T H E MAP AS N A T U R A L L A N G U A G E : A P A R A D I G M F O R U N D E R S T A N D I N G

C GRANT HEAD Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario Canada

INTRODUCTION There is an unease with our current models of cartographic communication, based largely as they are upon electronic information theory. Many working cartographers feel they offer little practical application and theorists have been unable to develop them much beyond the familiar flow diagram. Nearly a decade ago, Barbara Bartz Petchenik emphasized the importance of developing "... a whole theory or set of principles, greater than the sum of the component parts", 'theoretical structures', that would allow us to progress in our understanding of the process of map reading. ' Few would insist that the information theory flow diagrams are wrong: they do provide a broad and widely-accepted statement of what we are about in cartographic communication. They have isolated and emphasized important stages in the communication sequence; but within each stage, they have failed to provide insights into the details of the human map reading process. To do so, because of their geneology, they require quantification where we appear to have little to quantify.2

Proposed here is the application to cartography of a model of the processing of natural language. Whether one insists upon cartography as an actual natural language, or merely likens it to such, is largely a matter of definition, for, as we will show, its characteristics are closely similar.3 The language analogy has appeared earlier in the cartographic literature; like the information theory analo­gy, it also had stalled.4 It is an obvious one - we talk of map 'reading' - but perhaps we failed to explore it deeply. Linguistics is a complex field which, teamed with the theory and empirical study of human information processing, is expanding at a rate such as to defy currency even amongst specialists. There is no want of 'crossover' potential here but, as should be expected, these fields are areas of controversy. The cartographer must enter them cautiously and with a resolve not to become attached to details but instead to attempt to identify essential agreements and to test a variety of hypotheses within our cartographic context.

This paper, then, presents the basic, widely-accepted notions of the process of reading of printed text, and the basic structures employed in the process. The reading of maps for landscape visualization is then approached within this

2 C GRANT H E A D

FIGURE I. Human processing of printed text (after Massaro).

context. Objections to such a consideration of cartography as a language are analyzed, and lead us to place a new emphasis upon the significance of the map use process as distinct from the appearance or surface structure of the map product itself. The process of map reading, like the process of reading of text, requires the existence of structures in the reader's mind that are, at the least, equally as important as the marks on paper. These mental structures vary with the map use task, but are identifiable and are finite in number. Finally, the paper suggests implications of the theory of cartography as natural language for the map design process, for cartographic education, and for the future directions of cartographic research.

A M O D E L OF T H E R E A D I N G OF P R I N T E D TEXT

There are many models of the processing of visible language, particularly of the reading of printed text. Perhaps one of the most complete and clearly enunciated is that of Dominic Massaro of the Department of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, characterized as following a 'successive stage, information proces­sing' approach. As Figure I suggests, Massaro's model has both structural and process components.5 The square boxes represent structures, mainly memory structures, the circles represent processes applied to the data that are held in each of the memory components.

Structures. We can think of these memory structures most clearly if we use the widely-accepted notion of three basic memories: the preperceptual store, (PPS),

short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM).6 There is probably a preperceptual store for each of the senses, that for vision sometimes being called specifically the 'iconic' store. In it are held all characteristics of the stimulus that are physiologically processed by the eye; what it holds it does so independent of attention, and thus it is also sometimes called the 'pre-attentive' store. It has a large item capacity, but a short retention time, averaging for the visual PPS about 200 or 250 milliseconds.7

Short-term memory is the major work place of the system; indeed, much

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 3

FIGURE 2. Memory structures.

current thinking is towards a substitution of the term 'working memory' for this component, reserving the label STM for a specific storage structure within work­ing memory.8 For clarity, we will use the term STM as referring to a component that has both storage and processing functions (Figure 2) and including within it both Massaro's 'synthesized visual memory' and his 'generated abstract memory'.9 It is the place where materials from PPS are compared with previous knowledge and packaged as meaningful 'items' which are not true copies of what is seen, but synthesized, stylized, or 'categorized'. In comparison with PPS, the STM has a longer storage time (perhaps on the order of minutes) but a distinctly limited item capacity. The 7 ± 2 item capacity of STM is one of the most thoroughly documented concepts in perceptual psychology.10 Whether the 7 ± 2 refers to just the storage function or the storage and processing functions combined is less clear and the definition of 'item' even less so, but the severely limited capacity is undisputed and highly significant.

Long-term memory may have an unlimited capacity. The problem here, however, as with many of our offices, is to find things. Without great care during input, material may rest there but be unretrievable when needed. The transfer of items from STM to LTM thus requires conscientious 'mediation', a manipulation of the material, fitting it to networks or other structures already in existence in LTM.

Processes. Fundamental to the concept of human information processing is the notion that information becomes available and moves through the human system towards cognition in pieces, over time. In the first stage of text reading, foveal vision allows a view of a small oval of text perhaps one or two inches wide. The part of the page from which we take this is determined largely, of course, by our culture and training; in most western languages, we begin at the upper left and follow lines of text. From each of these foveal views, the visual receptor system deposits information into preperceptual visual storage. Within a quarter of a second, the eye jumps to another fixation, and a new deposition process begins, concurrently erasing the previous material from PPS. Using 'codes' or 'program­mes' or 'algorithms' in LTM, the material in PPS is analyzed for features that, in combination, make contact with a meaningful package in LTM (Figure 3).11 If what is held in PPS is the marks of letters of the alphabet, the features in typeset text might be angles, lines, dots and so forth, sufficient in particular combina­tions to differentiate one letter from another. This primary recognition stage allows the features to be combined into a new item, the letter, which can be transferred as an idealized letter into STM - thus, a 'synthesized visual percept'. It

4 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 3. Primary recognition stage in processing of printed text (after Massaro).

now takes its place as one of the maximum of 7 ± 2 units in the storage section of STM. There is some evidence, incidentally, that more efficient readers transfer into STM whole words, even phrases, not just letters.12 Whatever the item's size, however, it has been created through the interaction of environmental data and LTM and no longer has a one-to-one relationship with the physical stimulus; the physical stimulus is lost from PPS after one quarter of a second.13

The secondary recognition process takes these percepts of letters stored in synthesized visual memory and applies to these in turn a new series of program­mes from LTM. Using spelling (orthographic) rules, grammar (syntax) rules and sense or meaning (semantic) information, syllables and words are now built from letters. In other words, the process attempts to close off the letter string into a word, attempting to find the best match between a portion of the letter string and a word in the lexicon in LTM. The word which is recognized is the one whose perceptual code gives the best match, and whose conceptual code is most appropriate in the particular context. In other words, though the perceptual code for the two words 'top' and 'top' may be the same, a context of 'space' and 'toy' may provide different meanings. The words are in turn deposited in generated abstract memory as meanings, not physical likenesses of actual words. As the stock of word meanings grows, rehearsal and recoding creates meanings for phrases, then combines phrase meanings into propositions.14 Each of these stages can be recognized as producing what North American researchers call 'chunks' and Europeans call 'supersigns' - reducing a series of items to a new, broader concept (Figure 4), an essential data reduction task. 15

The programmes from LTM that the mind uses to produce these chunks may be likened, it is suggested here, to the 'schemata' of the cognitive cycle championed by psychologist Ulric Neisser.16 Knowing, for Neisser, is a cyclical process

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 5

FIGURE 4. The chunking process: selection and integration.

(Figure 5) of bringing some preconception of order to explore a stimulus, and thecontinuous revision of the preconception based upon what is provided by thestimulus. What is 'seen' is thus the result of an interplay of stored experience andnew stimulus. The schemata, specifically, he calls "plans for finding out aboutobjects and events, for obtaining more information to fill in the format".17 Whatchunks we make of small stimulus items like features and letters is a processgoverned in part by the chunks for which we search, and these are governed inlarge part by the primary recognition, orthographic, syntax and semantic ruleswe have learned.

Map Reading.18 The essential argument of this paper is that map reading fitscomfortably into this information processing model of the reading of printedtext. As there are many different types of printed text, and a wide variety ofmethods of processing them for different purposes, so we must also recognizethat the term 'map reading' is also a grand simplification. For the moment,however, consider the reading of a standard topographic map in an attempt tovisualize the form of the land surface. There are rules for the spatial sequencing ofthe reading of printed text, but no such conventions for the use of the map face. 19

An experienced map reader, however, likely will begin by processing portions ofthe map to locate himself relative to his particular task, perhaps by attempting tovisualize the major features within the mapped area.

6 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 5. Neisser's cognitive cycle.

The early stages of map reading use the same components and processes as the parallel stages in the reading of text.20 The visual receptor system deposits information of one eye fixation into PPS, and within a quarter of a second, drawing upon programmes in LTM, the features in PPS are analyzed for meaning­ful primary combinations and these percepts are transferred to synthesized visual memory in STM. Figure 6 is meant to suggest the material available momentarily in PPS, something like a photographic copy of the stimulus itself. On the basis of knowledge of what is significant, this material is analyzed in a 'primary recogni­tion stage' for 'features' - narrow, linear and brown. Recognized in combination as 'contour line', this percept is deposited in synthesized visual memory within STM. The material in PPS is now lost, and is being replaced by that provided by a new fixation, which will supply further percepts for STM.

With, say, three portions of contour lines in synthesized visual memory, the secondary recognition process attempts to build some larger item. From three 'contours', using programmes from LTM, the reader may construct the idea of 'slope'. This is the process of attempting to close off the letter string into a 'word', and, in the process, losing the percepts that contributed. We thus lose three items - the three contours - and replace them with one item, 'slope' (the 'contours' have become 'transparent'). We can then build words into phrases and so on: a variety of slopes in association can be recognized as a 'drumlin' and groups of drumlins as a 'drumlin field'. In each case, the items that contributed are dropped, to be replaced by the broader concept. None of this can be done, really, unless the reader brings these programmes, these 'schemata' of Neisser, to the task. Map reading, like all reading, then, is cognitive, and draws as much upon the reader as it does upon the marks on the face of the map.

O B J E C T I O N S TO T H E LANGUAGE ANALOGY

Robinson and Petchenik, and other authors who have touched upon the lan­guage analogy, seem to find the major problems in two areas: i the units from

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 7

FIGURE 6. Material available in preperceptual storage.

which a language is built; and 2 the syntax that binds these units together. Let us deal first with units.

Units. In their Nature of Maps, Robinson and Petchenik state firmly: "there is no analogue in mapping ... [for the words] of discursive language. "21 What they appear to mean by this is two-fold. First, clearly, maps have 'no strictly compa­rable visual units that are carriers of fixed meanings' (italics added). "22 A map symbol - a black dot - can mean 5,000 hectares of cotton on one map and 10,000 people on another. It is true, we well know, that cartographic semantics are far from standardized. But, indeed, in topographic mapping the surprise is that these units of the cartographic language are as nearly universal as they are. The written language symbol a means different things in English and French; that a black dot has different meanings from map to map does not invalidate the whole concept of maps as natural language, particularly when meaning is given in the map title or legend. In any natural language, meaning is often taken from context - the sounds of chair, share, sure, shore - all in one language - must often be given meaning from context, especially if spoken in dialect or in an informal register. Recall that in Massaro's reading model, the secondary recognition process, a process of assigning meanings to groups of letters, depends upon both perceptual and contextual clues.

But Robinson and Petchenik appear to hold that maps have nothing strictly comparable to natural language words, the fixed meaning problem aside. Maps, they maintain, belong more to a class of symbolism called presentational - a class that includes photographs and drawings - and in this symbolic system there are no words. The image here is continuons and thus, "it is impossible to isolate the smallest independent symbol, and recognize its identity when it is encountered in some other contexts".23 One of the fundamental characteristics of maps that make them 'unique', Robinson stresses, is that one views them 'all at once'.24 Yet the evidence is impressive that foveal vision allows us to 'see' but a small part of a

8 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 7. Components of natural language.

visual display at any one time, and that the eye constructs another every 250 milliseconds. Obviously, then, we do read a map in units (whatever they may be) and piece them together sequentially.

The isolation of these units is in part simple, but is fraught with difficulties when pursued in detail. Certain cartographic symbols are obvious unities and can be subjected to extensive semantic analysis.25 But are these symbols words?... or parts of an alphabet?... orphrases?J.S. Keates notes the problem in his Understanding Maps:

Words are made up of combinations of letters, drawn from a fixed alphabet. But a brown line representing the concept 'contour' is not made up from a selection of standardized characters. It has characteristics, and can be precisely defined through the graphic variables of form, dimension, and colour. In this sense, a cartographic 'alphabet' would have to encompass all the possible graphic variations and their combinations.26

To analyze the matter in more precise terms, we can consider the spoken form of a natural language. Here (see Figure 7) there are syntagmes constructed from words, constructed from morphemes (the smallest units of language sound that carry meaning), constructed Iromphonemes, (small units of language sound, not carrying meaning) which can be differentiated one from another on the basis of distinctive features (for example, Figure 8).27 In cartography we have 'symbols' (that carry meaning) constructed from combinations of visual variables (what Keates, above, called 'graphic' variables - shape, size, hue, value, orientation,

T H E MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 9

FIGURE 8. Portion of a table of distinctive features of the English phonemes (after Massaro).

etc.). If map 'symbols' are the smallest unit that carry meaning and are con­structed from visual variables (defining characteristics) them map 'symbols' are equivalent to morphemes, and visual variables to distinctive features; but there is no equivalent to phonemes or graphemes (letters of the alphabet) that are building blocks for morphemes, but with no meaning. The equivalent of words is the combination of meaningful symbols into geographic features - i.e., a crossroads village, or a hill.

There is no reason, however, why this omission of one level of articulation should invalidate the language analogy: written Chinese also lacks this level (Figure 9). The lacuna merely requires that a reader recognize and understand a greater number of individual symbols. There are more than 50,000 in Chinese, and at least one French linguist argues that this 'codage longue' is a more efficient communication mode than our current alphabetic one using only 16 or 27 characters.28

A casual inspection of a map face seldom reveals neat sets of spatially grouped morphemes, forming 'words' that are set clearly apart from other words. In-

FIGURE 9. Articulation in cartography and Chinese.

10 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 10.

stead, map symbols are spread over the map in an order dictated largely by the geographic location of the items they represent. How can the reader find 'words' when the visual display is so unclear? Consider the text in Figure 10. To read it you will first reorient the page; you have brought some experience to the task. Next, despite the elimination of spaces between words, and non-standard word breaks, you are able (with some effort) to identify the words. The essential point is that cognition is not purely data driven. Ulric Neisser's perceptual cycle involves an iterative use of stimulus, exploration, schema and stimulus again. What we look for is at least as important as what is there. The failure of cartographic researchers to recognize the map equivalent of the words of other natural languages may well be attributed to our looking too closely at the map face and ignoring the reader.

Syntax. While we direct our attention to the map itself we will continue to agree with Robinson and Petchenik's statement that "there is essentially no counter­part in mapping to the syntax of discursive language".29 As with words, they maintain, "there is no syntax that is retained from one presentation to another".30 But this is true even with natural languages such as English, and the concept of the example they give of 'car hits man' can be restated in another arrangement such as 'man is hit by car'.31 At the surface level, the arrangement of the sentence is different, but at a deeper level — a concept level, or meaning level -the three basic elements of vehicle, impact and person are the same. The manner in which different natural languages and different speakers express this concept at a surface level will vary, but the concepts and the relationships do not. Similarly, a vast number of map forms may unfold their meaning with the use of a much smaller number of deep structures, concept-level syntaxes, or schemata. To discover these we must turn away from the map itself and examine instead the user and his expectations.

MAP USE TYPES

The large numbers of map types, combined with the many manners of use of each, provide a formidable set of combinations. When the attention is shifted away from the substance or surface level of the map, however, to the deeper or concept level - a level where, we argue, the intention of the reader is as important as that of the cartographer - there appears to be more hope for the identification

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 11

A CHECKLIST OF MAP READING TASKS (after Board, 1975)

Navigation Search Identify and locate own

position on map Orient map Search-out optimum

route on map

Search for landmarks en route

Recognize landmarks en route

Search for destination Identify destination Verify

Measurement Search

Identify Count Compare Contrast Estimate Interpolate

Measure

Visualization Search Identify Describe Compare

Contrast

Discriminate Delimit Verify

Generalize

Prefer

Like

FIGURE II. Map reading tasks (after Board, 1975).

SINGLE BASIC MAP READING TASKS (after Morrison, 1977)

Detection, Discrimination and Recognition Tasks

search locate identify delimit verify

Estimation Tasks

count compare or contrast measurement

a) direct estimation b) indirect estimation

FIGURE 12. Map reading tasks (after Morrison, 1977).

FIGURE 13 . Essential distinctions in map use type.

12 C GRANT HEAD

Landscape Interpretation for ,. . Navigation

Visualization Place and Space FIGURE 14. The three basic map use types.

of a smaller set of significant classes. This process of classification of types of map use has advanced considerably within the last decade. The works of Christopher Board and Joel Morrison (Figures 11 and 12) have been most helpful in defining basic use types, and papers by Castner, Bertin, Bonin, Olson, and Petchenik (Figure 13) have made essential distinctions.32 Recently, Understanding Maps by J.S. Keates has provided illustrations which fit the pattern.33 Building upon these works, map use may be divided for our purposes into 'measurement' and 'visualization'. Measurement is assisted by visualization, but what makes it different is the user's concentration at any one time on very few and specific items on the map face, and his use of aids to processing that are outside the mind - measuring scales, pencil and paper, and calculators, for example - and not by natural language methods. The map use types that rely upon natural language methods may be considered as a landscape visualization, b navigation, and c interpretation for place and space (Figure 14).

Landscape Visualization The process of map reading for landscape visualization has been presented above. The basic language skill essential to this process is the ability to chunk and to assign meaning to these chunks. Design of the substance of the map - the marks on paper - may hinder or facilitate communication, as does the mis-orientation and the non-standard word-breaking of Figure 10, above, but more important will be the number, strength, and relevance of the map reader's sche­mata. The user with a developed lexicon of geographic items - 'drumlins, kames and outwash plains' - will be better equipped to move quickly and effortlessly through the successive stages of the visualization process. Older methods of geographic teaching strengthened this lexicon and inculcated these skills, but such approaches have languished for at least a generation.34

In the consideration of landscape visualization, however, lies one of the prime objections to map language. Robinson and Petchenik maintain that 'syntax' refers to the "temporal relations of words as they are spoken (or linear as they are written), where the sequence of emission and apprehension is prescribed and fixed". "On maps", they continue, "there exists no such temporal order, and an analogy with spatial arrangement has no meaning, since this is uniquely pre­scribed by the area mapped".35 Keates echoes this: "In a map, arrangement is controlled by the facts of geographical location".36 The statements are indeed true, but in terms of surface structure only. The schemata or syntaxes that the map reader has available to make sense of these map marks may have a quite different arrangement, and will remain relatively fixed from map to map, despite the changing 'facts of geographical location' (Figure 15).

Aslanikashvili, as interpreted by Ratajski, appears to accept this geographical control of the surface level, yet continues to develop the notion of cartography as

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 13

FIGURE 15. Changing representations, but stable schema,

a language.37 The problem - if there is one - lies at the higher order stage, at what, if it were in written text would be called on the surface level a 'sentence', or at concept level a 'proposition': does the real landscape have 'something to say', can it be thought of as presenting a 'proposition', or is it merely an unorganized collection of individual landscape parts? Even if we truncate our chunking process just below the level of proposition, leaving merely phrases, words, morphemes and distinctive features, we can compare the topographic map with a phrase book, directory or dictionary - all of which use language elements, if not to the extent of being called literature.

Navigation Map reading for navigation incorporates Landscape Visualization processes but goes beyond them to require constant comparison of map-derived landscape visualizations with similarly-simplified visualizations derived from the environ­ment through which the navigator is passing. The navigator's map-derived visualizations differ from those of Landscape Visualization mainly in their content. The experienced navigational map user will create chunks for this purpose that contain only those elements distinctly relevant to the task, elements such as current location of vehicle, the proposed route, future location indicators along that route, and destination (Figure 16). This whole set, of course, cannot occupy more than 7 ± 2 item spaces in STM, and due to two further needs it must be even smaller. In the first place, map reading for navigation requires that the map-derived visualization be compared with an environment-derived visualiza­tion, the creation and storage of which also takes place within working memory and requires space. Secondly, the discontinuous nature of map viewing during navigation (as, for example, the use of a road map by the driver of an auto­mobile), demands that the map-derived operational chunk include a locator or

14 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 16. Map-derived visualization.

reference symbol that allows the reader to quickly find the same map location on successive glances, and that will allow the integration of one chunk to another as the vehicle's map location evolves. It can thus be readily understood that navigation, particularly in a quickly-moving vehicle, can be highly demanding on human information processing systems. Well-designed maps should be able to reduce considerably the loading on STM.

Interpretation for Place and Space The terms 'place' and 'space' as we use them here are drawn from an important paper by Barbara Petchenik.38 Recognizing the vagueness of the criteria for the differentiation of maps into the two common classes of 'reference' and 'thema­tic', she proposes that a shift in emphasis from the map itself to the map percipient is more illuminating. 'Reference' maps can then be seen as those that have been designed for (or, merely, used by) the map reader who seeks to learn about the characteristics of simple items located at particular earth locations : this type of map use she labels as concern with 'being in place'. An example would be the use of a map to locate Waterloo, Ontario, and then to interpret through the use of a legend, its approximate population. The map is being employed as would a dictionary or directory and the basic design characteristics must be Iocatability and legibility of individual items. Contrasted to this is the concern with what she calls 'knowing about space', with identifying spatial forms or patterns, to search a map face for the full set of map symbols that denote, for example, particular chemical industries, and to create mentally a petro-chemical manufacturing district or region.

In France, Jacques Bertin has been championing for some time the concept of the map as a double-entry table; his associate Serges Bonin presented some differentiations in map use in his Initiation à la Graphique in 1976 and Bertin pressed the matter forth strongly in his 'la test du base de la graphique' in 1979.39

Benin's notions are remarkably similar to those of Petchenik. Maps may be read

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 15

FIGURE 17. The x, y and z dimensions.

at le niveau élémentaire or le niveau d'ensemble. The map, like the double-entry table, can be thought of as containing x, y and z components. The x, y compo­nents identify location on a plane: the placement of a symbol on a map allows determination of geographic location ('where'). The semantic interpretation of the symbol is the z component, the identification of the nature - qualitative or quantitative - of the thing represented by the map symbol (therefore 'what'). Figure 17 is intended to clarify these concepts.

These essential 'what' and 'where' components of the map user's questioning of the map can be combined in at least two basic manners : a search in the 'being in place' tradition or in the 'knowing about space' tradition.40 In Bertin's paradigm, the first combination yields a question like:

At a particular location, what is found?

This is map reading at le niveau élémentaire - an elementary level, searching for individual items (or 'elements'). Bonin speaks of maps designed for this function as cartes à lire. This is Olson's map reading at 'level one'.41 On the other hand the 'knowing about space' tradition would yield a question like:

What are the locations in space of some particular items, and taken together, what spatial patterns do they form ?

This is Bertin's niveau d'ensemble, and Olson's 'level two', where the map user mentally must group map symbols to create from them some form. In other words, 'what is the form of distribution of a particulat item?' Maps which facilitate such operations are called cartes à voir, maps to see. they involve an operation beyond merely attaching meaning to individual symbols; they require the mental construction of new forms, thus again the process of 'visualization'.

For the experienced, efficient and successful map user, these questions can be thought of as acting as 'schemata' for map search, deep level structures or syntax

l6 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 18. Propositions and long-term memory.

for map reading. In basic terms they become, for le niveau élémentaire, what is WHERE, WHERE being understood as 'where on earth', the geographical position of the individual item.42 At le niveau d'ensemble, the map reader's question is WHAT is WHERE ? WHAT (now rendered in capital letters) being understood as the new form that is constructed by chunking a series of individual what items. The local spatial relationships of the series of individual items, one to another, become components in the process of mentally creating this new spatial pattern, this 'intellectual construct of space';43 thus WHAT, the new form, is composed of what-where components.

These levels of map reading, upon which such a significant consensus appears to have been reached, at least in part, independently and so recently by a number of researchers, appear, however, to have been recognized largely intuitively. Comfortingly, they do fit nicely with basic traditions in geography. It would be most suggestive if they correspond at all to the basic structures or syntax of other natural languages or with information storage in human long-term memory. Superficially, at least, it seems they do.

CARTOGRAPHY AND THE GENERAL MODELS OF NATURAL LANGUAGE AND HUMAN MEMORY

Stripped to its essential core, human communication can be thought of as attempts to convey 'assertions about the world'. At the concept level of language, each of these assertions can be referred to as 'propositions', 'structural bundles of associations between elementary ideas or concepts'.44 At a surface level, the proposition may be expressed by a sentence. The familiar constituent analysis or phrase structure grammar decomposes the sentence into noun phrase and verb phrase, the verb phrase in turn divided into verb and object acted upon, a noun phrase. These linkages are syntax at a surface level. For deep structure, however,

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 17

the components are semantic concepts like 'agent doing the action', or 'instru­ment with which the action was performed', but there is no single set of components agreed upon by all researchers.45

Though there continues to be disagreement upon details, many information-processing researchers maintain that data are held in long-term memory in tree-like structures that bear considerable similarities to the structures of the concept-level propositions. It seems logical that thought and storage structures would have similar configurations: that the proposition reveals the pattern for entry to LTM, storage within LTM, and retrieval from LTM (Figure 18). Anderson and Bower's Human Associative Memory (HAM) model is, in just this way, built around the proposition.46 The components of their proposition are, in part, subject and predicate - topic (subject) and some comment about it (predicate). The predicate can be further subdivided in some instances into relation and object.

The subject and predicate provide the proposition's/art component, but particu­larly important for us is a further set of distinctions within the proposition, those of context, context of time and of location (Figure 19).47

The schemata that experienced map users employ in the process of interpreting maps for information about 'place and space' match well this propositional model. The simplest map statement at le niveau élémentaire what is WHERE fits the basic propositional components of 'fact-context' (Figure 20): 'an item' exists 'in a particular geographic location'. For example, Wilfrid Laurier Uni­versity exists at 43°28 N, 80°31°W. A map statement at le niveau d'ensemble again fits the simple tree structure if we think of the 'fact' component, the WHAT, the 'something' that exists, as being the spatial aggregate of the indi­vidual locations of particular mapped items, this 'something that exists' again placed within a WHERE 'context'. The 'fact' component, in this case, is a concept that can be further deconstituted into 'some-things' - individual items -that do not merely exist, but rather relate to each other spatially in a particular recognizable fashion; they form some pattern. For example, on a dot map of barley production an individual dot might signify the concept that 1000 bushels of barley exists in a location, say 5.3 km southwest of Someplace, Ontario. A similar concept could be gained from each of the other individual dots. Together, however, these dots (in locations relative to each other - where1 where2... etc.) will form clusters, of a particular shape to which we can put a name - for example, circular, elongate, large or small. This concept of, say, a small, elon­gated cluster becomes the fact (WHAT) ; this is related by the experienced map reader to earth space, in propositional terms the locational component of context (WHERE). Note that the fact (indeed, the subject) in this proposition is this

18 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURES 19,20. Basic and derived propositions.

particularly-shaped cluster rather than so many bushels of barley, which was the meaning of each individual dot.

If we move now from concept (deep) levels into surface levels, we find that the concepts can be expressed cartographically in a variety of ways, and that some concept-level constituents translate fairly regularly into particular cartographi-cally-recognized groups of map-marks, others do not. 'Fact' is usually repre­sented at surface-level by the map symbolism dealing with subject-matter (some­times called 'substantive material') - proportional point symbols, dots, flow lines, area symbols, etc. - but may also be found in the map title. Propositional 'context' information about geographic location is found in the base data, and also sometimes in a latitude/longitude grid and/or title while information about time is found in title or in marginal notes. Figure 21 illustrates a variety of surface level presentations of the basic proposition that can be expressed in English by the sentence 'Ontario's firewood production in 1871 was concentrated in the counties in the extreme southwest between Lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie, in the extreme east, particularly the counties along the St. Lawrence River, and in three smaller isolated patches - one just north of Belleville, one on the Lake Erie shore in the Niagara Peninsula and a third between Toronto and Lake Huron.' Note that maps made from absolute and from production per population statis-

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 19

tics might not speak equally well or honestly to the proposition - the proposition defines what is to be said, and the mapping to be used must transmit this 'cartographer conception of reality'.

C O N C L U S I O N S : P R A C T I C A L I M P L I C A T I O N S

The potentials for the development and refinement of this hypothesis of car­tography as a natural language are considerable, but the more immediate goals of this symposium and this commission are to seek manners in which theory might assist practical cartography. The concept of cartography as natural language can make contributions both in the production of this language - what we might call map design - and in the advancement of the ability of readers to understand the language - what we variously call map reading, analysis, and interpretation.

Recognition of cartography as a language, with a prime function of com­munication, should focus our attention upon the message, or series of concepts, to be communicated. With all their time and cost, our published maps should be less like rambling cocktail-party conversations than sharply focused telegrams. As their content expands, they may become more like essays or dictionaries, but still functionally-defined and clearly-structured. Three practical lessons emerge.

First, the cartographic designer must actively seek the message and define the map's functional type. It may be at le niveau élémentaire or le niveau d'ensem­ble. If at the former level, his attention will be directed to the clarity of design of individual symbols, to the systematic logical relationships within the symbol set,48 and to the efficiency of locational finding aids.49 If at the latter level, attention should be directed to message definition at a deep or concept level and then to the clear expression and structural relationships of the map components at a surface level.50

Of essential importance is the cartographer's struggle to establish clearly the message - the gaining of his 'conception of reality' to use the more familiar terminology of current stage models of cartographic communication. Often he will be forced to seek this from a map 'author' who may be a geographer, historian or economist who may speak a variety of languages, but not be fluent in cartography. He must grasp from the author's explanation a conception of reality and must then refine it for translation into the cartographic language; this will probably require much exploratory dialogue as the cartographer builds facts, then conceptual hypotheses, then checks his hypotheses, then seeks furth­er facts. We should recognize this as Neisser's cognitive cycle, and the creation and refinement of schemata.

It is important to recognize, too, that this dialogue may also be carried on with a series of maps, perhaps roughly done, perhaps designed largely for reading at le niveau élémentaire, perhaps made by computer or as an initial plotting in space of only partially analyzed data, for the private use of the cartographer for this purpose. Such private maps should be an essential stage in the recognition and definition of map messages, but too often are used, prettily-dressed, as final published works.

A second practical lesson relates to the teaching of writing skills. If we compare the quality and quantity of exposure of the very young to cartography

20 C GRANT HEAD

in the counties in the extreme Southwest between Lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie, in the extreme east, particularly the counties along the St. Lawrence River, and in three small isolated patches — one just north of Belleville, one on the Lake Erie shore in the Niagara Peninsula and a third between Toronto and Lake Huron.

FIGURE 21. One proposition expressed in three different cartographic presentations.

T H E MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 2 1

C GRANT H E A D

and to mother-tongue natural languages, the difference is clear. Traced through the first decade of life, even within the formal school system, the contrast is striking. Never would we expect to teach cartography as a mother tongue, but perhaps a small introduction of cartographic syntax and chunking notions at an early stage would have large benefits later. Currently, we are faced with the problem of teaching to a group who are at a developmental stage considerably later than optimal for the acquisition of language skills. To assist us, we may seek parallels in methods of teaching English as a second or foreign language, or of developing language in communication-delayed children.

Texts for courses in English as a second or foreign language often begin with sections on the basic syntax of the language, with perhaps some consideration of its lexicon, then move on to the more sophisticated constructions and functions such as conjunctions, conjoined sentences, relative clauses, and the variety of methods for creating focus and emphasis. Though designed for students who need to expand their skills with their native tongue, the text Handbook of Current English51 has a structure that needs little imagination to be applied to cartography. An Introduction deals with the problem of varieties of English usage,and the search for 'good' language. The first major part treats the conven­tions of the language, consisting of the grammar of sentences, aspects of the sentence parts and punctuation. The second part, on the writing process itself stresses, as a 'prewriting' stage, 'discovering what you have to say', 'what writing will let you do', 'organizing your material' and 'writing the first draft'; it then continues with treatments of paragraph and sentence writing that contain such suggestive sections as 'removing deadwood', subordination to control and clar­ify meaning', and 'kinds of meaning: denotation and connotation'. A final major section gives practical writing solutions for a few specific writing tasks, such as research papers, correspondence and examination.

Since cartography is a language sufficiently different from written English, we can benefit also from work that speaks to improved oral communication. One example of the genre is Emerging Language 3 12 which provides a programme for the use of communication pathologists working with children aged two to ten who are 'unable to identify the regularities in the language stimuli',53 and have thus failed to acquire language normally. The method begins with the clinician providing, through example, correct models of the particular language elements (nouns, verbs, simple declarative agent-action sets, etc.), and stimulating the child to emulate these, expands these cautiously at appropriate times using the child's responses as starting points, and finally moves into the provision by the clinician of alternate forms for the constructions used by the child. Throughout, care is taken to expand incrementally the child's vocabulary. The method does not overtly identify the logic of language, but works through the provision of correct models, reinforced through constant use. In cartography, the same procedures could be used to advance the acquisition and use of the map language components and of their various structural combinations through the student's sequential experimentation with various portions of base data (providing 'con­text-location', substantive material (providing spatial concepts like ribboning,

T H E MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 2 3

and circular density decays - 'fact-predicate') and titles and legends (providing 'subject' and other semantic relationships).

A third practical lesson is that we must also give more attention than we have lately to the teaching of map reading skills. Experience in informed map produc­tion, of course, should increase skill in map reading. Since the understanding of map language is a cognitive process, the more the reader brings to the map, the more he is likely able to take from it. But with other natural languages, the student will be forced to hear or see more of the language than he utters or writes, and so we should be creating a cartographic learning environment with much map use, and including maps with a variety and complexity somewhat beyond the user's level of production.54 When the native anglophone understands the dialect of the isolated francophone fisherman, makes sense of the ramblings of casual conversation, comprehends meaning when half the sounds are smothered in noise, or identifies properly the concepts conveyed by English directly translated word-by-word from German, he can feel some pride in his level of language skill. So, too, the lessons can be applied to cartography. The map reader's skill builds: as his lexicon is expanded (as he is introduced, for example, to the basic forms of karst topography, or of dryland morphology, or of tropical forest typologies and environmental relationships, to add to his earlier-gained abilities to recognize moistland river valleys, or drumlins, or eskers); as he is taught to analyze the map for more complex syntactical structures (as the reader of this sentence is forced to recognize the significance of the colon and semi­colon and parentheses in signalling sequential and subsidiary concepts); as he learns to cope with casual or less-correct presentations by applying hypotheses of meaning to the scramble of words, often rejecting many but sometimes adding. Our current cartographic world offers examples a-plenty of heavily-loaded or thoughtlessly-structured maps to challenge advanced students of the language, but we must devise our own repertoires if we are to introduce a graded learning experience as Shinichi Suzuki has done so successfully in music.

The above three conclusions are suggestions for the 'clinical' application of the hypothesis that cartography is a natural language. Clinical (or 'practical') guide­lines, however, should be supported by more than hypothesis, and research cartogaphers have much to do to test, clarify and detail the proposal, to show that it is indeed the 'whole theory or set of principles, greater than the sum of the component parts' that can improve the efficiency of cartographic communica­tion. A full inventory of how current research endeavours relate to our model of cartography as natural language must come later, but Figure 22 sketches the processing model and attaches to it the broad structures and processes in carto­graphic terms.

Borrowing largely from perceptual psychologists, cartographers have written on the visual receptor system.55 Most of our extensive work in cartographic psychophysics continues to focus on the very early part of the system, such studies as those of circle-size dealing largely with human physiological rather than the broader psychological reactions.56 Another area where there has been some concentration of attention is the identification of the logic of elementary

24 C GRANT HEAD

FIGURE 22. Human processing of maps.

T H E MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 25

cartographic signs - the combinations of visual variables into the basic cartog­raphic symbols.57 Beyond this, however, cartographic researchers have given only limited attention to the system. 18

It is clear that we have tended to concentrate our attention unevenly, but it is even more significant to reflect on how sparse is our work when compared to the scores, even hundreds of studies of each aspect in other natural language fields. This, however, should be exciting. We have in front of us many investigations that demand merely minor modifications for replication. And yet there is enough controversy as the work in linguistics and human information processing advances, that we need not merely be blindly led. Cartography as natural language should provide the model to focus our attention, to suggest methodolo­gies, and to link our scattered studies.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This work has been supported by a short-term research grant from Wilfrid Laurier University and attendance at the Second International Symposium on Cartographic Communication for critical discussion with colleagues was sup­ported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Without this assistance, the work could not have been accomplished, and I am deeply grateful. While I take issue with certain of their positions on language, I would like to acknowledge that it was Arthur Robinson who planted the language idea during my graduate studies nearly two decades ago, and Barbara Bartz Petchenik who did pioneer work on figure-ground, perhaps another name for 'chunking'.

NOTES

1 B.B. Petchenik, Cognition in cartography. Proc. Int'l. symp. on Computer-assisted Cart., 1975, 183–193 ; citation from 117 of reprint in L. Guelke, Nature of cartographic communication. 2 One of the most significant treatments of this theory as applied to cartography is that of Rudi Knöpfli, 'Communication theory and generalization' 177–218 in D.R.F. Taylor, Graphic com­munication as it stresses the noisiness of the channel, which includes the reader's mind, and emphasizes the role of redundancy. Redundancy is an important characteristic of natural language. 3 Particularly strict is the definition of Georges Mounin, Clefs pour la Linguistique, that specifically excludes cartography. 4 A partial inventory of papers that use at least some language concepts would include: M. Dacey, 'Linguistic aspects of maps and geographic information' Ontario Geogr. 5, 1970, 71–80; L. Ratajski, 'Methodical basis of standardization of signs on economic maps; Int'l Yearbook Cart., XI, 1971, 137–159; C. Board, 'Cartographic communication and standardization', Int'l. Yearbook Cart., XIII, 1973, 229-238; E. Arnberger, 'Problems of an international standardization of a means of com­munication through cartographic symbols', Int'l Yearbook Cart., XIV, 1974, 19–35; J- Morrison, 'A theoretical framework for cartographic generalization with emphasis on the process of symboliza-tion', Int'l. Yearbook Cart., XIV, 1974, 115–127; L. Ratajski,'Some aspects of the grammar of map language in terms of cartographic communication', paper presented to First Int'l. Symp. on Cart. Comm., London, 1975; W. Ostrowski, 'The map as a semiotic tool and its efficiency', The Polish Cartography, 1977, 33–42; J. Morrison, 'The implications of the ideas of two psychologists to the work of the ICA Commission on Cartographic Communication', Int'l. Yearbook Cart., XVIII, 1978, 58-64; J. Pravda, 'Map language: a logical graphic system', paper presented to Ninth International

26 C GRANT HEAD

Cartographic Conference, College Park, Maryland, 1978; H. Schlichtmann, 'Codes in map com­munication' Can. Cart., 1979, 81-97; and R. Gerber, 'Competence and performance in cartographic language' Cart. Jour. 18, 1981, 104–III. 5 D.W. Massaro, Understanding language and 'Reading and listening', 331–354 in Kolers, et al. Processing of visible language, 1. 6 The three-stage memory model is used in, for example, R. Klatzky, Human memory, structure and processes, P. Lindsay and D. Norman, Human information processing; D. Massaro, Understanding language; and P. Chauchard, Connaissance et maîtrise de la mémoire. 7 Largely because a new eye fixation is created every 250 milliseconds. Massaro, Understanding language, 237. 8 The 'working memory' concept is used, for example, by A.D. Baddeley in Kolers, Processing of visible language, 1, 335–370, 'Working memory and reading', and is more completely treated by Baddeley and Hitch, 'Working memory', in G.A. Bower, Psychology of learning and motivation VIII. 9 The workbench function is well presented in R. Klatzky, Human memory, structures and processes. 10 G.A. Miller, 'The magical number seven ...', Psychological Review, LXIII, 1956, 81–97. 11 Massaro, Understanding language. See also P.H. Lindsay and D.A. Norman, Human informa­tion processing. 12 Massaro, Understanding language, 296-298. 13 Some of the information from the stimulus may be lost then, but some information may also be gained in this interaction, as the percept may be greater than its parts. 14 Again, we follow Massaro. 15 Klatzky, Human memory and A. Moles, article on 'Supersigne' in La communication, 538-539. 16 U. Neisser, Cognition and reality. 17 Ibid., 48. 18 We use the term here in its most general sense. Recent attempts to make it more specific are noted by C. Board, 'Cartographic communication', 57–59, in L. Guelke, Maps in modern geography, 1981. 19 Though there are suggestions about the sequence of map reading that direct one to title, then legend, then the map face, etc. Particularly interesting is the section in R. Cuinan, Cartographie générale, 1, 152–153. 20 See M. Dobson, 'Visual information processing during cartographic communication' Cart. Jour., 16, 1979, 14–20, for an excellent summary of the largely physiological processes. The parallels with natural language processing suggested here, however, are my own. 21 A.H. Robinson and B.B. Petchenik, The Nature of Maps, 55. 22 Ibid., 56. 23 Ibid., 51. 24 A.H. Robinson, 'The uniqueness of the map' Amer. Cart., 5, 1978, 5–7. 25 See, for example, K-H. Meine, 'Kartographische Kommunikationsletten und Kartographische Alphabet: ein Beitrag zu Theorie der Kartographie', Mittlgn. de Oster. Geogr. Ges., III, 1974, 390–418; H. Schlichtmann, 'Codes in map communication', Can. Cart., 16, 1979, 81–97; L. Ratajski, 'The methodical basis for the standardization of signs on economic maps', Int'l. Yearbook Cart., XI, 1971, 137–159; J. Pravda, 'Map language: a logical graphic system', paper presented to the 9th International Cartographic Conference, 1978; and J. Morrison, 'A theoretical framework for cartographic, generalization', Int'l Yearbook Cart., XIV, 1974, 115–127. 26 Keates, J.S. Understanding maps, 109. 27 Basic structural linguistics can be pursued in many texts, but I have tended to use M. Berry, An introduction to systematic linguistics; H. Brekle, Sémantique (transl, from the German original); G. Hammarström, Linguistic units and items ; B. Malmberg, Structural linguistics and human communi­cation; G. Sampson, The form of language. 28 F. Richaudau. La Lisibilité 67-88. 29 A.H. Robinson and B.B. Petchenik. The Nature of maps, 56. 30 Ibid., 52. 31 Ibid., 56.

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 27

32 C. Board, 'Map reading tasks appropriate in experimental studies in cartographic communica­tion'. Paper presented to First Int'lSymp. on Cart. Comm., London, 1975 ; J - Morrison, 'Towardsa functional definition of the science of cartography with emphasis on map reading' in I. Kretschmer, Beitrage zur Theoretischen Kartographie, 247–66, espec. 259–63; reprinted in Amer. Cart. 5, 1978, 97–110;H. Castner, 'Special purpose mapping in 18th century Russia ...', paper presented to Eighth International Cartographic Conference, Moscow, 1976, printed in Amer. Carto., 7, 1980, 163–175; J. Bertin, 'Le test de base de la graphique', Bull. Comm. Franç. Cart., 1979, 3–18; S. Bonin, Initiation à la Graphique, 1975; J. Olson, 'A co-ordinated approach to map communication improvement', Amer. Cart., 3, 1976, 151–159;B.B. Petchenik, 'From place to space: the psycholo­gical achievement of thematic mapping', Amer. Cart., 6, 1979, 5–12. 33 J.S. Keates. Understanding maps, 'Introduction'. 34 See. P. Muerhcke, 'Maps in geography' 1–41 in L. Guelke, Maps in modern geography, Carto-graphica Monograph 27, 1981. 35 A.H. Robinson and B.B. Petchenik. The Nature of maps, 52. 36 J.S. Keates. Understanding maps, 109. 37 A.F. Aslanikashvali, Cartography, problems of general theory, 1968, in L. Ratajski, 'Some aspects of the grammar of map language in terms of cartographic communication', Paper presented to First Int. Sym. on Cart. Comm., London, 1975, 10. 38 B.B. Petchenik. 'From place to space ...'. 39 J. Bertin, 'La test du base de la graphique', Bull. Comm. Franc. Cart-, 1979, 3–18. 40 Are these the 'areal differentiation' and 'spatial patterns' traditions of geography? 41 J. Olson, 'A co-ordinated approach to map communication improvement' Amer. Cart., 3, 1976, 151-159. 42 See the argument for this presented by L. Guelke, 'Cartographic communication and geographic understanding', Can. Cart. 13:2, 1976, 107–122. 43 B.B. Petchenik, 'From Place to space ...' 5. 44 Propositional representations for knowledge became a particularly popular concept in the 1970s and are widely used in still-current textbooks, e.g., R. Klatzky, Human memory, structures and processes; P. Lindsay and D. Norman, Human information processing; and E. Tulving, Organiza­tion of memory. The basic references used in this paper are J. Anderson and G. Bower, Human associative memory (citations from p. 3) and J. Anderson, Language, memory and thought (particu­larly his introductory section). 45 J.R. Anderson and G.H. Bower, Human associative memory, chapter 5 'Current developments in linguistics' 101–133. 46 Ibid., 159-164. 48 As in L. Ratajski, 'Methodical basis of standardization of signs on economic maps'. Int'l. Yearbook Cart., XI, 1971, 137–159 (and we emphasize the methodical basis rather than the standar­dization). 49 As in B.S. Bartz, 'Experimental use of the search task in an analysis of type legibility in cartography', Cart. Jour., 7, 1970, 103–12 and R. Phillips, E. Noyes and R. Audley, 'Searching for names on maps', Cart. Jour., 15, 1978, 72–77. 50 As in B. Dent, 'Visual organization and thematic map communication' Annals, Assoc. Am. Geogr. LXII, 1972, 79–93, or M. Wood, 'Visual perception and map design', Cart. Jour., 5, 1968, 54–64. 51 M. Moore, W. Avis and J. Corder, Handbook of Current English. 52 J. Hatten, T. Goman and C. Lent, Emerging language 3. 53 Ibid., 1. 54 These arguments are now becoming more visible. See, e.g., p. Muehrcke, 'Maps in geography' in L. Guelke, Maps in modern geography, Cartographica Monograph 27, 1981. 55 For example, M. Dobson, 'Visual information processing during cartographic communication' Cart. Jour., 16, 1979, 14–20 and J. Keates, Understanding maps, part one. 56 No attempt will be made to select examples from the hundreds of such psychophysical studies of the past two decades. 57 For example, most of the studies cited in fn. 4. 58 A few of the studies that deal with processes similar to those utilized in the reading of natural language are: M. Wood, 'Human factors in cartographic communiction', Cart. Jour., 9, 1972,

\

28 C GRANT HEAD

123-132; G. Jenks, 'Visual integration in thematic mapping: fact or fiction' Int'l. Yearbook Cart.,XIII, 1973, 27-38; R. Sanders and P. Porter, 'Shape in revealed mental maps', Annals, Assoc. Amer.Geog., LXIV, 1974, 258-267; T. Steinke, 'The optimal thematic map reading procedure ...' Proc. Int'lSymp. on Computer-assisted Cart., 1975, 214-23;J. Shimron, 'Learning positional informationfrom maps', Amer. Cart., 5, 1978, 9~i9;D. Dobson, 'The influence of map information on fixationlocation' Amer. Cart., 6, 1979, 51—65; H. Sandford, 'Directed and free search of the school atlasmap' Cart. Jour., 17, 1980, 83-92; and T. Steinke and R. Lloyd, 'Images of maps: a rotationexperiment'Prof. Geogr., xxxv, 1983, 455-461.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDERSON, J.R. and BOWER, G.H. 1973. Human associative memory. New York.ANDERSON, J.R. 1976. Language, memory and thought. New York.ANON. 1975. Révolution en linguistique, personalité invitée, Avram Noam Chomsky. Lausanne.ARNBERGER, ERIK. 1974 Problems of an international standardization of a means of communication

through cartographie symbols. International Yearbook of Cartography, 14: 19—35.ARNHEIM, RUDOLF. 1970. Visual thinking. London.ASLANIKASHVILI, A.F. 1968. Cartography, problems of general theory. Tbilisi.BACH, EMMON. 1964. An introduction to transformational grammars. New York.BACH, EMMON and HARMS, ROBERT T. (editors). 1968. Universals in linguistics theory. New York.BADDELEY, A.D. and HITCH, G. 1974. Working memory, in BOWER, G.H. (editor). The psychology of

learning and motivation, VIII. New York.BADDELEY, A.D. 1979. Working memory and reading, in KOLERS et al. (editors). Processing of visible

language, I.BALCHIN, W.G.V. and COLEMAN, ALICE M. 1966. Graphicacy should be the fourth ace in the pack. The

Cartographer, vol. 3: 23—28.BALCHIN, W.G.V. 1976. Graphicacy. The American Cartographer, vol. 3: 33-38.BARTZ, BARBARA s. 1970. Experimental use of a search task in an analysis of type legibility in

cartography. The Cartographic Journal, vol. 7: 103-112.BERRY, MARGARET. 1975. An introduction to systemic linguistics. London.BERTIN, JACQUES. 1967. La sémiologie graphique. Paris.

1976. Perception visuelle et transcription cartographique. International Yearbook of Car-tography, 16: 25—42.

I979- La test de base de la graphique. Bulletin du Comité Français de Cartographie, no. 79:3-18.

BOARD, CHRISTOPHER. 1967. Maps as models, chapter 16 of CHORLEY and HAGGETT (editors), Modelsin geography. London.

1973. Cartographic communication and standardization. International yearbook of Car-tography, 13: 229-238.

1975- Map reading tasks appropriate in experimental studies in cartographic communication.Paper presented to First International Symposium on Cartographic Communication. London.

(editor). 1976. Bibliography of works on cartographic communication, provisional edition,International Cartographic Association, Commission 5. London.

I977- The geographer's contribution to evaluating maps as vehicles for communicatinginformation. International Yearbook of Cartography, 17: 47-58.

1978. How can theories of cartographic communication be used to make maps moreeffective? International Yearbook of Cartography, 18: 41—49.

1981. Cartographic communication, in GUELKE, LEONARD, Maps in modern geography,Cartographica Monograph no. 27: 42-78.

BOLLMAN, J. 1977. Problem der Kartographischen Kommunikation. Bonn-Bad Godesberg.BONIN, SERGE. 1975. Initiations à la graphique. Paris.BREKLE, HERBERT. 1974. Sémantique. Paris. Translation and adaption by Pierre Cadiot an Yvon

Girard of original Semantik, Munchen: 1972.BROADBENT, D.E. 1958. Perception and communication. Newyork.

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 29

BUNGE, WILLIAM. 1962. Theoretical cartography. Lund Studies in Geography, Series C, no. I Lund,Sweden.

CASTNER, HENRY. 1978. A model of cartographic communication: practical goal or mental attitude?Paper presented to Annual Meeting, Canadian Cartographic Association, Vancouver.

1980. Special purpose mapping in 18th century Russia: a search for the beginnings of thematicmapping. The American Cartographer, vol. 7: 163-175. First presented to the 8th ICA Interna-tional Cartographic Conference, Moscow 1976.

CERMAK, LAIRD S. and CRAIK, FERGUS I.M. (editors). 1979 Levels of processing in human memory.Hillsdale, N.J.

CHASE, w.G. (editor). 1973. Visual information processing. New York.CHAUCHARD, PAUL, [post 1972]. Connaissance et maîtrise de la mémoire. Comprendre, Savoir, Agir.COURTES, JOSEPH. 1976. Introduction à la sémiotique narrative et discursive. Paris.CUINAN, RENÉ. 1972. Cartographie générale, 2 vols. Paris.DACEY, MICHAEL. 1970. Linguistic aspects of maps and geographic information. Ontario Geography,

vol. 5: 71-80.DANVILLE, FRANÇOIS. 1964. Le langage des géographes. Paris.DELUCIA, ALAN. 1972. The effect of shaded relief on map information accessibility. The Cartographic.

Journal, vol. 9: 14—18.DENT, BORDEN. 1972. Visual organization and thematic map communication. Annals, Association of

American Geographers, 62: 79-93.DOBSON, MICHAEL. 1977. Eye movement parameters and map reading. The American Cartographer,

vol. 4:39-58.1979. Visual information processing during cartographic communication. The Cartographic

Journal, vol. 16: 14-20.1979' The influence of map information on fixation location. The American Cartographer,

vol. 4:39-58.DORNBACH, J.E. 1967. An analysis of the map as an information system display. Unpublished Ph.D.

thesis, Clark University.GERBER, RODNEY. 1981. Competence and performance in cartographic language. The Cartographic

Journal, vol. 18: 104-III .GUELKE, L. 1976. Cartographic communication and geographic understanding. The Canadian

Cartographer, vol. 13: 107—122.(editor). 1977. The nature of cartographic communication. Cartographica Monograph 19.

Toronto.(editor). 1981. Maps in modern geography: geographical perspectives on the new cartography.

Cartographica Monograph 27. Toronto.HABER, RALPH NORMAN and HERSHENSON, MAURICE. 1973. Thepsychology o)visual perception. New

York.HAMMARSTRON, GORAN. 1976. Linguistic units and items. Berlin.HARTSHORNE, RICHARD. 1939. The nature of geography. Association of American Geographers.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania.HATTEN, JOHN, GOMAN, TRACY and LENT, CAROLE. 1981. Emerging language 3. Tucson.HEAD, GRANT c. 1972. Land-water differentiation in black and white cartography. The Canadian

Cartographer, vol. 9: 25—38.1981. Cartographic communication as natural language. Provisional discussion paper.

Wilfrid Laurier University.JENKS, GEORGE. 1973. Visual integration in thematic mapping: fact or fiction. International Year-

book of Cartography, 13:27—38.JOLY, F. 1976. La cartographic Paris.KAVANAGH, JAS. F. and MATTINGLY, IGNATIUS G. (editors). 1972. Language by ear and by eye: the

relationships between speech and reading. Cambridge, Massachusetts.KEATES, J.S. 1982. Understanding maps. London.KLATZKY, ROBERTA L. 1975. Human memory, structures and processes. San Francisco.KNÔPFLI, RUDI. 1983. Communication theory and generalization, in TAYLOR, D.R.F. (editor),

Graphic communication and design in contemporary cartography. New York.

30 C GRANT HEAD

KOLÁČNÝ, A. 1969. Cartographic information: a fundamental term in modern cartography. The Cartographic Journal, vol. 6: 47-49.

KOLERS, PAUL, WROLSTAD, MERALD and BOUMA, HERMAN, (editors). 1979. Processing of visible language, I. New York.

1980. Processing of visible language, II. New York. KOLERS, P.A. and EDEV, M. 1968. Recognizing patterns. Cambridge. KRETSCHMER, I. (editor). 1977. Beitrage zur Theoretischen Kartographie. Vienna. LACHMAN, ROY and JANET L. and BUTTERFIELD, EARL C. 1979. Cognitive psychology and information

processing: an introduction. Hillsdale, N.J. LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1967. Language and its structure. Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich. LAWRENCE, G.R.P. 1971. Cartographic methods. London. LEVELT, W.J.M. and FLORES D'ARCAIS, G.B. (editors). 1978. Studies in theperception of language. New

York. LINDSAY, P .H. and NORMAN, D.A. 1972. Human information processing. New York. LLOYD, ROBERT and YEHL, STEPHEN. 1979. Orderly maps and map communication. The American

Cartographer, vol. 6: 149-56. LONGUET-HIGGINS, H . c , LYONS, J. and BROADBENT, D.E. (organizers). The psychological mechan­

isms of language. The Royal Society and The British Academy. London. MAILMBERG, BERTIL. 1963. Structural linguistics and human communication. Berlin. MARTINET, ANDRE. 1962. A functionalview of language. Oxford. MASSARO, D.W. (editor). 1975. Understanding language. New York.

1979- Reading and listening, in KOLERS et al. Processing of visible language, 1. New York. MEINE, KARL-HEINZ. 1974. Kartographische Kommunikationsletten und Kartographische Alphabet:

ein Beitrag zu Theorie der Kartographie. Milleilungen der Österretchischen Geographischen Gesellschaft in: 390–418. University of Vienna.

1977. Cartographic communication links and a cartographic alphabet, in GUELKE, L., The nature of cartographic communication. Cartographica Monograph 19. Toronto.

MEYNEN, E. 1972. The structural types of thematic maps. Paper presented to ICA Commission II, International Cartographic Association. Montreal.

MILLER, G.A. 1956. The magical number seven ... Psychological Review, vol. 63: 81-97. MILLET, LOUIS and VARIN D'AINVILLE, MADELEINE. 1970. Le structuralisme. Paris. MOLES, ABRAHAM. 1964. Théorie de l'information et message cartographique. Sciences et Enseigne­

ment des Sciences, y. 11–16. 1966. Information theory and esthetic perception. Urbana, 111.

1970- L'Affiche dans la société urbaine. Paris. 1971. La communication. Bibliothèque du Centre d'Etude et de Promotion de la Lecture.

Paris. 1971. Art et ordinateur. Casterman.

MONKHOUSE, F.J. and WILKINSON, H.R. 1952. Maps and diagrams. London. MOORE, MICHAEL, AVIS, w. and CORDER, J. 1983. Handbook of current English. Toronto.

MORRIS, C.W. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago. MORRISON, JOEL. 1974. A theoretical framework for cartographic generalization with emphasis on

the process of symbolization. International Yearbook of Cartography, 14: 115–127. 1976. The science of cartography and its essential processes. International Yearbook of

Cartography, 16: 84–97. 1978. Towards a functional definition of the science of cartography. The American Cartog­

rapher, vol. 5: 97–110. 1978. The implications of the ideas of two psychologists to the work of the ICA Commission

on Cartographic Communication. International Yearbook of Cartography, 18: 58–64. MOUNTIN, GEORGES. 1968. Clefs pour la linguistique. Paris. MUEHRCKE, PHILLIP. 1981. Maps in geography, in GUELKE, L. (editor). Maps in modern geography.

Cartographica monograph 27. Toronto. NEISSER, ULRIC. 1967. Cognitive psychology. New York.

1976. Cognition and reality. San Francisco.

THE MAP AS NATURAL LANGUAGE 31

O L S O N , JUDY M. 197e. A co-ordinated approach to map communicat ion improvement . The Amer­

ican Cartographer, vol. 3 : 151–159.

1979. Cognit ive cartographic experimentat ion. The Canadian Cartographer, vol. 16:34–44.

OSTRO\PSKI , w. 1977. The map as a semiotic tool and its efficiency. The Polish Cartography. Warsaw.

PACIONE, M I C H A E L . 1976. Shape and s t ructure in cognitive maps of Great Britain. Regional Studies,

10: 275–283.

PAIVIO, ALLAN. 1971. Imagery and verbal processes. N e w Y o r k .

P E T C H E N I K , BARBARA BARTZ. 1975. Cogni t ion in car tography. Proceedings, International Sympo­

sium on Computer -Ass i s ted Car tography , 183–193.

1979- F r o m place to space: the psychological achievement of thematic mapping. The

American Cartographer, vol. 6: 5–12.

P H I L L I P S , R., NOYES, E. and AUDLEY, R. 1978. Searching for names on maps. The Cartographic

Journal, 15: 7 2 -7 7 .

PIAGET, JEAN. 1968. Le structuralisme. Q u e sais-je, n o . 1311. Paris.

PIAGET, JEAN and I N H E L D E R , BARBEL. 1947; 3rd. ed. 1977. La réprésentation de l'espace chez l'enfant.

Paris.

PRAVDA, J Á N . 1978. Map language: a logical graphic system. Paper presented to the 9th. ICA

International Cartographic Conference. College Park, Maryland.

P R I T C H A R D , A. 1961. Stabilized images in the retina. Scientific American, 204: 72-78 .

RATAJSKI, L E C H . 1971. Methodical basis of s tandardizat ion of signs on economic maps. International

Yearbook of Cartography, II: 137–159.

1975. Some aspects of the grammar of map language in terms of cartographic communicat ion.

Paper presented to the 1st. International Symposium on Cartographic Co.

R I C H A U D E A U , F R A N Ç O I S . 1969. La lisibilité. Paris.

RIGGS, RATLIFF, and CORNSWEET. 1953. The disappearance of steadily-fixated objects. Journal ofthe

Optical Society of America, 4 3 : 495–501 .

R O B I N S O N , A . H . 1952. The look of maps. Madison.

R O B I N S O N , A . H . and P E T C H E N I K , B .B . 1976. The nature of maps. Chicago.

R O B I N S O N , A . H . , SALE, R. and M O R R I S O N , J . L . 1978. Elements of cartography, 4th. ed. N e w York.

R O B I N S O N , A . H . 1978. The uniqueness of the map . The American Cartographer, vol. 5: 5-7 .

ROSENWEIG, MARK R. Biologie de la mémoire. Paris.

SANDERS, R. and P O R T E R , p. 1974. Shape in revealed mental maps . Annals, Association of American

Geographers, 64: 258–267.

SANDFORD, HERBERT A. 1980. Directed and free search of the school atlas map. The Cartographic

Journal, vol. 17: 83–92.

S C H L I C H T M A N N , H A N S G E O R G . 1979. Codes in map communicat ion . The Canadian Cartographer,

vol. 16: 81–97.

S H I M R O N , J. 1978. Learning posit ional information from maps. The American Cartographer, vol. 5:

9 -19 .

SMITH, FRANK. 1978. Reading. Cambr idge .

SPENCE, K.w. and SPENCE, P . I . (editors). 1968. The psychology of learning and motivation. N e w

York. STEINBERG, D. and J A K O B O I T S , L. (editors). 1971. Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philoso­

phy, linguistics and psychology. Cambr idge .

STEINBUCH, K. 1961. Automat und rnensch. Berlin.

STEINKE, T. 1975. The opt imal thematic map reading procedure . . . . Procedings, International

Symposium on Computer -ass is ted Car tography , 214–223.

STEINKE, T. and LLOYD, R. 1983. Images of maps : a rotat ion experiment. The Professional Geog­

rapher, 3 5 : 4 5 5 - 4 6 1 .

TAYLOR, D . R . F . (editor). 1983. Graphic communication and design in contemporary cartography.

N e w York .

TAYLOR, R . M . 1975. Informat ion theory and map evaluation. International Yearbook of Cartogra­

phy, 15: 165–180.

32 C GRANT HEAD

TOBLER, W.R. 1979. A transformational view of cartography. The American Cartographer, vol. 6: 101–106.

TULVING, E. and DONALDSON, W. (editors). 1972. Organization of memory. New York. ULLMAN, STEPHEN. 1957. Principles of semantics. London. WITT, WERNER. 1976. Modelle und Karten. Kartographische Nachrichten, 26/1: 2–8. WOOD, MICHAEL. 1968. Visual perception and map design. The Cartographic Journal, 5: 54–64.

1972. Human factors in cartographic communication. The Cartographic Journal, 9: 123-

YARBUS, A.L. 1967. Eye movement and vision. New York.