foreground or background.
The codes of extra-signification
Thematic codes: establish the subject of the map, its main argument or concern. It runs off with the Iconic codes.
Topic codes: it runs off with the tectonic codes, turning a space to a place by giving it a name.
Historical codes: resonates the temporal codes on a higher level by incorporating it in a vision of history.
Rhetorical codes: are those that appropriate to its maps the style that serves the myth it intends to propagate.
Utilitarian codes: that represents the purpose of the myth itself.
References:
Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of Semiology. New York: Hill and Wang.
Barthes, R. (1984). Myth Today. In A. Lavers, Mythologies by Roland Barthes (pp. 109-135). New York: Hill and Wang.
Schlichtmann, H., & Saskatchewan, R. (2015, March 29). Cartosemiotics. Retrieved from Semiotics Encyclopedia Online. E.J. Pratt Library - Victoria University: http://www.semioticon.com/seo/C/cartosemiotics.html#
