The Technical Writing Teacher, Vo!. XVII, No. 3, Fall 1990

The Rhetoric of Text Design in Professional CommunicationCharles KostelnickIowa State University

Visual language plays an essential role in the rhetoric of technical documents, transforming the linguistic text through structural and stylistic cues that operate on different levels within the text. The rhetoric of text design is shaped by contextual variables, such as the purpose of the communication and the proximity of visual cues within the document, as well as by the reader's familiarity with visual conventions. Technical communicators need to consider these factors as they begin using the wide range of visual elements now available in desktop publishing.

Since professional communicators now largely have access to a variety of typographical tools, any discussion of the rhetoric of practical documents must encompass the language of visual design. Desktop publishing is changing the nature of practical communication because it places visual design at the heart of the composing process, giving us unprecedented power to articulate the text with typefaces, graphic cues, and spatial variations. These design elements, however, do not transmit the text passively: they are rhetorically active because they affect the reader's reception of the message.

Visual language, of course, has always been rhetorically charged, whether text was chiseled on a marble frieze, inked with a pen, or printed mechanically by a typewriter. As technology expands the range of design options, however, visual rhetoric will play a far greater role in professional communication. While we adapt to the new technology, we need to assimilate visual language into our understanding of the communication process. We need models that enable us to analyze and evaluate visual language and even to define its complex vocabulary. 1 have previously outlined a systematic approach that begins to address some of these needs (Kostelnick 1988, 1989; see TWyman, 1982, for some excellent models for examining visual language). Here I wish to elaborate on some rhetorical aspects of text design and on how contextual variables influence visual communication.

Some of the impetus for examining visual language as a communication tool has come from the design discipline itself. Postmodernists like Charles Jencks (1984) have viewed architectural design as a vehicle for communication, Geoffrey Broadbent (1980) has explored the semiotics of buildings, and Richard Buchanan (1985) has examined product design as a form of rhetoric. In the area of document design, Gui Bonsiepe (1965) and Hanno Ehses (1984) have shown how visual elements evoke rhetorical figures je.g., metonymy, synecdoche, metaphor), Robin Kinross (1985) has examined the

the third version, embellishing the words ''all" and "before" suggests some potential (or past) negligence on the reader's part.

How does this sort of heightening differ from one message to another? Just as in language use, the rhetorical effect depends on the contextual variables of the communication. Here two factors come into play: 1) the writer-reader-subject relationship and 2) perceptual context. The first variable should be treated exactly in the same terms as verbal language: if I heighten the word "all" with boldface, I do so either because I know the reader will not take offense (given the social context of previous communications, both written and oral) or because I believe that a direct command is the right thing to do under the present circumstances. Tb understand the significance of heightening "pressure valves" in the second version, we probably need to know more about the situational context: if the pressure valves are more sensitive than another type of valve, alerting the reader to it might be construed as a thoughtful reminder. If the reader ignored pressure valve checks in the past, which created a safety hazard or led to costly repairs, the boldfacing might be a useful but embarrassing reminder.

Figure 1. Intra-textual VariationsThe second contextual variable, perceptual context, refers to the

visual language that surrounds a given visual cue within a document. As Arnheim (1969, 54-65) has shown, visual context changes our perception of forms. This principle also applies to document design: if I boldface the entire message, as in the fourth version, obviously I change the effect of heightening that I created in earlier versions; if I boldface one word, italicize another, and alter the point size of yet another, I create quite a different visual code because the relative proximity of visual elements changes altogether.

The visual alteration of the text can continue ad infinitum, given the array of intra-textual variations possible with desktop publishing. Each time I select another visual cue, in whatever coding m ode- alphanumeric (type style or size, upper case, italics), spatial (distance between characters; e.g., ''condensed'' or "expanded"), or graphic (underlining text)I add another component to the visual system. (For a global view of text systems, see Waller, 245-6.) Visual components, moreover, can then be repeated and combined throughout the document. Repeating a componentfor example, boldfacing two or more words of the sample text, as in the second versioncreates a pattern and in this case creates visual parallelism between "Please" and "pressure valves." Once one segment of text is boldfaced, repeating the cue invokes the same rhetorical strategy of heightening. Combining componentsfor example, placing the word "before" in both boldface and upper case, as in the fifth versioncreates a permutation (see Kostelnick 1988; see also Walker, 1982, for a method of analyzing the visual language of the text). Because of the proximity of the visual elements in the same sentence, which allows readers to see that "before" is heightened more than "Please" or "all," the text obtains visual hierarchy. The visual code of "Please" and "all" is embedded in the visual code of "before." In this way, through the repetition and permutation of visual components, a unique visual system is built up within a document.Visual Language as a Structural Tool

Of course, the construction of a visual system within the text occurs not only on the intra-textual level, but more globally on what I call the inter-textual and supra-textual levels as well (see Kostelnick 1989). Cues on these levels often create structural, or relational (Kostelnick 1988), changes in the document. Below I examine the rhetoric of inter- and supra-textual structuring by exploring in more detail some of the contextual variables I have already outlined.Inter-textual Structuring

On the inter-textual level, text is structured through alphanumeric cues (headings, numbers), spatial cues (horizontal and vertical distribution of text on the page), and graphic cues (bullets, arrows, lines on tables). Consider, for example, the inter-textual features of Figure 2. Here we have a solid block of text with a bulleted list in the center (earlier versions of Figures 2-4A were presented at the 1988 ITCC in conjunction with Kostelnick 1988). The inter-textual componentsthe spatial positioning of each item in the list, the graphic cues signaling the beginning of each itemare repeated to form a pattern of visual parallelism.

We cannot award the contract to you for the following reasons: Over 60 firms submitted proposals for the work. We prefer contractors with at least ten years of experience. Our finalists can offer more flexible scheduling.

Figure 3B. Bulleted ListAlthough the visual heightening created by this pattern calls immediate attention to information interesting to the readers (writers of a proposal), most readers would probably find this configuration offensive and humiliating. Protocol demands that this kind of information be visually embedded on the pagebe made less accessibleso that readers encounter it sequentially within the discourse rather than at first glance. A cursory analysis of the context, then, tells us that visual heightening is not an appropriate rhetorical strategy here.

Things get more complicated, however, if we insert Figure 3C into the sample text.

After we installed the new equipment, production rates went up as follows: River Valley Plant, 7% Mountain Grove Plant, 22% Oak Canyon Plant, 15%

Figure 3C. Bulleted ListVisual parallelism has a leveling effect on the information contained within a series: the constant visual heightening of the items in the list, along with the variations of the data contained in these items, creates rhetorical tension between the visual and the verbal. Visually, all things are equal, creating the expectation that the linguistic coding of listed items should also be equal. Thus the disparity among the production rates, and the situational context of the communication, may prompt readers to draw certain conclusions: that the manager of the Mountain Grove Plant deserves a promotion for outstanding performance, that the new equipment at the River Valley Plant is not functioning properly, or that the company lacks effective controls for ensuring uniform productivity. If the writer intended to convey any of these messages, the visual language advances the writer's purpose; if not, the writer may need to redesign the text to prevent readers from misinterpreting the information.

Visual parallelism also influences the meaning of the two variations of Figure 4. The information in the chart in Figure 4A below seems neutral enough, explaining the chain of command within an organization, from partners to project managers to staff engineers.

Figure 4A. Chart Arranged HorizontallyAlthough the linguistic text clearly indicates the power relations among the actors in the sequence, the parallel horizontal arrangement communicates a matter-of-fact, nonthreatening sequence of decisionmaking, with all of the actors on an equal footing (see Andrews, 1985, 18-19, for an analysis of how an organizational chart affects readers). The repetition of the graphic coding-the lines around the text, the arrows connecting each unitleads the eye from left to right, recreating the linear syntax of continuous text. So while the linguistic text signals the power relations among the three groups of employees, the visual parallelism diminishes these differences, telling readerse.g., managers, engineers, students applying for entry-level jobsthat the company eschews rigid divisions according to job status.

The visual language of Figure 4B below, on the other hand, serves to reinforce the differences in rank among employees.

Figure 5 illustrates some supra-textual variables. In Figure 5A, for example, graphic cues tie together the first and third pages, establishing supra-textual parallelism between the beginnings of two sections. The division between sections is also signaled spatially on the second page by the break in the text and by the graphic cue at the bottom of the page.

In Figure 5B the text is rotated 90 degrees, and the second page is cued graphically with a gray tone. If this document were a manual, the wider pages might provide a convenient location for extra-textual elements like illustrations; to accommodate multiple audiences, the gray pages might be reserved for specialized instructions aimed at highly technical readers. In Figure 5C the page has been divided in half and bound, resulting in a portable document suitable for other contexts of use, such as a civil engineer conducting tests on a construction site or choosing which presentations to attend at a convention center. Supra-textual elements can also extend beyond a single document: the document design in Figure 5C, for example, might be used to create visual cohesion among a series of manuals, newsletters, or informational pamphlets. All of these visual choices contribute to the rhetoric of the message by mediating the flow of information for particular readers performing specific tasks.The Rhetorical Interdependence of Visual Levels

Of course intra-, inter-, and supra-textual elements cannot be designed in a vacuum because they are rhetorically interdependent. For example, if I embellish the bulleted list in Figure 3A with the intra-textual variations in Figure 1, the rhetoric of the message changes, even though the inter-textual parallelism remains intact. If I decide to integrate Figure 4B into a continuous chunk of text, but cannot fit the last element ("Staff Engineer") on the page, I encounter a supra-textual dilemma with immediate rhetorical consequences: do I break the text before the pattern and leave a gaping space at the bottom of the page, which might confuse readers, or do I revert to version 4A, which solves a supra-textual problem but creates a rhetorical problem on the inter-textual level? Or if readers need illustrations to understand the subject, and I make the supra-textual decision to reorient the page, as in Figure 5B, how do I design the intra- and inter-textual levels to accommodate this decision?Designing text is a dynamic process in which rhetorical problems are addressed on several visual levels simultaneously.

Visual language, then, is not merely a passive, "objective" channel of information: by structuring the information on the page, and across the entire document (and even from one document to the next), visual language interacts with the linguistic text to shape the rhetoric of the message. The visual context, or proximity, of these visual elementse.g., a bulleted list surrounded by the block of text in Figure 2alters our perception of visual language and alters the rhetorical strategy as well. Equally important, the situational context of the communicationFigure 2 as an instructional document for new computer users versus Figure 2 as a refusal letterstrongly influences the rhetoric of the message, both visual and verbal.Visual Language as a Stylistic Tool

The above discussion of Figures 2 to 5 pertains primarily to relational functions, which organize the text on the page and enable

readers to decipher the boundaries within the text. In addition, visual language can also perform stylistic functions by creating visual texture, tone, and mood |see Waller 248-9). The subtle variations in typefaces, the nuances of textual arrangement, the graphic cues that articulate the textthese elements engender a certain visual tone. The visual heightening of the text in Figure 1 modulates the tone of the message by muting some parts and amplifying others. Through these kinds of stylistic choices, visual language suggests a rhetorical stanceserious, conversational, low key, energetic, highly technical, or user-friendly.

This stylistic quality of visual language is, admittedly, subjective and reflects both the designer's and the reader's intuitive responses to a particular communication. Although reader responses to typographical variations have been studied (see, for example, Walker, Smith, and Livingston 1986), how the tone of a document comes across visually can be measured no more precisely than how it is transmitted verbally. Still, as readers we recognize visual tone when we see it. Figure 6, for example, shows three variations of the same statement in different typefaces. Many readers would probably find the typography of the first two versions consistent with the linguistic text, the third version in conflict. The context of the communication, however, again determines the meaning of visual language. If the third version appeared on the envelope of a sales letter, it might be the rhetorically appropriate choice if its purpose was to attract the reader's attention.

Textual style is also revealed through visual stratification. The pages displayed in Figure 5 are variegated with headings, illustrations, and spatial and graphic cues. Ttechnical communication relies heavily on textual divisionon cutting, segmenting, and distributing text across the page to make the information more accessible to readers. Although the functionalism of the genre is not always an accurate gauge of visual stratification (poetry could not be said to exist without the subtle architecture of lineation), textual division often enhances usability. This is especially true when textual division satisfies the immediate context of use. The supra-textual division of the document in Figure 5C, in which pages are folded in half, immediately signals "portability"whether the reader is an engineer inspecting a building

Conventions, of course, change as new technology reshapes the written word. The typographical capabilities of desktop publishing will lead us to expect ever more visually sophisticated documents, altering our perception of typewritten text, just as typewritten text in the late nineteenth century transformed the perception of handwritten documents. This transition, however, may take some time: laser printers can generate text in Helvetica and Palatinoin virtually any size or spatial configurationbut also in Courier and Letter Gothic, residual forms that scarcely tap the new technology but that satisfy our expectations as readers. Most readers would probably be comfortable with the first version of Figure 6 because the Cornier typeface is a familiar visual code for interoffice communications. The second version, in Helvetica, may in this context appear less familiar to readers, even though its low-key style may seem appropriate for the mundane message. As desktop publishing becomes more common in the workplace, however, Helvetica will probably appear just as conventional for ordinary messages. Gradually, computer-generated documents will engender a new set of visual conventions, in the process changing reader expectations and thereby altering the rhetoric of document design.Conclusion

Although the visual rhetoric of text design has existed since the origins of the printed word, we are only beginning to explore its implications for practical communication. Because desktop publishing fosters typographical variety, technical communicators need to consider the rhetorical aspects of visual language if they intend to design reader-oriented documents. To use visual language effectively, technical communicators must respond to immediate contextual variables, just as they do when they write. Like verbal communication, visual language can only be defined within a given context, which clarifies its meaning and determines the appropriateness of that meaning in achieving the writer's purpose.ReferencesArnheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual Thinking, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Andrews, D.C. 1985. Choosing the right visuals. In Tkaching Tbchnical Writing:

Graphics, ed. by Dixie Elise Hickman, Anthology No. 5, Association of Tfeachers of Technical Writing.

Ashwin, Clive. 1984. Drawing, design, and semiotics. Design Issues 1.2:42-52.Barthes, Roland. 1964, 1985. Rhetoric of the image. In The Responsibility of Forms:

Critical Essays on Music, Art, and Representation, trans. by Richard Howard.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Barton, Ben F. and Marthalee S. Barton. 1987. Simplicity in visual representation: A semiotic approach. Journal of Business and Tbchnical Communication 1:9-26.

Bernhardt, Stephen A. 1986. Seeing the text. College Composition and Communication 37:66-78.

Bonsiepe, Gui. 1965. Visual/verbal rhetoric. Ulm 14/15/16:23-40,Broadbent, Geoffrey. 1980. Building design as an iconic sign system. In Signs, Symbols,

and Architecture, ed. by Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jencks. New York: Wiley.