Iconicity within the GUI of Microsoft Office and the online-help of Microsoft Office

Table of  contents  

  online-help  

3.2.2  Iconicity in morphology  12

3.2.3  Iconicity in syntax  13

3.2.4  Iconicity in semantics  16

4  Conclusion  16

1 Introduction

In this paper, I will analyze the appearance of iconicity in the Graphical User Interface (GUI) of Microsoft Office and the online–help for Microsoft Office. Icons are the core element of the concept called GUI, but often the icons themselves are not sufficient to transfer their meaning and function to the user. The language that is used in the online-help supports the understanding of the icons and their different functions used within the GUI. I will show that the iconicity underlying the linguistic information in the online-help is helpful in order to understand the text more easily.

Iconicity is a phenomenon that seems to be omnipresent in language and can be discovered in many fields of our everyday life. One is often not conscious of its existence because it is taken for granted.

Iconicity is of considerable importance within language. As Crystal (1992:179) puts it: "It is a close physical relationship between a linguistic sign and the entity or process in the world to which it refers." As Sebeok (1986:305) explains it: "Iconicity is a relation between a sign and its designatum. It holds if the sign assigns a property to the designatum by virtue of having a similar property itself." Iconicity can be analyzed by combining its graphical use along with its appearance in language.

2 Linguistic background

2.1 Semiotics

Iconicity belongs to the linguistic field of semiotics, which is "the study of signs and their use, focusing on the mechanism and patterns of human communication and on the nature and acquisition of knowledge" (Crystal 1992:384). Language is a communication system based on signs. Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, developed a two-part sign system. For Saussure a sign consists of two parts: the signifier (fr. signifiant) and the signified (fr. signifié). They are inseparable, but at the same time there is no physical correspondence between the sign and the entity to which it refers in reality. This leads to one of the main features in Saussure’s theory: The Arbitrariness of a sign, which is explained in the following section.

2.2 Arbitrariness

"The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary" (Saussure 1959:69). In other words, the connection between signifier and signified is not natural but based on conventions within a language community. The sign "is unmotivated, i.e. arbitrary in that it actually has no natural connection with the signified" (Saussure 1959: 69). This theory is supported by the fact that the same object has

different signifiers in different languages, for example: abor (Latin), tree (English) and Baum (German).

Saussure (1959:131) admits though that a "sign may be relatively motivated". He gives some examples of onomatopoeia, like whip or interjections like ouch (English) or aie (French), which at least resemble reality (Saussure 1959:69). But at no stage in his comments he gives a clear definition of motivation.

2.3 Threefold of signs

The American Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce offers a triadic sign model. This model consists of the representamen, the object and the interpretant. The representamen is the sign vehicle, for example a word or traffic sign. The object is part of the real world that the sign refers to and the interpretant is the sense or the meaning a sign causes in the conciousness of the interpreter. The interaction between the representamen, the object and the interpretant is referred to by Peirce as semiosis (Peirce 1931-53:5.484).

In contrast to Saussure Pierce’s model includes the object of the real world to which the sign refers, whereas Saussure only talks about the concept of the object. Moreover Pierce is not convinced that all signs should be exclusively arbitrary. He pleads for a "threefold of signs according to the relation between the signal carrying the sign and the object" (Mattheus