Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

these places, their elevations and connections in three dimensional virtual space. I analyze how
specific places are designed for particular interactions, and how the organization of design
elements constitutes them as functional places 2 . In this way, I categorize the structural components
that constitute the virtual places in a rank-of-scale format, and analyze thesemiotic functions for
each meaningful element.
This formulation of the rank-of-scale of virtual places mainly refers to O’Toole’s (2004) social
semiotic model of architectural design. He proposes that we look for four distinct dimensions in a
systemic functional analysis of three-dimensional spaces and meaningful places: namely building,
floor, room and element. On the other hand, these dimensions refer to physical buildings, whereas
the two case-studies (Metrotopia and PAL) are designed as sims (virtual islands) and the workshop
projects represent smaller-scale artifacts. Therefore, they do not necessarily show the same
characteristics as real-world buildings, as the actions of the SL users are mediated by their avatars.
Some of the relevant similarities and differences between the so-called real and virtual experiences
have been outlined in Chapter 2. Therefore, I modify O’Toole’s analytical terminology to fit the
modal affordances of the digitally mediated places of SL, and focus the analysis on slightly different
yet significantly similar categories of the ranks of scale. My purpose in critically adopting the
architecture-based model at this level of multimodal analysis is to capture the spatial
characteristics of interacting with virtual environments rather than a limited framing of
multimodal analysis by merely graphical elements. To guide the multimodal analysis, I generate an
analytical matrix (Table 8.1.) which is composed of two axes: the first (horizontal) axis is the
systemic units of experiential, interpersonal and textual meta-functions and the other (vertical)
axis refers to O’Toole’s semiotic model of architectural places, which is divided into four scales of
structural design 3 :
- Sim or virtual place (O’Toole’s ‘building’ scale),
- Elevations and divisions in three-dimensional grid (O’Toole’s ‘floor’ scale),
- Interaction spaces (O’Toole ‘room’ scale),
- Artifacts and information surfaces (O’Toole’s ‘elements’ scale)
In the methodology chapter, I have argued that a coherent epistemological account of semiotic
practices should be supported by insights and reflections of the actual designers – as sign-makers –
to reveal underlying rhetorical intentions. The previous chapter therefore forms the empirical
2 At this level, I consider both three-dimensional artifacts and two-dimensional information surfaces in virtual space as
smallest unit of design elements.
3
My choice of placing the two axis in this particular vertical/horizontal order has theoretical foundations. While the
socio-semiotic meta-functions are often considered as homogeneously distributed amongst the meaning structures
(therefore can be analyzed in any order), spatial elements are organized in a rank-scale, which requires special attention
to different levels of detail in each scale.
191