TheTechnical WritingTeacher, Vo!. XVII, No.

3, Fall 1990
The Rhetoric of Text Design
in Professional Communication
Charles Kostelnick
Iowa State University
Visual languageplays an essential rolein therhetoric of technical
documents, transformingthelinguistictext through structural and stylisticcues
that operateon different levels within thetext. Therhetoric of text design is
shaped by contextual variables, such as thepurposeof thecommunication and
theproximity of visual cues within thedocument, as well as by thereader's
familiarity with visual conventions. Technical communicators need toconsider
thesefactors as they begin usingthewiderangeof visual elements nowavailable
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. 1have 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 J encks (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? J ust 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 Variations
The 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 mode-
alphanumeric (typestyle 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 L anguage 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 I TCC 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 List
Although 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 List
Visual 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. I f 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 Horizontally
Although 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 decision
making, with all of the actors on an equal footing (seeAndrews, 1985,
18-19, for an analysis of how an organizational chart affects readers).
The repetition of the graphic coding-thelines 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. I f 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 L anguage 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 | seeWaller 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 1modulates 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.
References
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual Thinking, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Andrews, D.C. 1985. Choosing the right visuals. In TkachingTbchnical 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 TheResponsibility 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. J ournal of Business and Tbchnical Communication 1:9-26.
Bernhardt, Stephen A. 1986. Seeing thetext. College Composition and Communication
37:66-78.
Bonsiepe, Gui. 1965. Visual/ verbal rhetoric. Ulm14/15/16:23-40,
Broadbent, Geoffrey. 1980. Building design as an iconic sign system. In Signs, Symbols,
and Architecture, ed. by Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, and Charles J encks.
New York: Wiley.