CARTOGRAPHICAL ICONS FROM A CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
St. Angsuesser
Department of Cartography, Technical University Munich
angs@bv.tum.de
Icons are
small-sized and isolated signs. A usual example of icons is represented by
pictograms. Being embedded in maps, icons typically indicate points of interest
or other discrete object classes. Icon-based geocommunication can thus be seen
as a part of cartographic communication. In a more and more globalized world,
geocommunication between different cultures has been intensified. Problems
arising from this new situation are traditionally solved with a lowest common
denominator approach - often a standardized symbol set that has to be learnt by
those involved. Standardization has three main disadvantages: 1. Most standardized
symbol sets so far have been developed in western countries. Therefore, it is
for people with other cultural backgrounds harder to comprehend and learn them.
2. The plurality of existing geo-objects cannot be adequately represented by
standardized symbol sets. 3. Little flexibility is left to accommodate
innovative designs, which causes a declination of the artistic component of
cartography. As proposed by Angsüsser (2006), individualization strategies
should be implemented additionally to solve these problems.
As part of the on-going basic
research in this field at our department a "Database for Cartographical
Icons" (DB4CI) has been established. It contains a permanently growing
number of icons taken especially from printed town plans and leisure maps from
various countries. The regional focus is on Europe (especially Germany) and
East Asia (especially China). In this paper not only the DB4CI, but also an
in-depth analysis of differences between Chinese and German icons is presented.
Using the double tetrahedron model introduced at the International Cartographic
Symposium on Theoretical Cartography in Wuhan (Angsüsser 2006), all
correlates of a sign (producer, meaning, object, sign vehicle, and recipient)
and their relations (designation, representation, signification, as well as
those of the producer and the recipient) are analyzed. Questions like "Is
there a difference on abstraction level?", or "Is there any evidence
that Chinese prefer symmetrical icons more than Germans?" will be addressed
and all findings are illustrated by examples. Although this approach is mainly
an etic one, emic aspects will be included as well. Through the cooperation
with Chinese colleagues we are able to gain some insight into their concepts
about cartographical icons and the associated usage.
Our analysis attempts to enhance the
awareness of differences and possible user (producer and recipient) preferences
in test regions. Our findings would make a valuable contribution to further
works about the implementation of individualization strategies in
cross-cultural geocommunication.