Common Symbols by Harry Lee

Harry Lee 7411 Words BA (HONS) Graphic Design February 2016

Why are there not more symbols like the ampersand?

Contents Foreword

Introduction

Chapter I: Written Language Spoken Word Written Word From Cuneiform to Greek From Greek to Latin The Future

8 10 12 14 16

Chapter II: The Ampersand The Ligature One Particular Ligature And-Per-Se-And Death of a Rival In Use + vs. & Aesthetic Time and Space

22 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Chapter III: Is The Ampersand Alone? @ ß |

40 42 44

Chapter IV: What if…? Analogue > Digital Readability The Symbols

46 48 50

Conclusion

Bibliography Figures

66 70

As part of this experimental essay, I have designed and produced a set of symbols. To demonstrate their effectiveness, these symbols have been used throughout the text. An original version has also been provided alongside should you prefer. Due to some grammatical editing, the word count may differ between the two texts, so for the purposes of this essay the word count refers to the original version.

Introduction | ampersand is | only symbol used commonly ^ | latin alphabet > replace a whole word. It has established itself into our lives through branding identities & changed | way we write. Visually, & due > its complex history, it is unlike any other character. It has | strange task < being used amongst letters, but not being mistaken for one. I want > explore how it came into being; why there are not more examples < this ^ other words – & if there were – what could they look like? I will first take a diachronic approach > language, particularly its written form. This should help me understand what symbols previously existed, & why they ceased being used. By looking at | future < written language, I can also gauge if new symbols are needed. I will then study | ampersand’s background ^ order > understand | process ‡ created it. > get a wider overview I will also seek out similar symbols ‡ represent a whole word, & briefly look into their existence. Finally, I will look into | considerations required > create a new set < symbols, which I will then use > create experimental symbols for | most commonly used words ^ | English language.

The ampersand is the only symbol used commonly in the latin alphabet to replace a whole word. It has established itself into our lives through branding identities and changed the way we write. Visually, and due to its complex history, it is unlike any other character. It has the strange task of being used amongst letters, but not being mistaken for one. I want to explore how it came into being; why there are not more examples of this in other words â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and if there were â&#x20AC;&#x201C; what could they look like? I will first take a diachronic approach to language, particularly its written form. This should help me understand what symbols previously existed, and why they ceased being used. By looking at the future of written language, I can also gauge if new symbols are needed. I will then study the ampersandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s background in order to understand the process that created it. To get a wider overview I will also seek out similar symbols that represent a whole word, and briefly look into their existence. Finally, I will look into the considerations required to create a new set of symbols, which then can be applied to create experimental symbols for the most commonly used words in the English language.

Chapter I Written Language “Writing is the physical notation of language” (Baines & Haslam, 2002:38) To look at the beginnings of a symbol originated from letterforms, one needs to start at the beginning – the evolution of written language.

Words were spoken long before they were written. Speech is | creation < a noise using | body & articulating it into a meaningful sound (Donaldson, 2008:13). We ± a primeval need > communicate with each other, a need > express ourselves. Over time, humans ± created an incredible system < phonetic sounds from speech, which make up a structure ^ which we can construct any meaning we desire. Language is defined ^ | Oxford Dictionary as “| method < human communication, either spoken or written, consisting < | use < words ^ a structured & conventional way”. What’s intriguing is | labelling < “human” – do animals not communicate ^ a language? Birds, apes & dogs ± all been proven > understand even human words & simple sentences with extensive training. However, language is not just about applying meaning > certain words & phrases; it relies on rules applied > elements – such as words – > create near infinite combinations, all < which ± meaning. So if you take ‡ at a different slant; “Language is not a method < communication, per se, but a rather method < computation” (Goldman, 2012). It is | individual components < a communication together ‡ are understood, rather than just | overall message. > use | example < animals again > explain this; they can communicate perfectly well with each other by various means, but only > a certain calibre. A monkey can scream > its troop mates < a nearby predator, but it cannot communicate “look > | east, there is a rather large hawk approaching!”.

Spoken Word

Words were spoken long before they were written. Speech is the creation of a noise using the body and articulating it into a meaningful sound (Donaldson, 2008:13). We have a primeval need to communicate with each other, a need to express ourselves. Over time, humans have created an incredible system of phonetic sounds from speech, which make up a structure in which we can construct any meaning we desire. Language is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way”. What’s intriguing is the labelling of “human” – do animals not communicate in a language? Birds, apes and dogs have all been proven to understand even human words and simple sentences with extensive training. However, language is not just about applying meaning to certain words and phrases; it relies on rules applied to elements – such as words – to create near infinite combinations, all of which have meaning. So if you take that at a different slant; “Language is not a method of communication, per se, but a rather method of computation” (Goldman, 2012). It is the individual components of a communication together that are understood, rather than just the overall message. To use the example of animals again to explain this; they can communicate perfectly well with each other by various means, but only to a certain calibre. A monkey can scream to its troop mates of a nearby predator, but it cannot communicate “look to the east, there is a rather large hawk approaching!”.

What are | main differences between written & spoken language? There is | obvious fact ‡ writing is physical & speech is only audible, but there’s distinctly more > it than ‡. “A passage < writing naturally breaks down into its constituent symbols, § they letter < an alphabet, Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphs, whereas a passage < speech does not” (Robinson, 1995:37). Writing has > use these symbols > mimic | natural flow < speech. | transition from speech > writing is just as instinctive as | need > communicate. Young children take | earliest opportunity > start scribbling on | nearest thing > them, without perceived purpose. Pictures come first – attempting > copy what we see (with our eyes, or ^ our heads) with marks ^ front < us. Then as we grow older we are taught a series < individual shapes ‡ when combined, stand for | sounds we make > communicate. This is our alphabet.

But ‡ alphabet took a long while > form. As Donaldson explains, it has gone through four stages; a token stage where a smaller object is used > represent a record; a pictographic stage with objects representing pictures; a logographic stage with | pictures only representing | sounds < words; & lastly (possibly?) | phonographic stage splits | words & syllables into their own component sounds, called phonemes (Donaldson, 2008:20).

Written Word

11 What are the main differences between written and spoken language? There is the obvious fact that writing is physical and speech is only audible, but there’s distinctly more to it than that. “A passage of writing naturally breaks down into its constituent symbols, be they letter of an alphabet, Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphs, whereas a passage of speech does not” (Robinson, 1995:37). Writing has to use these symbols to mimic the natural flow of speech. The transition from speech to writing is just as instinctive as the need to communicate. Young children take the earliest opportunity to start scribbling on the nearest thing to them, without perceived purpose. Pictures come first – attempting to copy what we see (with our eyes, or in our heads) with marks in front of us. Then as we grow older we are taught a series of individual shapes that when combined, stand for the sounds we make to communicate. This is our alphabet. But that alphabet took a long while to form. As Donaldson explains, it has gone through four stages; a token stage where a smaller object is used to represent a record; a pictographic stage with objects representing pictures; a logographic stage with the pictures only representing the sounds of words; and lastly (possibly?) the phonographic stage splits the words and syllables into their own component sounds, called phonemes (Donaldson, 2008:20).

Starting with | token stage takes us > approximately 3300 BCE, where | Sumerians < Mesopotamia (now present day Iraq) had developed what is thought > § | first system < writing. It was named “Cuneiform”, taken from | latin word cuneus for “wedge”, which stems from | wedgeshaped implement used > press into soft clay tokens used > record trades. These marks would represent pictorial symbols, before evolving into phonograms – which are symbols ‡ represent a vocal sound (Mark, 2011). Very quickly, this token has evolved > feature all four stages described previously.

Another example is | famous Egyptian hieroglyphs, dating back > a similar time period, just 200 years after Cuneiform. For centuries they remained a mystery – “most scholars ^ fact doubted whether these scripts could § read ^ | same way as alphabetic writing” (Robinson, 1995:19). This changed with | discovery & decryption < | Rosetta Stone – a meter square block < black granite inscribed with a single text ^ two languages & three scripts. It was decoded by Frenchman Jean-François Champollion ^ 1822. Champollion could understand Greek & Coptic, an evolved form < | Egyptian language which uses 24 Greek letters plus 6 signs borrowed from | old Egyptian script (Robinson, 1995:23). It was previously believed ‡ hieroglyphs were simply images ‡ recorded | very thing ‡ they represented. However upon | deciphering < | Rosetta Stone it was found ‡ they are ^ fact far more complex; hieroglyphs can assume three different functions: ideogram (or logogram), phonogram &/or a determinative (Vernus, 2001:54) [see opposite for definitions]. This discovery stirred a realisation ‡ Egyptian hieroglyphs were a lot closer > being an alphabet than first thought. Fast forward > 730 BC & | start < | oldest alphabet ‡ is still ^ continuous use – Greek. | Greeks even gave | alphabet its name; alpha-beta. But more importantly, it was | introduction < vowels ‡ made it a true alphabet – these vowels came about as there were no corresponding sound ^ | acquired Phoenician alphabet. | addition < vowels made Greek significantly more useful, as it was then more compatible with many other languages ‡ also faced | same problem.

From Cuneiform to Greek

Starting with the token stage takes us to approximately 3300 BCE, where the Sumerians of Mesopotamia (now present day Iraq) had developed what is thought to be the first system of writing. It was named “Cuneiform”, taken from the latin word cuneus for “wedge”, which stems from the wedge-shaped implement used to press into soft clay tokens used to record trades. These marks would represent pictorial symbols, before evolving into phonograms – which are symbols that represent a vocal sound (Mark, 2011). Very quickly, this token has evolved to feature all four stages described previously. Another example is the famous Egyptian hieroglyphs, dating back to a similar time period, just 200 years after Cuneiform. For centuries they remained a mystery – “most scholars in fact doubted whether these scripts could be read in the same way as alphabetic writing” (Robinson, 1995:19). This changed with the discovery and decryption of the Rosetta Stone – a meter square block of black granite inscribed with a single text in two languages and three scripts. It was decoded by Frenchman Jean-François Champollion in 1822. Champollion could understand Greek and Coptic, an evolved form of the Egyptian language which uses 24 Greek letters plus 6 signs borrowed from the old Egyptian script (Robinson, 1995:23). It was previously believed that hieroglyphs were simply images that recorded the very thing that they represented. However upon the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone it was found that they are in fact far more complex; hieroglyphs can assume three different functions: ideogram (or logogram), phonogram and/or a determinative (Vernus, 2001:54). This discovery stirred a realisation that Egyptian hieroglyphs were a lot closer to being an alphabet than first thought.

Ideogram (logogram) A sign that symbolises an idea of a thing without indicating the sounds used to say it.

Phonogram A symbol which represents a vocal sound. This is in effect, an alphabet.

Determinative A sign that has no phonetic value in itself but placed at the end of a word to indicate its category. (Vernus, 2001)

Fast forward to 730 BC and the start of the oldest alphabet that is still in continuous use – Greek. The Greeks even gave the alphabet its name; alphabeta. But more importantly, it was the introduction of vowels that made it a true alphabet – these vowels came about as there were no corresponding sound in the acquired Phoenician alphabet. The addition of vowels made Greek significantly more useful, as it was then more compatible with many other languages that also faced the same problem.

| Greeks had settlements ^ Italy & Sicily long before | Roman Empire, & naturally took their developing alphabet with them. ^ an area named Etruria, | people there – Etruscans – made their own changes > | western Greek alphabet. They were most credited with | introduction < early word division, taking | form < a vertical ellipsis (Donaldson, 2008:25). 14

What followed, is | recognisable Latin alphabet, which is still kept alive by a quarter < | worlds population today (Morwood & Warman, 1990:5). ^ central Italy was a region named Latium, inhabited by people known as | Latins, which due > its strong internal bonds grew into | capital Rome, ^ which | Roman Empire grew rapidly from. When | now Romans came across | Etruscans they took their alphabet for their own, making some changes along | way. It was due > | success < | Roman Empire ‡ Latin became so widespread across Europe, then | world.

From Greek to Latin

The Greeks had settlements in Italy and Sicily long before the Roman Empire, and naturally took their developing alphabet with them. In an area named Etruria, the people there â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Etruscans â&#x20AC;&#x201C; made their own changes to the western Greek alphabet. They were most credited with the introduction of early word division, taking the form of a vertical ellipsis (Donaldson, 2008:25). What followed, is the recognisable Latin alphabet, which is still kept alive by a quarter of the worlds population today (Morwood & Warman, 1990:5). In central Italy was a region named Latium, inhabited by people known as the Latins, which due to its strong internal bonds grew into the capital Rome, in which the Roman Empire grew rapidly from. When the now Romans came across the Etruscans they took their alphabet for their own, making some changes along the way. It was due to the success of the Roman Empire that Latin became so widespread across Europe, then the world.

“Languages & scripts, like plant & animal species, are also subject > change. Their territories grow & shrink & subdivide & fuse, but there are none ‡ are not mortal, none ‡ will not someday § extinct” (Bringhurst, 1946;14). So if nothing stays | same, how will our written language evolve? There ± already been revisions < | alphabet, both ^ | forms < typefaces & writing systems. These are usually created by brave designers, artists, architects & playwrights ‡ ± spotted weaknesses ^ | alphabets’ evolution.

Dutch designer Wim Crouwel is notably one < them. His 1967 typeface “New Alphabet” (fig 1) was a direct response > | role < | computer ^ type generation (Crouwel, 2011:72). Crouwel noticed ‡ rendering letter shapes on early computer screens used fairly large pixels which produced inaccuracies ^ | curves. So he set out > redesign | alphabet using only horizontal & vertical lines (MoMa, n.d). “His process, logical yet experimental, distils a subject down > its absolute essence” (Design Museum, n.d). | letterforms take a very reduced appearance, which teeters on | unreadable. When asked if it bothered him ‡ it could not easily § read, Crouwel replied “This didn’t matter > me. I loved | whole abstract feeling < it” (Crouwel, 2011:73). It was ultimately an experiment, even put ^ his own words | typeface is “over-|-top & never meant > § really used” (MoMa, n.d). But even so, it was widely accepted & used. Does it improve anything? Probably not, but it is certainly an interesting exercise ^ reduction & legibility.

The Future

“Languages and scripts, like plant and animal species, are also subject to change. Their territories grow and shrink and subdivide and fuse, but there are none that are not mortal, none that will not someday be extinct” (Bringhurst, 1946;14). So if nothing stays the same, how will our written language evolve? There have already been revisions of the alphabet, both in the forms of typefaces and writing systems. These are usually created by brave designers, artists, architects and playwrights that have spotted weaknesses in the alphabets’ evolution. Dutch designer Wim Crouwel is notably one of them. His 1967 typeface “New Alphabet” (fig 1.) was a direct response to the role of the computer in type generation (Crouwel, 2011:72). Crouwel noticed that rendering letter shapes on early computer screens used fairly large pixels which produced inaccuracies in the curves. So he set out to redesign the alphabet using only horizontal and vertical lines (MoMa, n.d). “His process, logical yet experimental, distils a subject down to its absolute essence” (Design Museum, n.d). The letterforms take a very reduced appearance, which teeters on the unreadable. When asked if it bothered him that it could not easily be read, Crouwel replied “This didn’t matter to me. I loved the whole abstract feeling of it” (Crouwel, 2011:73). It was ultimately an experiment, even put in his own words the typeface is “over-thetop and never meant to be really used” (MoMa, n.d). But even so, it was widely accepted and used. Does it improve anything? Probably not, but it is certainly an interesting exercise in reduction and legibility.

fig 1. New Alphabet Wim Crouwel’s experimental typeface.

“English is not a phonetic language”: a statement playwright George Bernard Shaw drew attention > when he spelt | word fish as ghoti: gh as ^ laugh, o as ^ women, & ti as ^ motion. His point was > highlight | difficulties < conventional spelling ^ | English language (Donaldson, 2008;59). When Shaw died, he left £500 ^ his will > anyone who could create a simple poetic alphabet for | english language. Ronald Kingsley Read took on | challenge & successfully designed | Shavian (or Shaw) alphabet. Shavian writing uses forty-eight alphabetic letters, with three distinct types; tall, deep & short (Scriptsource, n.d). Is it an improvement on | English language? It was never intended > replace | alphabet, just represent it differently. However, it would theoretically make learning & pronouncing new words easy, but I think | fact it nearly doubles | amount < characters ^ | alphabet shows it is not a forward step.

David Crow believes there is a “commonly held belief ‡ there is a shift towards | image from | written word.” | fast increase ^ technology & screen-based media towards | end < | 90’s has had a huge effect on visual culture. Television has reformed | way we consume information, moving away from | alphabet as our primary tool < recorded communication. It simply cannot § denied ‡ | written word has been | key > communicating a vast array < ideas, as its unique ability > provide such detail is arguably second > none. However, | main advantage < a purely pictorial language is its accessibility. “| ability < images > communicate across linguistic boundaries offers a level < consistency ‡ is difficult > achieve otherwise” (Crow, 2006;16-18). For example, nuclear waste buried under | ground is accompanied by pictorial warning signs with | assumption ‡ | danger will outlive our written language. However, as Donaldson points out; “Every text ‡ advances opinions ‡ we are moving away from word-based communication usually does it with a lot < words.” He admits there is a shift towards image based communication, but only fractionally. There has been an obvious rise ^ | image alongside technology, however these images almost always require a textual explanation. “More often | real communicating is being done by | words, & it is | images ‡ support” (Donaldson, 2008:9). A very modern example is ‡ < snapchat – a messaging application which allows users > send selfdestructing images > one another. & yet there is still | option > add text > accompany | photo, which is more often used than not.

The Future

“English is not a phonetic language”: a statement playwright George Bernard Shaw drew attention to when he spelt the word fish as ghoti: gh as in laugh, o as in women, and ti as in motion. His point was to highlight the difficulties of conventional spelling in the English language (Donaldson, 2008;59). When Shaw died, he left £500 in his will to anyone who could create a simple poetic alphabet for the english language. Ronald Kingsley Read took on the challenge and successfully designed the Shavian (or Shaw) alphabet. Shavian writing uses forty-eight alphabetic letters, with three distinct types; tall, deep and short (Scriptsource, n.d). Is it an improvement on the English language? It was never intended to replace the alphabet, just represent it differently. However, it would theoretically make learning and pronouncing new words easy, but I think the fact it nearly doubles the amount of characters in the alphabet shows it is not a forward step. David Crow believes there is a “commonly held belief that there is a shift towards the image from the written word.” The fast increase in technology and screen-based media towards the end of the 90’s has had a huge effect on visual culture. Television has reformed the way we consume information, moving away from the alphabet as our primary tool of recorded communication. It simply cannot be denied that the written word has been the key to communicating a vast array of ideas, as its unique ability to provide such detail is arguably second to none. However, the main advantage of a purely pictorial language is its accessibility. “The ability of images to communicate across linguistic boundaries offers a level of consistency that is difficult to achieve otherwise” (Crow, 2006;16-18). For example, nuclear waste buried under the ground is accompanied by pictorial warning signs with the assumption that the danger will outlive our written language. However, as Donaldson points out; “Every text that advances opinions that we are moving away from word-based communication usually does it with a lot of words.” He admits there is a shift towards image based communication, but only fractionally. There has been an obvious rise in the image alongside technology, however these images almost always require a textual explanation. “More often the real communicating is being done by the words, and it is the images that support” (Donaldson, 2008:9). A very modern example is that of snapchat – a messaging application which allows users to send selfdestructing images to one another. And yet there is still the option to add text to accompany the photo, which is more often used than not.

| Oxford Dictionary has announced ‡ | word < | year for 2015 is … not actually a word, but a pictogram. It is, > § more precise, | “Face with Tears < Joy” emoji – (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). It is commonly believed ‡ | word originates from “emotion”, however emojis find their origin instead from | Japanese for “picture” = e, & “letter/character” = moji (Howse, 2015). As Stockton writes for Wired; “Digital communications ± always been a little socially handicapped”. It becomes difficult > deliver your exact meaning, especially when written ^ such a short format. Emojis add context & nuance – “they’re a tone < voice for a medium ‡ has no tone or voice” (Stockton, 2015). There is debate whether they are just a trend, or if they could actually survive long enough > become a complete means < communication. Christopher Howse is a writer who comments frequently on | “uses & abuses < | English language”. Howse has a very apparent distaste for emojis; “Emojis follow a narrow path < easily encapsulated human interests … they are worse, ^ ‡ respect, than Primark clothes or Ginster pasties” (Howse, 2015). He points out ‡ they are extremely limited, albeit > around 300 images < things we should § talking about – which could definitely § perceived as controlling – but a system < emojis ‡ cover every topic would § unfeasible. Chevrolet even published a press release ^ June written purely ^ emoji > introduce their new car. Their reasoning? “Words alone cannot describe | new 2016 Chevrolet Cruze.” It was a clever publicity gimmick on their behalf which left people searching for a modern day Rosetta Stone > figure out what was going on, but it highlighted perfectly ‡ emojis cannot § a legible writing system on their own. “Glyph systems are some < | oldest forms < communication, but written language replaced them for a reason: lack < specificity breeds ambiguity” (Logan, 2015). ^ conclusion, emojis are for augmenting written language, not replacing it. So it is unlikely ‡ we’ll ever live ^ a world without words. There is nothing else ‡ documents & reproduces our language with such clarity. But it is unavoidable ‡ over time there can § improvements, shortcuts & updates > our language ‡ are not revolutionary, but evolutionary.

The Future

The Oxford Dictionary has announced that the word of the year for 2015 is … not actually a word, but a pictogram. It is, to be more precise, the “Face with Tears of Joy” emoji – (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). It is commonly believed that the word originates from “emotion”, however emojis find their origin instead from the Japanese for “picture” = e, and “letter/character” = moji (Howse, 2015). As Stockton writes for Wired; “Digital communications have always been a little socially handicapped”. It becomes difficult to deliver your exact meaning, especially when written in such a short format. Emojis add context and nuance – “they’re a tone of voice for a medium that has no tone or voice” (Stockton, 2015). There is debate whether they are just a trend, or if they could actually survive long enough to become a complete means of communication. Christopher Howse is a writer who comments frequently on the “uses and abuses of the English language”. Howse has a very apparent distaste for emojis; “Emojis follow a narrow path of easily encapsulated human interests … they are worse, in that respect, than Primark clothes or Ginster pasties” (Howse, 2015). He points out that they are extremely limited, albeit to around 300 images of things we should be talking about – which could definitely be perceived as controlling – but a system of emojis that cover every topic would be unfeasible. Chevrolet even published a press release in June written purely in emoji to introduce their new car. Their reasoning? “Words alone cannot describe the new 2016 Chevrolet Cruze.” It was a clever publicity gimmick on their behalf which left people searching for a modern day Rosetta Stone to figure out what was going on, but it highlighted perfectly that emojis cannot be a legible writing system on their own. “Glyph systems are some of the oldest forms of communication, but written language replaced them for a reason: lack of specificity breeds ambiguity” (Logan, 2015). In conclusion, emojis are for augmenting written language, not replacing it. So it is unlikely that we’ll ever live in a world without words. There is nothing else that documents and reproduces our language with such clarity. But it is unavoidable that over time there can be improvements, shortcuts and updates to our language that are not revolutionary, but evolutionary

Chapter II The Ampersand “For type designers and aficionados both, it isn’t so much a character as it is a ‘character’” (Brownlee, 2015)

The star of the show. What is that symbol above the 7 on your keyboard, and where did it come from?

A particular evolution < | written word is | ligature. ^ surgery, a ligature is a piece < thread tied around a structure, usually a blood vessel > join | two sides together. For musical instruments, a ligature is a device which joins | reed onto | mouth piece. Borrowing this definition < “tying up, or bonding”, ^ typography a ligature is | combination < two or more letters into a single glyph (Collins English Dictionary, 1999) (fig 2.). They were naturally created ^ Roman inscriptions as a space-saving device, particularly towards | end < | line where | writer realised ‡ they were running out < room. ^ situations where there is a lack < space on a line, by reducing | space between two letters > | point where they are touching aids a more even right hand edge > | body < text. However, “It is unlikely ‡ ligatures, or variable letterspacing, would § planned for a formal inscription” (Donaldson, 2008;29). So essentially, ligatures were initially a solution for bad planning on | inscriber’s behalf.

The Ligature

A particular evolution of the written word is the ligature. In surgery, a ligature is a piece of thread tied around a structure, usually a blood vessel to join the two sides together. For musical instruments, a ligature is a device which joins the reed onto the mouth piece. Borrowing this definition of “tying up, or bonding”, in typography a ligature is the combination of two or more letters into a single glyph (Collins English Dictionary, 1999) (fig 2.). They were naturally created in Roman inscriptions as a space-saving device, particularly towards the end of the line where the writer realised that they were running out of room. In situations where there is a lack of space on a line, by reducing the space between two letters to the point where they are touching aids a more even right hand edge to the body of text. However, “It is unlikely that ligatures, or variable letterspacing, would be planned for a formal inscription” (Donaldson, 2008;29). So essentially, ligatures were initially a solution for bad planning on the inscriber’s behalf.

fig 2. Ligature An archaic long-s and i ligature, set in metal and also showing its printed form.

However, | invention < hot metal type led > ligatures being used ^ a very precise manner > achieve | same effect. Johannes Gutenberg, usually credited as | inventor < | printing press (biography.com, n.d), took a particular interest ^ ligatures. His masterpiece was | “Forty-Two-Line” Bible, | first ever book > § printed with movable type ^ Europe. Obsessed with | proportions < | columns, Gutenberg created a total < 290 characters featuring ligatures, & repeated characters with subtly different widths (fig. 3). This allowed him > painstakingly achieve perfection ^ line length & therefore an even right hand edge (URW, 1990). Eric Gill later took a less technical approach ^ typesetting his An Essay On Typography with a “frequent use < ampersands & | occasional contractions such as ‘tho’” (Christopher Skelton, 1988:14) > achieve a more consistent line length.

fig 3. Gutenberg’s Ligatures A selection of Gutenberg’s space saving ligatures. Note the Tironian “and” 3rd from bottom right.

There was another issue ‡ was raised from hot metal type. Certain letter combinations would naturally create clashes where they would physically collide with each other, or ± an awkwardly large space between them. > fix this issue, typefounders would create separate glyphs ‡ represented | two – or more – troublesome characters combined, often ^ such a subtle way ‡ it goes unnoticed by | reader (practicaltypography.com, n.d).

The Ligature

However, the invention of hot metal type led to ligatures being used in a very precise manner to achieve the same effect. Johannes Gutenberg, usually credited as the inventor of the printing press (biography.com, n.d), took a particular interest in ligatures. His masterpiece was the “Forty-Two-Line” Bible, the first ever book to be printed with movable type in Europe. Obsessed with the proportions of the columns, Gutenberg created a total of 290 characters featuring ligatures, and repeated characters with subtly different widths (fig. 3). This allowed him to painstakingly achieve perfection in line length and therefore an even right hand edge (URW, 1990). Eric Gill later took a less technical approach in typesetting his An Essay On Typography with a “frequent use of ampersands and the occasional contractions such as ‘tho’” (Christopher Skelton, 1988:14) to achieve a more consistent line length.

There was another issue that was raised from hot metal type. Certain letter combinations would naturally create clashes where they would physically collide with each other, or have an awkwardly large space between them. To fix this issue, typefounders would create separate glyphs that represented the two – or more – troublesome characters combined, often in such a subtle way that it goes unnoticed by the reader (practicaltypography.com, n.d).

A ligature ‡ has become so well recognised ‡ it is no longer seen as two merging letterforms: | ampersand, which acts as a symbol for | word “&”. | symbol is now considered a logogram – a symbol which represents a word on its own. But ‡ was not always | case.

| ampersand is another example < Roman ingenuity, born from | Latin word et, meaning &. Its origins are unclear, its creator anonymous; “| closest it comes > a parent is | anonymous first century graffiti artist who scrawled it hastily across a Pompeian wall” (Houston, 2013:64). It was only | eruption < Mount Vesuvius ^ 79 ad ‡ preserved this mark (fig 4), which puts a limit on | possible dates < its creation. “Still clearly recognisable as | word Et, this first ampersand only barely qualifies as a ligature at all, with | middle arm < | E only barely touching | stem < | t ^ a suspiciously coincidental manner.” (Houston, 2013:66). It is unlikely ‡ this first ampersand was created stylistically, but more as an accidental slip < | hand ^ a hurry. | recognisable shape ‡ we know now quickly formed (fig 5.) “when ancient Roman scribes were scribbling away ^ Roman Cursive around | 1st century AD, … [with a] tendency > connect | two letters” (Ellison, 2015). Like all letters, it evolved stylistically by | process < repetition ^ written texts. Eric Gill explains ‡ “with whatever tools or materials or economic circumstance, | artist, | letter maker, has always thought < himself as making existing forms, & not inventing new ones” (Gill, 1988:30). By | Renaissance | ampersand had developed into | symbol ‡ is familiar > us now.

One Particular Ligature

fig 4. The First Ampersand (?) Fresh from a 79 AD Pompeian wall.

A ligature that has become so well recognised that it is no longer seen as two merging letterforms: the ampersand, which acts as a symbol for the word “and”. The symbol is now considered a logogram – a symbol which represents a word on its own. But that was not always the case. The ampersand is another example of Roman ingenuity, born from the Latin word et, meaning and. Its origins are unclear, its creator anonymous; “the closest it comes to a parent is the anonymous first century graffiti artist who scrawled it hastily across a Pompeian wall” (Houston, 2013:64). It was only the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 ad that preserved this mark (fig 4.), which puts a limit on the possible dates of its creation. “Still clearly recognisable as the word Et, this first ampersand only barely qualifies as a ligature at all, with the middle arm of the E only barely touching the stem of the t in a suspiciously coincidental manner.” (Houston, 2013:66). It is unlikely that this first ampersand was created stylistically, but more as an accidental slip of the hand in a hurry. The recognisable shape that we know now quickly formed (fig 5.) “when ancient Roman scribes were scribbling away in Roman Cursive around the 1st century AD, … [with a] tendency to connect the two letters” (Ellison, 2015). Like all letters, it evolved stylistically by the process of repetition in written texts. Eric Gill explains that “with whatever tools or materials or economic circumstance, the artist, the letter maker, has always thought of himself as making existing forms, and not inventing new ones” (Gill, 1988:30). By the Renaissance the ampersand had developed into the symbol that is familiar to us now.

fig 5. Evolution Collected ampersands in Jan Tschichold’s ‘The Ampersand: its origin and development’ (1957)

| name “ampersand” is relatively more recent than | symbol itself. It is common belief ‡ | word traces back > its alleged creator – seventeenthcentury typesetter Manfred Johann Amper: Amper’s &. However, this claim lacks any evidence, & ^ reality, | ampersand is not named after anyone at all. ^ | nineteenth-century it was common practice for | ampersand > § taught ^ schools as | twenty-seventh letter < | alphabet. Students would recite | letters aloud, & when arriving at | end would prefix | ampersand with per se – meaning “by itself.” Therefore, it was spoken: “X, Y, Z, & per se &.” Say this enough times as a bored student & you can understand how | syllables got blurred together, unknowingly creating a word ‡ would § set ^ stone (Houston, 2013:76). Out < interest, this is called a mondegreen – when a word’s origin is derived from a misinterpretation < another (dictionary.com, 2014).

However, there was a rival ancestor > this now recognisable ampersand. ^ Rome, approximately 200 years before | eruption < Vesuvius, lived a politician, philosopher & lawyer named Marcus Tulles Cicero. Without digressing, Cicero’s turbulent life was worthy < many a book, “& being an ardent self-promoter, he made a game attempt > write at least a few < them himself” (Houston, 2013:62). This was not an easy task, so he enlisted a slave < | Cicero household, Marcus Tulles Tiro, as his secretary & biographer. A gifted scribe, Cicero described Tiro ^ his own words as “marvellously useful … ^ every department < business & literature” (Cicero, 1913:35). On a visit > Greece, Cicero admired | Greek’s system < shorthand, & upon return instructed Tiro > create a similar system for | Latin alphabet. “Tiro devised a system composed < Latin abbreviations supplemented with existing Greek shorthand symbols, modifying & expanding it by degrees > yield a unique cypher” (Houston, 2013:62). ^ its most elaborate form, a total < fourteen thousand symbols made up | system. Cicero boasted ^ a letter > a friend ‡ Tiro could record even entire phrases ^ his shorthand (Cicero, 1918:155). Among Tiro’s many “notes” was < course a character > represent | Latin word et – or &. & due > | beneficial aspects < Tiro’s system, this et sign would remain ^ use for a further millennium.

And-Per-Se-And

The name “ampersand” is relatively more recent than the symbol itself. It is common belief that the word traces back to its alleged creator – seventeenthcentury typesetter Manfred Johann Amper: Amper’s And. However, this claim lacks any evidence, and in reality, the ampersand is not named after anyone at all. In the nineteenth-century it was common practice for the ampersand to be taught in schools as the twenty-seventh letter of the alphabet. Students would recite the letters aloud, and when arriving at the end would prefix the ampersand with per se – meaning “by itself.” Therefore, it was spoken: “X, Y, Z, and per se and.” Say this enough times as a bored student and you can understand how the syllables got blurred together, unknowingly creating a word that would be set in stone (Houston, 2013:76). Out of interest, this is called a mondegreen – when a word’s origin is derived from a misinterpretation of another (dictionary.com, 2014). However, there was a rival ancestor to this now recognisable ampersand. In Rome, approximately 200 years before the eruption of Vesuvius, lived a politician, philosopher and lawyer named Marcus Tulles Cicero. Without digressing, Cicero’s turbulent life was worthy of many a book, “and being an ardent self-promoter, he made a game attempt to write at least a few of them himself” (Houston, 2013:62). This was not an easy task, so he enlisted a slave of the Cicero household, Marcus Tulles Tiro, as his secretary and biographer. A gifted scribe, Cicero described Tiro in his own words as “marvellously useful … in every department of business and literature” (Cicero, 1913:35). On a visit to Greece, Cicero admired the Greek’s system of shorthand, and upon return instructed Tiro to create a similar system for the Latin alphabet. “Tiro devised a system composed of Latin abbreviations supplemented with existing Greek shorthand symbols, modifying and expanding it by degrees to yield a unique cypher” (Houston, 2013:62). In its most elaborate form, a total of fourteen thousand symbols made up the system. Cicero boasted in a letter to a friend that Tiro could record even entire phrases in his shorthand (Cicero, 1918:155). Among Tiro’s many “notes” was of course a character to represent the Latin word et – or and. And due to the beneficial aspects of Tiro’s system, this et sign would remain in use for a further millennium.

Whilst roman & italic lettering adopted | ampersand, | Tironian et rose above | rest < its system, owing its success > blackletter scripts. Blackletter was extremely time consuming > both read & write, which may ± been | reason for its association with | church. “When writing, monks were not ^ a hurry. They wrote ^ | honour < God” (Kapr, 1983:112). However honourable these monks felt when writing ^ | eyes < God, they obviously did not mind a shortcut or two as Tiro’s et was used extensively. Even Gutenberg utilised it ^ his “Forty-Two-Line” Bible for | sake < his perfect line lengths. | use < | symbol ^ religious texts solidified its use ^ | middle ages. What was | reason | other symbols ^ Tiro’s system did not share | same success story? ^ | medieval ages there was a serious distrust < anyone who could § perceived > § practicing witchcraft & magic, usually resulting ^ a painful death for | accused ^ order > discover their innocence. Shorthand writing had a certain secrecy > it, & so > avoid being | subject < a witch hunt themselves, people started > avoid using it (Houston, 2013:74). | Tironian et persisted ^ blackletter type until | middle < | twentieth century, when a Nazi decree ironically decided ‡ “these supremely Germanic letterforms” were ^ fact “Jewish characters”. Curiously, Tiro’s et still survives today – but only ^ place < an ampersand ^ Irish Gaelic; appearing on post boxes & road signs. | ampersand, meanwhile, only increased ^ popularity, earning its place ^ type cases & | modern keyboard; “It is undoubtedly | world’s most respectable piece < graffiti” (Houston, 2013:75).

Death of a Rival fig 6. Evolution Variations of Tiro’s et ligature in Jan Tschichold’s ‘The Ampersand: its origin and development’ (1957)

Whilst roman and italic lettering adopted the ampersand, the Tironian et rose above the rest of its system, owing its success to blackletter scripts. Blackletter was extremely time consuming to both read and write, which may have been the reason for its association with the church. “When writing, monks were not in a hurry. They wrote in the honour of God” (Kapr, 1983:112). However honourable these monks felt when writing in the eyes of God, they obviously did not mind a shortcut or two as Tiro’s et was used extensively. Even Gutenberg utilised it in his “Forty-Two-Line” Bible for the sake of his perfect line lengths. The use of the symbol in religious texts solidified its use in the middle ages. What was the reason the other symbols in Tiro’s system did not share the same success story? In the medieval ages there was a serious distrust of anyone who could be perceived to be practicing witchcraft and magic, usually resulting in a painful death for the accused in order to discover their innocence. Shorthand writing had a certain secrecy to it, and so to avoid being the subject of a witch hunt themselves, people started to avoid using it (Houston, 2013:74). The Tironian et persisted in blackletter type until the middle of the twentieth century, when a Nazi decree ironically decided that “these supremely Germanic letterforms” were in fact “Jewish characters”. Curiously, Tiro’s et still survives today – but only in place of an ampersand in Irish Gaelic; appearing on post boxes and road signs. The ampersand, meanwhile, only increased in popularity, earning its place in type cases and the modern keyboard; “It is undoubtedly the world’s most respectable piece of graffiti” (Houston, 2013:75).

Anna Davies, author < “Glyphs” states ‡ ampersands “should not § used within | structure < a sentence as a substitute for | word ‘&’” (Davies, 2015:42). Whilst this may § correct ^ today’s writing standards, it makes you wonder how this rule has changed. After all, Gutenberg used them generously ^ | Bible, which was (& arguably still is) | most prestigious book ^ its time. Perhaps | switch is due > | fact ‡ we don’t ± > rely on ligatures for composing even line lengths; software now has algorithms > format | letter & word spacing invisible > | eye > achieve Gutenberglike perfection. Personally, I don’t think there’s a problem with using ampersands ^ a body < text; it is widely recognised & understood, an attractive letterform, & saves a fraction < time & space.

So officially, what is | correct usage for | ampersand? | most common is an abbreviation which includes | word “&”. For example, “research & development” is abbreviated as “R&D”. Another is when addressing a letter > a couple; “Mr. & Mrs. Green”. Finally, & most interestingly > me, | ampersand is commonly found ^ | branding < companies, joining names > indicate a partnership (Nordquist, 2015). So why is | ampersand so popular ^ branding? It may § ‡ “there is an implied intimacy > | symbol, giving a sense < equal weight > | name or word ‡ precedes | ampersand & | one ‡ follows” (Davies, 2015:42). This is | reason ‡ | ampersand is frequently used ^ film credits > show an equal collaboration. If “writer & writer” was > § used instead, it would imply ‡ | first writer has greater significance than ‡ < | second.

In Use

Anna Davies, author of “Glyphs” states that ampersands “should not be used within the structure of a sentence as a substitute for the word ‘and’” (Davies, 2015:42). Whilst this may be correct in today’s writing standards, it makes you wonder how this rule has changed. After all, Gutenberg used them generously in the Bible, which was (and arguably still is) the most prestigious book in its time. Perhaps the switch is due to the fact that we don’t have to rely on ligatures for composing even line lengths; software now has algorithms to format the letter and word spacing invisible to the eye to achieve Gutenberg-like perfection. Personally, I don’t think there’s a problem with using ampersands in a body of text; it is widely recognised & understood, an attractive letterform, & saves a fraction of time and space. So officially, what is the correct usage for the ampersand? The most common is an abbreviation which includes the word “and”. For example, “research and development” is abbreviated as “R&D”. Another is when addressing a letter to a couple; “Mr. & Mrs. Green”. Finally, and most interestingly to me, the ampersand is commonly found in the branding of companies, joining names to indicate a partnership (Nordquist, 2015). So why is the ampersand so popular in branding? It may be that “there is an implied intimacy to the symbol, giving a sense of equal weight to the name or word that precedes the ampersand and the one that follows” (Davies, 2015:42). This is the reason that the ampersand is frequently used in film credits to show an equal collaboration. If “writer and writer” was to be used instead, it would imply that the first writer has greater significance than that of the second.

But there is also a third option when visually displaying a collaboration: | plus sign “+”. Often used as an ampersand substitute, it has been suggested ‡ | plus sign is also derived from an et ligature, although unfortunately | symbol has not had as much interest as | ampersand from palaeographers, so this remains an uninformed conclusion. Jan Tschichold, a renowned twentieth-century typographer who collected a range < ampersands (fig. 8), expressed ‡ “| plus sign is used by sign painters & graphic artists who probably do not know how > handle | ampersand. They use an improper simplification” (Tschichold, 1995:78). Despite this opinion, there is a growing trend ^ | plus sign’s use > replace ampersands ^ logos. Paul McNeil, Lecturer at London College < Communication for MA typographic media believes ‡ a plus sign gives an even greater sense < equality than | ampersand; “it implies a synergy & symmetry between | entities or individuals it links. | stronger reason for this new trend is probably more ^ | conjunction < two names rather than | symbol used > make | link: ‡ a sense < partnership, collaboration & personal identity are evoked — whether deliberate, truthful or otherwise” (McNeil, 2014). One example < a switch is ‡ < power tool brand “Black + Decker” (fig 7.). ^ an interview with branding agency Lippicott, there was no direct comment about | replacement < | ampersand, only vague statements about “streamlining” | brand. It does fit better with | spacing < | “K”, & I doubt hierarchy is a consideration as | names are already stacked upon each other. So ^ my opinion, | only conclusion is ‡ it is simply an aesthetically driven decision.

+ vs. &

But there is also a third option when visually displaying a collaboration: the plus sign “+”. Often used as an ampersand substitute, it has been suggested that the plus sign is also derived from an et ligature, although unfortunately the symbol has not had as much interest as the ampersand from palaeographers, so this remains an uninformed conclusion. Jan Tschichold, a renowned twentieth-century typographer who collected a range of ampersands (fig. 8), expressed that “the plus sign is used by sign painters and graphic artists who probably do not know how to handle the ampersand. They use an improper simplification” (Tschichold, 1995:78). Despite this opinion, there is a growing trend in the plus sign’s use to replace ampersands in logos. Paul McNeil, Lecturer at London College of Communication for MA typographic media believes that a plus sign gives an even greater sense of equality than the ampersand; “it implies a synergy and symmetry between the entities or individuals it links. The stronger reason for this new trend is probably more in the conjunction of two names rather than the symbol used to make the link: that a sense of partnership, collaboration and personal identity are evoked — whether deliberate, truthful or otherwise” (McNeil, 2014). One example of a switch is that of power tool brand “Black + Decker” (fig 7.). In an interview with branding agency Lippicott, there was no direct comment about the replacement of the ampersand, only vague statements about “streamlining” the brand. It does fit better with the spacing of the “K”, and I doubt hierarchy is a consideration as the names are already stacked upon each other. So in my opinion, the only conclusion is that it is simply an aesthetically driven decision.

fig 7. Black + Decker A direct comparison of the recent rebrand moving away from the ampersand.

This brings me on > another reason | ampersand is so frequently used ^ logo designs – its undeniable aesthetic appeal. “| ampersand has one | broadest variations < representation < any graphic symbol” (Davies, 2015:42). More often than not, its decorative form graces luxurious names, such as Tiffany & Co. & Moët & Chandon. < course it varies with | style < | character, but there appears > § a traditional association > | ampersand, which perhaps explains | drift towards | plus sign for brands looking > appear more current. However, some brands strive for this sophistication. Alan Fletcher’s “logotype for London’s Victoria & Albert Museum (fig 8.), for example, has proved itself fit for its purpose & has thus transcended its era” (designmuseum.com, n.d). | logo creates a single component with use < | classic typeface Bodoni, with | serif < | | ampersand intelligently substitutes | bridge < | A, tying | letterforms together.

fig 8. V&A Logo Designed by Alan Fletcher

Type designers often ± a particular love for | character. Due > its unconformity, | ampersand is often a playground for experimentation ^ type design. Tobias Frere-Jones, formerly < Hoefler & Frere-Jones explains. “Usually, letters help > form one another, by setting precedents & providing contexts. But | ampersand doesn’t receive any < ‡ support. ‡ makes it hard > draw, because so many different shapes might look plausible at first. But it also opens an unusually large window for experimentation & risk. It’s how | designer can put on a fireworks show ^ this one shape, especially ^ seriffed italics” (Cited by Brownlee, 2016). Erik Spiekermann blames his german mathematical loving mind for his love < ampersands: “I like designing them because I like designing figures, & | ampersand is like an 8 with bits added” (Cited by Brownlee, 2016).

Aesthetic

This brings me on to another reason the ampersand is so frequently used in logo designs – its undeniable aesthetic appeal. “The ampersand has one the broadest variations of representation of any graphic symbol” (Davies, 2015:42). More often than not, its decorative form graces luxurious names, such as Tiffany & Co. and Moët & Chandon. Of course it varies with the style of the character, but there appears to be a traditional association to the ampersand, which perhaps explains the drift towards the plus sign for brands looking to appear more current. However, some brands strive for this sophistication. Alan Fletcher’s “logotype for London’s Victoria & Albert Museum (fig 8.), for example, has proved itself fit for its purpose and has thus transcended its era” (designmuseum.com, n.d). The logo creates a single component with use of the classic typeface Bodoni, with the serif of the the ampersand intelligently substitutes the bridge of the A, tying the letterforms together.

Type designers often have a particular love for the character. Due to its unconformity, the ampersand is often a playground for experimentation in type design. Tobias Frere-Jones, formerly of Hoefler & Frere-Jones explains. “Usually, letters help to form one another, by setting precedents and providing contexts. But the ampersand doesn’t receive any of that support. That makes it hard to draw, because so many different shapes might look plausible at first. But it also opens an unusually large window for experimentation and risk. It’s how the designer can put on a fireworks show in this one shape, especially in seriffed italics” (Cited by Brownlee, 2016). Erik Spiekermann blames his german mathematical loving mind for his love of ampersands: “I like designing them because I like designing figures, and the ampersand is like an 8 with bits added” (Cited by Brownlee, 2016).

We live ^ an increasingly digital world, ^ which | primary communication method is still through text. As always, time is an important factor ^ our lives – & we are often looking for shortcuts. When typing, ^ | case < &/&, pressing one button – two including | shift key – is preferable > three. This is not quite | same ^ mobile phones as | ampersand is hidden out < sight so is therefore not as accessible. Admittedly though, | shortening < words, or “text speak”, ^ mobile phone messaging has decreased ^ practice since | introduction < | QWERTY keyboard. Space, however, remains a more critical issue. When a “tweet” allows only 140 characters & a snapchat “snap” only one line < text, an ampersand might well § | difference ^ allowing you > express all ‡ you want >. Off screen, | use < ampersands ^ a large printed body < text would again reduce | character count, reducing ink consumption & | amount < paper required. Imagine this on a scale where other symbols for other commonly used words were found on keyboards, used for both expanding what you can say & for economical & environmental reasons. 38

Time and Space

We live in an increasingly digital world, in which the primary communication method is still through text. As always, time is an important factor in our lives – and we are often looking for shortcuts. When typing, in the case of and/&, pressing one button – two including the shift key – is preferable to three. This is not quite the same in mobile phones as the ampersand is hidden out of sight so is therefore not as accessible. Admittedly though, the shortening of words, or “text speak”, in mobile phone messaging has decreased in practice since the introduction of the QWERTY keyboard. Space, however, remains a more critical issue. When a “tweet” allows only 140 characters and a snapchat “snap” only one line of text, an ampersand might well be the difference in allowing you to express all that you want to. Off screen, the use of ampersands in a large printed body of text would again reduce the character count, reducing ink consumption and the amount of paper required. Imagine this on a scale where other symbols for other commonly used words were found on keyboards, used for both expanding what you can say and for economical and environmental reasons. 39

Chapter III Is The Ampersand Alone? “The ampersand is a beautiful and uncooperative creature” (Frere-Jones, 2015) Technically, no. There are are number of symbols that exist for various reasons that represent a whole word, but few that are used so frequently.

| @ symbol is another logogram, due > it substituting a whole word. But surprisingly, ‡ word did not used > § “at”. There are several theories on its origins, & how | symbol took its form; one ‡ is particularly pleasing is ‡ its form came from an abbreviation < “‘each at’, with | ‘a’ being incased ^ | ‘e’” (Davies, 2015:76). However, | most likely stems from | “old scribal practice < marking abbreviated words with a tittle, or bar, placed over a letter” (Houston, 2013:87). For example, an abbreviated word beginning with | letter “a”, would § written as “ã”. When writing, scribes would inevitably add | bar without lifting their pens, leading > | creation < | shape we recognise now as “@“. | symbol has always been widely used > mean “at | rate <” ^ trading & commerce – but | “a” actually stood for “amphora”; a unit < measurement used ^ | 16th century, named after Roman storage jars.

The @ symbol is another logogram, due to it substituting a whole word. But surprisingly, that word did not used to be “at”. There are several theories on its origins, and how the symbol took its form; one that is particularly pleasing is that its form came from an abbreviation of “‘each at’, with the ‘a’ being incased in the ‘e’” (Davies, 2015:76). However, the most likely stems from the “old scribal practice of marking abbreviated words with a tittle, or bar, placed over a letter” (Houston, 2013:87). For example, an abbreviated word beginning with the letter “a”, would be written as “ã”. When writing, scribes would inevitably add the bar without lifting their pens, leading to the creation of the shape we recognise now as “@“. The symbol has always been widely used to mean “at the rate of” in trading and commerce – but the “a” actually stood for “amphora”; a unit of measurement used in the 16th century, named after Roman storage jars.

fig 9. “At” Minion Pro Bold’s “at” symbol.

III

A “staple < modern communication”, | “at” symbol is perhaps king < | digital world; | staple < email addresses; prefixing twitter usernames & widely used > “tag” friends ^ social media (Houston, 2013:79). | man responsible for this is Ray Tomlinson, a computer engineer ^ | ‘70s. He worked for a technology company ‡ was tasked with connecting computers < various research organisations. When it came > sending messages across | network, | name < | recipient user & | name < their computer needed > § separated. Tomlinson explains; “I looked at | keyboard, & I thought: ‘What can I choose here ‡ won’t § confused with a username?’ If every person had an ‘@’ sign ^ their name, it wouldn’t work too well. But they didn’t. They did use commas & slashes & brackets. < | remaining three or four characters, | ‘@’ sign made | most sense. It denoted where | user was …at.” (Tomlinson, 2012).

The German character ß includes | only surviving form < | long s. Like | ampersand, it ‡ it is also a ligature < two letters, ‡ has now become recognised as one symbol. Instead < representing a whole word, ß symbolises a syllable, pronounced “ss” within a word. This may § misleading > | makeup < | ligature; ^ fact | symbol is made up < a long s & a “z”. “ß” is used after a long vowel, as ^ Straße, street, but not after a short one, as ^ Gasse, alley. | symbol also has | same space saving qualities as | ampersand; “Young Germans (alongside Swiss & Hungarians) currently use it ^ their texting as a substitute for ss or sz, regardless < spelling rules, ^ order > reduce | overall character count < their messages” (typefoundry. blogspot.co.uk, 2008).

A “staple of modern communication”, the “at” symbol is perhaps king of the digital world; the staple of email addresses; prefixing twitter usernames and widely used to “tag” friends in social media (Houston, 2013:79). The man responsible for this is Ray Tomlinson, a computer engineer in the ‘70s. He worked for a technology company that was tasked with connecting computers of various research organisations. When it came to sending messages across the network, the name of the recipient user and the name of their computer needed to be separated. Tomlinson explains; “I looked at the keyboard, and I thought: ‘What can I choose here that won’t be confused with a username?’ If every person had an ‘@’ sign in their name, it wouldn’t work too well. But they didn’t. They did use commas and slashes and brackets. Of the remaining three or four characters, the ‘@’ sign made the most sense. It denoted where the user was …at.” (Tomlinson, 2012). Graphic designers fully embraced the symbol in the late 1990s, “splashing it tackily on bad cafés and poorly thought through packaging” (Davies, 2015:76). The “@” therefore, lacks the class that the ampersand has come to represent, and it mostly remains on-screen.

The German character ß includes the only surviving form of the long s: “ſ”. Like the ampersand, it that it is also a ligature of two letters, that has now become recognised as one symbol. Instead of representing a whole word, ß symbolises a syllable, pronounced “ss” within a word. This may be misleading to the makeup of the ligature; in fact the symbol is made up of an “ſ” and a “z”. “ß” is used after a long vowel, as in Straße, street, but not after a short one, as in Gasse, alley. The symbol also has the same space saving qualities as the ampersand; “Young Germans (alongside Swiss and Hungarians) currently use it in their texting as a substitute for ss or sz, regardless of spelling rules, in order to reduce the overall character count of their messages” (typefoundry.blogspot. co.uk, 2008).

III

Just two years ago, an Australian restaurateur Paul Mathis invented a symbol ‡ he hoped would replace | word “the”. “| word ‘&’ is only | fifthmost used word ^ English,” Mathis rationalises, “& it has its own symbol – | ampersand... isn’t it time we accorded | same respect > ‘|’?” (Mathis, 2013). ^ an interview with BBC Radio 5, he explains | main functionality for | new symbol is as a digital space saving device, correctly stating ‡ using a single keystroke will save time & crucial character counts. Mathis has even gone so far as > create a smartphone application keyboard which features his symbol alongside keys marked with ten other popular used words.

| symbol however, has been critically received. Keith Houston, author < “Shady Characters” comments; | ampersand (&), > which Mathis compares | ‘|’, is derived from a complete word: it is a ligature, albeit a highly stylised one, < | word et. It literally means ‘&’, embodying | word ^ its entirety. ‘|’ on | other hand, is a ligature < | letters T & h — | e ^ ‘|’ is left out ^ | cold. When, as ^ an interview with Australian newspaper ‘| Age’ reveals, Mathis pronounces his symbol as “th”, he gives voice > this fundamental problem: as often as I scan | symbol ‘|’, my brain persists ^ rendering it as a stunted “th” sound” (Houston, 2013). Is it important ‡ | symbol utilises every letter < its derived word? I don’t think so. If anything, I think it credits | symbol with how easily understood it is. Straight away you pronounce it close > its intended word – ‡ would make its integration into common use a lot easier.There is also | unfortunate “coincidence” ‡ | symbol already exists, although Mathis denies any previous knowledge. It is visually identical > | Cyrillic letter tshe, which represents a “ch” sound, as ^ “chew”. On | flip side, this means computers can already render a | without much effort, it just requires a faster input. Will it catch on? Houston doesn’t think so. He believes | symbol is not visually compatible with | roman alphabet, instead suggesting | “thorn” (þ) – an Old English letter would § a better option. | thorn represents a “th” sound, & was often paired with a superscript e > form a shorthand for “|” = þe. Interestingly, this was where | old fashioned form “ye” came from, when printers did not ± | thorn they would use | nearest visual equivalent – y. (Houston, 2013) | ampersand never has been, & never will §, | only symbol with | job < representing a word. But it still appears ‡ none do it with | same level < effectiveness as | infamous et ligature.

The

Just two years ago, an Australian restaurateur Paul Mathis invented a symbol that he hoped would replace the word “the”. “The word ‘and’ is only the fifthmost used word in English,” Mathis rationalises, “and it has its own symbol – the ampersand... isn’t it time we accorded the same respect to ‘the’?” (Mathis, 2013). In an interview with BBC Radio 5, he explains the main functionality for the new symbol is as a digital space saving device, correctly stating that using a single keystroke will save time and crucial character counts. Mathis has even gone so far as to create a smartphone application keyboard which features his symbol alongside keys marked with ten other popular used words. The symbol however, has been critically received. Keith Houston, author of “Shady Characters” comments; The ampersand (&), to which Mathis compares the ‘|’, is derived from a complete word: it is a ligature, albeit a highly stylised one, of the word et. It literally means ‘and’, embodying the word in its entirety. ‘|’ on the other hand, is a ligature of the letters T and h — the e in ‘the’ is left out in the cold. When, as in an interview with Australian newspaper ‘The Age’ reveals, Mathis pronounces his symbol as “th”, he gives voice to this fundamental problem: as often as I scan the symbol ‘|’, my brain persists in rendering it as a stunted “th” sound” (Houston, 2013). Is it important that the symbol utilises every letter of its derived word? I don’t think so. If anything, I think it credits the symbol with how easily understood it is. Straight away you pronounce it close to its intended word – that would make its integration into common use a lot easier. There is also the unfortunate “coincidence” that the symbol already exists, although Mathis denies any previous knowledge. It is visually identical to the Cyrillic letter tshe, which represents a “ch” sound, as in “chew”. On the flip side, this means computers can already render a | without much effort, it just requires a faster input. Will it catch on? Houston doesn’t think so. He believes the symbol is not visually compatible with the roman alphabet, instead suggesting the “thorn” (þ) – an Old English letter would be a better option. The thorn represents a “th” sound, and was often paired with a superscript e to form a shorthand for “the” = þe. Interestingly, this was where the old fashioned form “ye” came from, when printers did not have the thorn they would use the nearest visual equivalent – y. (Houston, 2013) The ampersand never has been, and never will be, the only symbol with the job of representing a word. But it still appears that none do it with the same level of effectiveness as the infamous et ligature.

Chapter IV What if…? …symbols for commonly used words in the English language existed. What would they look like? And what needs to be considered if new ones were to be created now?

| primary purpose < these symbols – as with | ampersand – is > save space on a line, & time when writing. They could § used when taking notes, or on twitter > fight | character limit. If | point < these new symbols is > save time & space, it surely makes sense if they can § easily written by hand. This means taking into account | flow & direction < hand movement, & keeping | number < strokes > a minimum. < course, as with anyone’s handwriting, there will § natural variations < | letterform, so it will § important ‡ | symbol is strong & unique enough > remain recognisable. Once | forms ± been defined by hand, they then need > § applied digitally. A keyboard redesign is impractical, so appropriate keyboard shortcuts would ± > § thought through, keeping ^ mind | ergonomics < typing.

Analogue > Digital

The primary purpose of these symbols â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as with the ampersand â&#x20AC;&#x201C; is to save space on a line, and time when writing. They could be used when taking notes, or on twitter to fight the character limit. If the point of these new symbols is to save time and space, it surely makes sense if they can be easily written by hand. This means taking into account the flow and direction of hand movement, and keeping the number of strokes to a minimum. Of course, as with anyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s handwriting, there will be natural variations of the letterform, so it will be important that the symbol is strong and unique enough to remain recognisable. Once the forms have been defined by hand, they then need to be applied digitally. A keyboard redesign is impractical, so appropriate keyboard shortcuts would have to be thought through, keeping in mind the ergonomics of typing.

Reading is “| visual comprehension < language” (Sereno, Rayner: 2003:489). These symbols will § read, but I don’t want them > totally interrupt | natural flow < reading. | common theory < how we read lies with | word shape, or “Bouma”. “According > this idea, words form a certain shape—referred > as socalled bouma (shape)—& we can recognise (& therefore read) this shape or outline if we ± seen it over & over again” (Herrmann: 2011). This theory would condemn | use < individual symbols as it would make a body < text a lot harder > read. This is because according > | idea, | basic shape < | symbols would not § easily distinguishable from each other. However, it has never been fully explained nor proven. More recent studies ^ psychology revealed we instead use | letters within a word > recognise it. “Word shape is no longer a viable model < word recognition. | bulk < scientific evidence says ‡ we recognise a word’s component letters, then use ‡ visual information > recognise a word” (Larson: 2004). 48

Another consideration associated with readability is omission: what can § cut with | remains still being recognisable. | symbols would § more easily understood if they contained a ghost < | word they represent. Phil Baines’ “You Can Read Me” typeface (fig 10) is an example < how much < a letter is actually needed for legibility. Based on Brian Coe’s typography experiments, it eliminates “unnecessary” strokes from | letterforms > leave | reader > fill ^ | gaps. These are not new letterforms – they simply rely on | reader having previous experience < what | missing pieces should look like. Interestingly, it is mostly | upper half < | letterforms which remain – a clue into | fact ‡ this is where most < a character’s distinguishable features lie.

fig 10. You Can Read Me Phil Baines’ experimental typeface which plays on omission.

Readability

Reading is “the visual comprehension of language” (Sereno, Rayner: 2003:489). These symbols will be read, but I don’t want them to totally interrupt the natural flow of reading. The common theory of how we read lies with the word shape, or “Bouma”. “According to this idea, words form a certain shape—referred to as so-called bouma (shape)—and we can recognise (and therefore read) this shape or outline if we have seen it over and over again” (Herrmann: 2011). This theory would condemn the use of individual symbols as it would make a body of text a lot harder to read. This is because according to the idea, the basic shape of the symbols would not be easily distinguishable from each other. However, it has never been fully explained nor proven. More recent studies in psychology revealed we instead use the letters within a word to recognise it. “Word shape is no longer a viable model of word recognition. The bulk of scientific evidence says that we recognise a word’s component letters, then use that visual information to recognise a word” (Larson: 2004). Another consideration associated with readability is omission: what can be cut with the remains still being recognisable. The symbols would be more easily understood if they contained a ghost of the word they represent. Phil Baines’ “You Can Read Me” typeface (fig 10.) is an example of how much of a letter is actually needed for legibility. Based on Brian Coe’s typography experiments, it eliminates “unnecessary” strokes from the letterforms to leave the reader to fill in the gaps. These are not new letterforms – they simply rely on the reader having previous experience of what the missing pieces should look like. Interestingly, it is mostly the upper half of the letterforms which remain – a clue into the fact that this is where most of a character’s distinguishable features lie.

Using what I ± learnt from | history < written language & | ampersand, I set out > create new symbols. | ten most commonly used words ^ | english language are ^ order < popularity: |, §, >, <, &, a, ^, ‡, ±, I. < those ten, “a” & “I” need not > § simplified due > them already being | minimum < one character. “&” obviously has | ampersand – which after writing several thousand words about its success, seems counter productive > change. Like | ampersand, they are effectively ligatures; with | characters merged together > create one logogram. | symbols are around half < their original word’s width, thus making a vast improvement > line space. I chose > create these prototypes from Helvetica Regular; | font has consistent stroke thickness & curvature which makes it easier > create symbols which fit visually. There is no reason however, ‡ these symbols can’t § applied > any existing typeface. By following Helvetica’s existing structure, | symbols become almost recognisable, & therefore quickly understood & read. 50 When it comes > | use < these symbols digitally, there clearly needs > § an effective input. Looking at a keyboard, there are many symbols ‡ are very rarely used. When was | last time you used an integral “∫”, dagger “†”, or an approx-equal “≈”? These examples are typed by using alt + a letter key, making them as easy > type as a capital letter. I believe ‡ over time there is no reason they couldn’t § replaced with more useful symbols. When used ^ handwriting, | symbols will undoubtably develop > suit | writer’s hand so it is important ‡ | symbols’ ± a strong existing form > remain legible.

The Symbols

Using what I have learnt from the history of written language and the ampersand, I set out to create new symbols. The ten most commonly used words in the english language are in order of popularity: the, be, to, of, and, a, in, that, have, I. Of those ten, “a” and “I” need not to be simplified due to them already being the minimum of one character. “And” obviously has the ampersand – which after writing several thousand words about its success, seems counter productive to change. Like the ampersand, they are effectively ligatures; with the characters merged together to create one logogram. The symbols are around half of their original word’s width, thus making a vast improvement to line space. I chose to create these prototypes from Helvetica Regular; the font has consistent stroke thickness and curvature which makes it easier to create symbols which fit visually. There is no reason however, that these symbols can’t be applied to any existing typeface. By following Helvetica’s existing structure, the symbols become almost recognisable, and therefore quickly understood and read. When it comes to the use of these symbols digitally, there clearly needs to be an effective input. Looking at a keyboard, there are many symbols that are very rarely used. When was the last time you used an integral “∫”, dagger “†”, or an approx-equal “≈”? These examples are typed by using alt + a letter key, making them as easy to type as a capital letter. I believe that over time there is no reason they couldn’t be replaced with more useful symbols. When used in handwriting, the symbols will undoubtably develop to suit the writer’s hand so it is important that the symbols’ have a strong existing form to remain legible.

The

I have chosen – after some consideration – to use Mathis’ “the”. Despite it not originating from a hand movement, I feel the symbol is an effective representation of the word which can be naturally read within a text. And hypothetically, should these symbols be in use, the less conflicting variations of the same word in the world, the better.

The “be” is the most abstract, taking most of it’s form from the flow of handwriting. Inspired by the omission in Phil Baines’ “You Can Read Me” font, it combines the top half of a capital B with a lowercase e.

Two of the easiest word to simplify were “to” and “of”. The “o” lends itself perfectly into the cross stroke of the “t” and “f”, to the point when at first glance you barely notice that it is one character. Due to the one-stroke construction, these symbols in particular would be much faster to hand write than their parent words.

have

That

The four letter words “that” and “have” were the most challenging due to their length. This was solved by removing the vowels – letters which before Greeks didn’t even exist in writing, which proved they weren’t absolutely necessary for communication. “Have” then formed very naturally. “That” utilises the symbol for “the” to form the first half of the word, then the cross stroke creates the harder “t” sound.

^ order > make sure ‡ “^” didn’t just look like an “n”, inspiration was again taken from Baines’ typeface > remove what wasn’t necessary, but what remains is still recognisable as an “n”.

In order to make sure that “in” didn’t just look like an “n”, inspiration was again taken from Baines’ typeface to remove what wasn’t necessary, but what remains is still recognisable as an “n”.

I ± found it fascinating how easy it is > understand these symbols, & how quickly | brain adapts > reading them. By testing a passage < text using them on my peers, I ± discovered various things. Context definitely plays an important role ^ their ease < understanding; if a symbol finds itself at | end < a line, | brain finds it harder > understand as it can’t instantly jump > | next word. But after a few sentences, people said ‡ they almost stopped registering | symbols at all, & just proceeded with reading. These symbols were not designed for use ^ large passages < text – I have used them here > really push them. There are grammatical issues, such as the perception < beginning a sentence with what looks like lower case. I think ‡ it would § harder initially > write with them compared > reading, as you would § breaking a hardwired habit < typing &/or writing. But with some practice, just like learning a new program keyboard shortcut, you would eventually learn. 59

I have found it fascinating how easy it is to understand these symbols, and how quickly the brain adapts to reading them. By testing a passage of text using them on my peers, I have discovered various things. Context definitely plays an important role in their ease of understanding; if a symbol finds itself at the end of a line, the brain finds it harder to understand as it can’t instantly jump to the next word. But after a few sentences, people said that they almost stopped registering the symbols at all, and just proceeded with reading. These symbols were not designed for use in large passages of text – I have used them here to really push them. There are grammatical issues, such as the perception of beginning a sentence with what looks like lower case. I think that it would be harder initially to write with them compared to reading, as you would be breaking a hardwired habit of typing and/or writing. But with some practice, just like learning a new program keyboard shortcut, you would eventually learn.

abcde lmnop vwxyz |><‡

efghijk pqrstu z !?£& ‡^§±

> ยง, or โ ก is | q

not > ยง, question.

Conclusion | history < how our language came > § is a long & complex one, but a grasp < it has led > a greater understanding < | creation < | ampersand. Should | Greeks not ± introduced vowels, for example, there would not ± been an “e” > create | well know “et” ligature, which would ± led > a very different symbol or even a world without one. | ampersand has undoubtably earned its place ^ modern communication. Its survival demonstrates ‡ time & space saving symbols deserve > § included ^ our alphabets. So why are there not more symbols like | ampersand? ^ short; witchcraft & Nazis. There has always been shortcuts ^ language, & perhaps if people hadn’t been so scared < these slightly cryptic letterforms, more might ± made their way into our writing today. But | ampersand is not completely alone; there are a handful < symbols ‡ ± a similar job < representing a whole world, but none ‡ yet do it better. | future < our alphabet doesn’t look set > change, but equally, I can imagine | Ancient Egyptians thought ‡ their system < hieroglyphics would never change either. Paul Mathis found out | extent < our apprehension > change & ‡ it will take great persuasion > change habits when attempting > introduce his “|” symbol. So what is | future for these new symbols? Much like Crouwel’s “New Alphabet” or Baines’ “You Can Read Me”, they are | subjects < trial. But both < these typefaces ^ fact became widely accepted, so there may just § some hope for this little experiment.

The history of how our language came to be is a long and complex one, but a grasp of it has led to a greater understanding of the creation of the ampersand. Should the Greeks not have introduced vowels, for example, there would not have been an “e” to create the well know “et” ligature, which would have led to a very different symbol or even a world without one. The ampersand has undoubtably earned its place in modern communication. Its survival demonstrates that time and space saving symbols deserve to be included in our alphabets. So why are there not more symbols like the ampersand? In short; witchcraft and Nazis. There has always been shortcuts in language, and perhaps if people hadn’t been so scared of these slightly cryptic letterforms, more might have made their way into our writing today. But the ampersand is not completely alone; there are a handful of symbols that have a similar job of representing a whole world, but none that yet do it better. The future of our alphabet doesn’t look set to change, but equally, I can imagine the Ancient Egyptians thought that their system of hieroglyphics would never change either. Paul Mathis found out the extent of our apprehension to change and that it will take great persuasion to change habits when attempting to introduce his “the” symbol. So what is the future for these new symbols? Much like Crouwel’s “New Alphabet” or Baines’ “You Can Read Me”, they are the subjects of trial. But both of these typefaces in fact became widely accepted, so there may just be some hope for this little experiment.

Bibliography Books and Journals BAINES, Phil & HASLAM, Andrew (2005). Type & Typography. 2nd ed. London: Laurence King. BRINGHURST, Robert (2004). The Solid Form of Language. Canada: Gaspereau Press. BROOK, Tony & SHAUGHNESSY, Adrian (2011). Wim Crouwel a graphic odyssey catalogue. London: Unit Editions. CICERO, Marcus (1913). Book VII. 2nd ed. Portsmouth: Heinemann. CICERO, Marcus (1918). Book XIII. Portsmouth: Heinemann. CRISTIN, Anne-Marie (2002). A History of Writing. London: Flammarion. CROW, David (2006). Left to Right / the cultural shift from words to pictures. Case Postale: AVA. DAVIES, Anna (2015). Glyphs. London: Cicada Books. DONALDSON, Timothy (2008). Shapes for Sounds. New York: Mark Batty Publisher.

GILL, Eric (2001). An Essay on Typography. 6th ed. Hampshire: Lund Humphries. HOUSTON, Keith (2013). Shady Characters. London: Particular Books. MORWOOD, James & WARMAN, Mark (1990). Our Greek and Latin Roots. London: Cambridge University Press. ROBINSON, Andrew (1995). The Story of Writing. London: Thames and Hudson. SERENO, Sara, RAYNER, Keith. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: eye movements and event-related potentials. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences . 7 (11) TSCHICHOLD, Jan (1995). Treasury of Alphabets and Lettering: A Source Book of the Best Letter Forms. London: W.W. Norton & Co. URW (1990). The Secret of Gutenberg. Hamburg. (Document provided by Timothy Donaldson)

Web Resources BIOGRAPHY.COM Editors. (n.d). Johannes Gutenberg Biography. Available: http://www.biography.com/people/johannes-gutenberg-9323828#related-videogallery. Last accessed 19th Dec 2015. BROWNLEE, John. (2016). Why Designers Love The Ampersand. Available: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3055622/why-designers-lovethe-ampersand?partner=socialflow&utm_content=bufferdf405&utm_ medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer. Last accessed 21st Jan 2016. DESIGN MUSEUM. (n.d). Wim Crouwell. Available: https://designmuseum.org/ designers/wim-crouwel. Last accessed 4th Nov 2015. DESIGN MUSUEM. (n.d). Alan Fletcher. Available: http://design.designmuseum. org/design/alan-fletcher. Last accessed 22nd Dec 2015. DICTIONARY.COM. (2014). What Character Was Removed from the Alphabet?. Available: http://blog.dictionary.com/ampersand/. Last accessed 22nd Dec 2015. 68

ELLISON, Kaitlyn. (2015). Design History: Get to know your ampersands. Available: https://99designs.com/designer-blog/2015/04/03/history-ofampersands-typography/. Last accessed 17th Nov 2015. FULTON, Adam. (2013). What Th? One man’s quest for a symbol solution. Available: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/what-th-onemans-quest-for-a-symbol-solution-20130705-2pgd8.html. Last accessed 29th Dec 2015. GOLDMAN Jason G. (2012). Is language unique to humans?. Available: http:// www.bbc.com/future/story/20121016-is-language-unique-to-humans. Last accessed 13th Oct 2015. HERRMANN, Ralf. (2011). How do we read words and how should we set them?. Available: http://typography.guru/journal/how-do-we-read-words-and-howshould-we-set-them-r19/. Last accessed 13th Jan 2016. HOUSTON, Keith. (2013). What |?. Available: http://www.shadycharacters. co.uk/2013/07/miscellany-34-what-th/. Last accessed 29th Dec 2015. HOWSE, Christopher. (2015). Emoji the big new language? I’d rather take to cave art. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11619149/ Emoji-the-big-new-language-Id-rather-take-to-cave-art.html. Last accessed 4th Nov 2015.

KAPR, Albert. (1983). The Art Of Lettering: The History, Anatomy, and Aesthetics of the Roman Letter Forms. Munich: Saur. OXFORD DICTIONARY. (2015). Language. Available: http://www. oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/language. Last accessed 13th Oct 2015. OXFORD DICTIONARY. (2015). Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2015 is…. Available: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/11/word-of-the-year-2015emoji/#poll. Last accessed 20th Nov 2015. LARSON, Kevin. (2004). The science of word recognition. Available: http://www. eyemagazine.com/opinion/article/the-science-of-word-recognition. Last accessed 18th Jan 2016. LOGAN, Megan. (2015). We Try to Decipher Chevy’s Bewildering Emoji Press Release. Available: http://www.wired.com/2015/06/emoji-press-release/. Last accessed 4th Nov 2015. MATHIS, Paul. (2013) Interviewed on BBC Radio 5, 11th July 2013. MARK, Joshua. (2011). Cuneiform. Available: http://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/. Last accessed 27th Oct 2015. METZ, Cade. (2012). Meet The Man Who Put The ‘@’ in Your Email. Available: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ray-tomlinson-email/. Last accessed 29th Dec 2015. MUSEUM OF MODERN ART. (n.d). Wim Crouwel New Alphabet. Available: http://www.moma.org/collection/works/139322?locale=en. Last accessed 4th Nov 2015. STEVEN, Rachael. (2014). Why Black & Decker became Black + Decker. Available: http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2014/january/why-black-deckerbecame-black-decker/. Last accessed 22nd Dec 2015. STEWART, Victoria. (2014). Plus or ampersand? The branding battle on London’s restaurant scene. Available: http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/restaurants/ plus-or-ampersand-the-branding-battle-on-londons-restaurant-scene-9725833. html. Last accessed 22nd Dec 2015. STOCKTON, Nick. (2015). Emoji—Trendy Slang or a Whole New Language?. Available: http://www.wired.com/2015/06/emojitrendy-slang-whole-newlanguage/. Last accessed 4th Nov 2015. TYPEFOUNDRY Editors. (2008). Esszet or ß. Available: http://typefoundry. blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/esszett-or.html. Last accessed 29th Dec 2015.

Figures

1. “New Alphabet”. Wim Crouwel. http://msfrankel.com/old_site/typography/ docs/images/Type_Lecture_img_41.jpg 2. “Ligature”. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/ Garamond_type_ſi-ligature_2.jpg 3. “Gutenberg’s Ligatures”. URW (1990). The Secret of Gutenberg. Hamburg. (Document provided by Timothy Donaldson) 4. “Pompeian ET”. Jan Tschichold (1953). Formenwandlugen der &-Zeichen 5. “Ampersand Evolution”. Jan Tschichold (1953). Formenwandlugen der &-Zeichen 6. “Tironian et Evolution”. Jan Tschichold (1953). Formenwandlugen der &-Zeichen 70

7. “Black + Decker”. http://www.creativereview.co.uk/images/uploads/2014/01/ unknown1_2.jpeg 8. “V&A”. Alan Fletcher. http://logonoid.com/images/v-and-a-logo.png 9. “@”. Robert Slimbach. Minion Pro Bold Font. 10. “You Can Read Me”. Phil Baines. https://www.fontfont.com/staticcontent/ inuseimages/original/FF_You_Can_Read_Me-Showing_by_Sven_Fuchs. png?1312550314