- In which ways can we achieve this higher communication value in type? - How much can we actually communicate through a text, or rather, what are the limits to communication through type?

The answer to the first question is provided by various examples, such as the use of different degrees of boldness for emphasis and the use of slanted letters to suggest speed. Several detailed examples will be given in paragraph 4.1.1. Nonetheless, ‘intuitive’ or ‘trained’ guessing by designers still dominates many designs where second-level communication is applied to type. In those cases, the designer does not know whether the additional information is actually interpreted in the manner he intended. He only assumes that the reader’s interpretation will match his own.

The second question concerns the limits of typographic expressiveness. No publications could be traced relating to this topic. Perhaps it is too early for research on this question. It is also possible that typographers do not consider the question all that interesting. However, one would think that it would be useful to know which kind of information can be expressed through type and which kind is too complex. Then, knowing the constraints to the expressiveness of type, we would have (more) control over the expressive potential. However, before we could answer this question, there would have to be a clear answer to the first question. Here, the findings that could provide an answer will be reviewed and exemplified. First priority, then, is to define the second level of communication.

In the introduction of this review, the distinction between functional and semantic properties of type has been made, using Bartram’s (1982) terms and definitions.

The functional properties of a character together comprise the shape that is typical of one letter, allowing it to be distinguished from other letters. Here, and are equal; they both have the right form features to cause a reader to identify them as an ‘m’.

The semantic properties of a character trigger a cognitive or emotional response in the reader; the shape reveals, or rather suggests some sort of meaning. In this case, and are still both an ‘m’, but one appears childlike to many people, whereas the other can be considered more distinguished and professional. When we consider the impression they evoke, both typefaces are not equal. This suggests that, at the second level of communication, meaning seems to be expressed directly by the characters themselves. People respond to the particular shape of a character by associating it with a certain intellectual or emotional value. The first of the two ‘m’-shapes might well be cognitively associated with immaturity and irresponsibility, for instance, while an emotional response could be one of endearment. The second ‘m’-shape will more likely be associated cognitively with businesslike behavior and, emotionally, a reader might respond by simply finding the shape beautiful.

In the example above, one typeface is obviously more suitable than the other to give the impression of strength or elegance. However, it can not be guaranteed that a similar meaning is attributed by all readers. Moreover, by far not every typeface is associated with a specific emotional or cognitive concept. In addition, associative thinking is only desirable at some instances. Where transparency of text is an important requirement, as is the case in textbooks, little or no attention should be drawn to the shape of the characters. Here, it is more important that the functional properties of the typeface used yield high legibility. The typeface should, however, not have any distinctive semantic properties. Prominent semantic properties of type, on the other hand, are as a rule desirable in the design of advertisements and signs, provided that a typeface with a suitable expression value exists. This means that the designer has to know many typefaces and their connotations. Thus, finding the right typeface is difficult; it is more of a craft than an objective selection process.

This discussion about second-level communication will be limited to typeface and will not venture into the area of meaning conveyed by organizational aspects of typography; this is beyond the scope of this review. However, one comment needs to be made. While the reader’s perception of ‘luxurious’ or ‘friendly’ line-spacing, for example, have been studied as early as the 1930’s (Ovink, 1938), little scientific attention has been paid to their influence since. The typographic practice would quite possibly benefit if these organizational aspects would again receive attention as a topic of research.

In discussing the semantic properties of type, a distinction should be made between two kinds of meaning; namely aesthetic meaning and meaning attributed by association. Meaning by association implies that a connection is made, consciously or not, between the characters’ shape and a personality trait, a mood, or a setting, which results in a cognitive or emotional response. The association can even simply be made between italic or bold and the message ‘this is important’. Aesthetic meaning operates at another level. Beauty is meaning in itself; it is something that we want to achieve whenever possible, since beholding beauty is a satisfying and fulfilling experience. Beauty is a goal in life, which makes it meaningful. At the level of aesthetic meaning, a connection is not (necessarily) made with some experience; the emotional response can also be triggered directly. The two kinds of meaning will be discussed in two separate paragraphs.