ANALYZINGTHEDIAGRAMMATICREGISTERINGEOMETRYTEXTBOOKS:

TOWARDASEMIOTICARCHITECTURE

JustinDimmel PatricioHerbst
UniversityofMichigan UniversityofMichigan
jkdimmel@umich.edu pgherbst@umich.edu

Diagramsarekeyresourcesforstudentswhenreasoningingeometry.Overthecourseofthe
20thcentury,diagramsingeometrytextbookshaveevolvedfromausterecollectionsofstrokes
andletterstobecomediversearraysofsymbols,labels,anddifferentlystyledvisualparts.
Diagramsarethusmultisemiotictextsthatpresentmeaningstostudentsacrossarangeof
communicationsystems.Weproposeaschemeforanalyzinghowgeometricdiagramsfunction
asresourcesformathematicalcommunicationintermsoffoursemioticsystems:type,position,
prominence,andattributes.Thesemioticarchitectureweproposedrawsonresearchinsystemic
functionallinguistics(Halliday,2004;OHalloran,2005)andsuggestsaframeworkfor
analyzinghowgeometrydiagramsfunctionasmathematicaltexts.

Keywords:Geometry,ClassroomDiscourse,CurriculumAnalysis

Introduction
Diagramsarekeyresourcesforstudentswhenreasoningingeometry.Researchshowsthat
differentpropertiesofadiagramfacilitatedifferenttypesofstudentinteraction(Herbst,2004;
Laborde,2004).Laborde(2004)drawsadistinctionalongthelinesofspatiographicalversus
theoreticalpropertiesofadiagram.Ageometricfigurecanbedefinedasasetofpointsthat
satisfysomegivenproperties(e.g.,anisoscelestriangleABCwithsidesABandBCcongruent).
Adiagramisavisualrepresentationofafigure.Asrepresentation,thediagramalsorepresents
thepropertiesthatdefinethefigure(e.g.,thestrokesforABandBCarethesamelength)these
arethetheoreticalpropertiesofthediagram.Butthediagramalsohasotherpropertiesthatare
notnecessitatedbythedefinitionofthefigurebutcontingenttoitsdiagrammaticrepresentation
(e.g.,thestrokeforsideACiseitherlonger,shorter,orjustaslongastheothertwo).The
spatiographicalpropertiesarethesevisualpropertiesoftheobjectsinadiagram(Laborde,2004
p.160).Diagramssupportthereadingofspatiographicalandtheoreticalproperties,andthese
readingsmayevencontradicteachother.Adiagramisthusanambiguousrepresentationofaset
ofgeometricobjectsandtheirrelations.
Labordesdistinctionbetweenspatiographicalandtheoreticalpropertiesofadiagramis
relatedtoHerbstsdistinctionbetweentheempiricalandtherepresentationalmodesof
interactingwithdiagrams(Herbst,2004).Amodeofinteractionconcernsanactor(e.g.,a
student),adiagram(orotherrepresentation),andageometricobject(e.g.,whatthediagramisa
representationof).Intheempiricalmodeofinteraction,astudentactsonadiagrambylookingat
it,measuringitsdifferentparts,ordrawinginit,onlyconstrainedbytheactualfeaturesofthe
physicaldrawingandtheoperationalconstraintsofthephysicalinstrumentsofinteraction
(Herbst,2004,p.130).Intherepresentationalmodeofinteraction,theknowntheoretical
propertiesofthegeometricobjectsthediagramrepresentsconstraintheactionsonthediagram.
Thespatiographical-theoreticaldifferenceindiagrammaticpropertiescombinedwiththe
empirical-representationaldifferenceinmodesofdiagrammaticinteractionpointstoan
underlyingdualitybetweenadiagram(asanactualphysicalthing)andthegeometricobjectsit
represents.Mathematiciansinthe19thcenturypurgedthisdualityfromformalmathematicsby
rejectingargumentsthatdependedonpropertiesofdiagramsinfavorofargumentsthatwere
completelycontainedinpropositionsthatcouldbestatedsolelywithlinguisticandlogical
symbols(Barwise&Ecthemendy,1996;Greaves,2002;Miller,2007).Butteachersofhigh
schoolgeometryarenotonlyobligatedtotheirdiscipline,theyarealsoobligatedtotheir
students(Herbst&Chazan,2011).Andonthatcount,diagramsarenotonlyinstrumentalat
representingtherelationshipsthatholdbetweenabstractobjectslikepoints,lines,andplanes,but
alsoarepowerfultoolsforpeopletosolveproblems(Larkin&Simon,1987;Duval,1995).So
evenwhenthediagramsofEuclideangeometrywereundersiegebymathematicians,teachersof
schoolgeometryratherthanfollowsuitandbanishdiagramsfromtheirclassroomshadto
devisestrategiesforfacilitatingstudentinteractionswithdiagrams.Thewaythatdiagramsare
presentedin20thcenturytextbooksprovidesonerecordofhowthesefacilitationstrategies
evolved.Thegoalofthispaperistopresentasemioticarchitectureorschemeforanalyzing
geometrydiagramsthatbuildsonasystemicfunctionalperspective.

TheoreticalFramework
ThesystemicfunctionalperspectiveoriginatedwithM.A.K.Hallidaysanalysisofgrammar,
wherebyhepositedthatgrammarconsistsofasetofsystems(e.g.,transitivity,mood,
conjunction)thatofferchoicesforwritersandspeakerstorealizemeanings(Halliday,2004).
Thisperspectivehasbeenextendedtolevelsabovegrammar(e.g.,discourse)andbelow
grammar(e.g.,phonology)aswellastononlinguisticsemioticsystems(e.g.,images;Kress&
vanLeuven,1996;OToole,1994).
Mathematicalcommunicationemploysvarioussemioticsystemstomakemeanings,in
particularlanguage,symbols,andvisuals(Lemke,2003;OHalloran,2005).Duval(2006)uses
registertorefertothesesemioticsystems.Buildingonthatuseofregister,intheirstudyofthe
typesoftranslationtasksthatstudentsmightbeassignedinthegeometryclass,WeissandHerbst
(2008)arguethatthediagramsofhighschoolgeometrycompriseadistinctmathematical
registerthediagrammaticregister.Thesymbolsofthisregisterarepicturesof(idealized)
realthingse.g.,circles,points,parallellinestogetherwiththesystemofmarkup
signse.g.,congruence,perpendicularity,andparallelismmarkings,labelsthatencodethe
propertiesofthoseobjectsorpermitreferencestothoseobjects(Weiss&Herbst,2008,p.19).
Thesystemofmarkupsignsforgeometricpropertiesindiagramsandthenormsthatgovern
whichgeometricpropertiesthediagramrepresentsareproductsofthe20thcentury.The
diagramsofEuclidandDescartes,aswellasthoseinearly20thcenturyplanegeometry
textbooksparticularlythosefromtheEraoftheTextandtheEraoftheOriginals(Herbst,
2002)werecollectionsofstrokes(forlines,linesegments,andcircles)andletters(forpoints).
Thediagrammaticregisterintheseearlytextbooksofplanegeometrylackedmanyofthe
featuresthatonewouldexpectfromthediagramsinmainstreamtextbooksfromthelater20th
and21stcenturies.Figure1illustratesthesedifferences.


Figure1:Figure1:Comparisonoftwogeometrydiagrams

Figure1showstwodifferentdiagramsfromtwodifferenttextbooks(Wentworth,1913and
Fosteretal.,1990,respectively)thataccompanythestatementofthesametheorem:thatthe
externaltangentsdrawnfromapointtoacircleformsegments(PB,PAandPQ,PR
respectively)thatarecongruent.ThediagramsinFigure1havecommonalities.Forexample,
eachfigureshowsthesegmentsonemightusetoprovethetangentsegmentstheorem,andeach
figurelabelsthepointsonewouldexpecttouseintheproof(P,B,O,AandP,Q,C,R).Yetthe
diagramsinFigure1arealsoclearlydifferent:thelaterdiagramshowsmarkedrightanglesat
PQCandPRCandusesdifferentcolors(thelighterlinesareblue,thedarkerlinesarered)for
differentstrokes,whiletheearlierdiagramusesdifferentstylesoflines(BO,BAaredashed)and
uniformchoicesforthethicknessofstrokes.Thechangesobservedbetweenthesediagrams
suggestthatreadersofdiagramsneedtobeabletointerpretandintegratedifferentsemiotic
systemsastheyinteractwithdiagrams.Thesemioticarchitecturepresentedbelowaimsto
characterizetheseandothersystemsusedinthevisualdisplayofgeometricdiagrams.
ModeofInquiry
ThearchitectureproposedherebuildsonOHalloranssurveyoftheliteral,symbolic,and
visualsemioticsystemsofmathematics(OHalloran,2005).OHallorandefinesdiagramsasa
distinctgenreofmathematicalvisualimage,usingdiagraminthebroadestsensetoinclude
Venndiagrams,geometricalfigures,andotherfiguressuchasthosefoundingraphtheory
andtopology(OHalloran,2005p.133).WedrawonandextendOHalloransframeworkto
thespecificgenreofgeometricdiagrams,whichweoperationallydefineasthe2-dimensional,
visualrepresentationsthataccompanyproofs(orproofproblems)inplanegeometrytextbooks.
Theproposedarchitecturesynthesizestheoreticalandempiricalinquiries.Ourproposed
schemeforanalyzingdiagramsdrawsontheliteraturethatconceptualizesvisualimagesas
coherentsemioticsystems.Assuch,wetakeasafirstprinciplethatgeometricdiagramsobeya
visualgrammarandthatdifferencesinhowpartsofdiagramsarepresentedarepurposefuland
existtocommunicatespecificinformationtoamodalviewerofadiagram.Fromthesystemic
functionalperspective,therearechoicesavailablewhencreatinganycommunicativetext,and
thesechoicescanbedescribedintermsofthedifferentsystemsavailablewithwhichthetext(the
diagram,inourcase)canfulfillcommunicativefunctions.Inthispaperourmaincontributionis
toidentifythosesystemsweleaveourconsiderationsoffunctionforalatertime.
Wedevelopedthearchitecturebyanalyzingdiagramsin20thcenturygeometrytextbooks
publishedbymainstreampublishers.TheseincludedtextbooksfromMacMillan,McGraw-Hill,
Merrill,Glencoe,andGinnandCompanypublishinghouses.Intotal,30textbookstheearliest
publishedin1899,thelatestpublishedin2004wereexaminedtodevelopthestructureand
categoriesinthearchitecturereportedbelow.Theworkproceedediniterations,muchinline
withthetraditionofdesignresearch(Lesh&Sriraman,2005).Wesketchedaninitialschemefor
analyzingthedifferencesinthediagramsdrawingonOHalloransworkthenrevisedand
fleshedoutthisschemeasnecessarytoaccountfornewtypesofvariationthatwereencountered
byanalyzingthediagramsindifferenttextbooks.Throughthecourseoftheseiterations,we
identifiedfoursemioticsystemstype,position,prominence,andattributesthatweofferasa
firstapproximationtocharacterizethediagrammaticregister.


 SemioticSystemsinGeometricDiagrams:Type,Position,Prominence,Attributes
Weproposefourfunctionalsemioticsystemstodescribetherangeofvariationingeometry
diagrams.Thesesystemsarereferredtoasthetype,position,prominence,andattributessystems.
Ourofusesystemconcordswithitsuseinfunctionalgrammar:systemscontainthe
paradigmaticorderingofalanguage(awhat-could-go-instead-of-whatrelation,Halliday,p.
23).Thesystemsweidentifyinventorythechoicesthatareavailablewhencreatingageometry
diagram.
Forthepurposeofthisanalysis,thepartsofageometrydiagramaregraphicalanaloguesof
morphemesinwrittenlanguage(Engelhardt,2002).Ingeometricdiagrams,therearepartsthat
representgeometricobjects(e.g.,dots,strokes,regions)andpartsthatrepresentgeometric(and
potentiallyothermathematical)properties(e.g.,congruence,parallelism,perpendicularity,
movement).Thepartsofadiagramcanbedifferentiatedanalogouslytothewaythatfreeand
boundmorphemesaredifferentiatedinlinguistics(Engelhardt,2002,p.24).Thefreepartslike
freemorphemesarethosethatcanappearontheirown(e.g.,dots,strokes),whilethebound
partslikeboundmorphemesarethosethatcanonlyappearwithothers(e.g.,congruence
hashmarks,parallelismarrows).Ingeneral,wehavefoundthatfreepartsrepresentgeometric
objectswhileboundpartsrepresentgeometricproperties,thoughthisdivisionisnotwithout
exception.Forexample,apartiallylimitedregionmaybeconsideredapartofadiagramthat
representsanangle,yetthispartcannotvisuallyoccurindependentlyofstrokes(andpotentially
dots).Thefree-part/bound-partdistinctionhelpstostructuretheTypesystem.
TheTypesystem.TheTypesystemcategorizesthedifferentpartsofageometricdiagram
accordingtotheirvisualidentity.TheTypesystemisthusawayoftakingstockofthelexical
elementsofagivendiagrammatictext.Figure2showssomeofthechoicesintheTypesystem.

Figure2:TheTypeSystem

ThedivisionsintheTypesystemarevisual,notgeometric.Keepingvisualpropertiesdistinct
fromthegeometricpropertiesallowsonetostudyhowthedifferentgeometricpropertiesare
representedasvisualpartsindiagrams.Thus,lines,segments,andraysareallexamplesof
{strokes:straight}andarevisuallyofthesamekind.TheAttributesystem(seebelow)encodes
themarkedgeometricdifferencesinpartsthatpresentasthesametypeofstroke.Letteris
includedasasublevelofthefreepartsonaccountofthefactthat,inoldertextbooksin
particular,alettercanappearonitsowninadiagrameitheronastrokeorinspaceand
therebysignaltheexistenceofageometricpointwheretheletteroccurs(seeFigure7,below).
Dotisthevisualcategorythatcorrespondstogeometricpoints.Thedotalonedoton
dotatdistinctionscapturesthevisualdifferencesbetweenadotthatisindependentofother
parts(dotalone),adotthatisonsomeotherpart(doton),andadotthatisattheintersectionof
severalparts(dotat).
ThePositionsystem.Typesystemprovidesaschemeforidentifyingtheparticipants
(taxonomicallyspeaking)thatagivendiagramprovidesforforminggeometricclauses(i.e.,
mathematicalstatementsaboutwhatishappeninginagivendiagram).ThePositionsystem
captureshowthosedifferentparticipantsrelatetoeachotherspatiographically;positionaccounts
forwherepartsarelocatedrelativetooneanotherandhowthosepartsareorientedrelativetothe
frameofreferenceofthepage.Figure3showstherelationsinthePositionsystem.

Figure3:ThePositionSystem

ThefirstlevelinthePositionsystemisaframeofreference(e.g.,radial,rectangular),
followedbysublevelsofdistance(visualspacebetweenparts)andorientation(headingofthe
partrelativetoasetofreferenceaxes)thatdependonthechosenreferencesystem.
TheProminencesystem.Prominencereferstothevisualprominenceofapartinthedisplay
(OHalloran,2005,p.136).Figure3showsthearchitecturefortheProminencesystemasit
appliestoplanegeometrydiagrams.

Figure4:TheProminenceSystem

Thereareemphasisanddifferencesubsystems.Emphasiscommunicatesthevisualemphasis
ofapart,throughchoicesforweight(strokes),gauge(dots),transparency(regions),andstyle
(lettersandsymbols).Differencecommunicatesthevisualdifferenceofapart,throughchoices
forcolor(allparts),pattern(regions),fill(dots),andstyle(stroke).Theinteractionofthese
differentsystemsisevidentinFigure1(reproducedbelow),wherecircleC(rightframe)isgiven
lessemphasisrelativetostrokesPQ,PRandPC,byvirtueofitslighterweight,yetlinkedtoPQ
andPRwhilebeingsetapartfromPCthroughchoicesincolor.

DiagramfromWentworth'sPlane DiagramfromMerrillGeometry
Geometry(1913,p.107) (Fosteretal.,1990,p.366)
Figure5:ReproductionofFigure1

TheuseoftheProminencesystemtomarkpartsofadiagramevolvedoverthecourseofthe
20thcentury.Forexample,inMerrillsGeometry(1990),blueisthetypicalchoiceforstrokes;
othercolors(orange,red,purple)areusedtomarkauxiliaryorotherwisespeciallines.This
suggeststhatPC(darkerintherightframeofFigure1)isanauxiliaryline.Contrastthistothe
useoftheProminencesysteminWentworthsGeometry(1913).Inthistext,solidstrokeswere
typicalandthedashedstylewasusedtomarkauxiliarylines.Noticethattheradiiintheleft
frameofFigure1OBandOAaremarkedasdifferentfromtheotherstrokesthrougha
choiceinstyle(dashed).Thissuggeststhattheradii,ratherthanPO,aretheauxiliarylinesinthis
diagram.TheseexamplesshowthattheProminencesystemcansignalthepropertiesofthe
geometricobjectsthatarerepresented(byparts)inthediagram;howexactlysuchproperties
correlatetochoicesingauge,fill,weight,style,andcolorisanareaforfurtherstudy.
TheAttributessystem.Theprincipalsystemthatcommunicatesthegeometricpropertiesof
adiagramistheAttributessystem,showninFigure4.

Figure6:TheAttributesSystem

Attributesarerelationalorexistential;likethewordattribute,relationalandexistential
arechosentodrawananalogytolinguistics.Inthiscase,itisthedistinctionbetweenrelational
andexistentialprocesses(Halliday,2004).Relationalprocessesservetocharacterizeand
identify(Halliday,2004p.210),whileexistentialprocessesarethosebywhichphenomena
ofallkindsaresimplyrecognizedtobe(Halliday,2004p.171).Similarly,therelational
attributesofpartsarethosediacriticalmarkings,measures,andlabelsthatservetoidentifyand
classifyrelationsthatholdamongspecificparts.Thesemarkingsareresourcesinthediagram
thathelpmanagethespatiographical-theoreticalduality;thus,forthemodalviewer,amarked
rightangleisright,regardlessofwhatitmightactuallylooklike(andconversely:anunmarked
anglethatlooksrightmightnotbe).
Complementingtherelationalattributesaretheexistentialattributes.Liketheirlinguistic
cousins,existentialattributesaresonamedbecausetheyactuallystipulatetheexistenceofapart
inadiagram.Consider,forexample,pointsD,E,C,B,andAinFigure5,adiagraminWells
andHartsPlaneGeometry(1915).Inthisdiagram,thepresenceofthelettersD,E,C,B,
andApositionedattheendsofthestraightstrokesmarktheexistenceofpointsontheirends.

Figure7:DiagramfromWellsandHartsPlaneGeometry(1915,p.19)

Arrowsserveasexistentialattributeswhentheyareappliedtotheendsofstraightstrokes,as
themeansofstipulatingthatagivenstraightstrokeisaline(twoarrows)oraray(onearrow).
TherightframeofFigure1(seeabove)hasexamplesoftheseattributesastheyareappliedto
PQandPR,therebybringingintoexistencerayPQandrayPR(asopposedtobringinginto
existenceasegmentoraline).Apartfromtherelationalandexistentialattributesthatapplyto
singleparts,therearealsoattributessuchascaptionsorarrows(transformational)thatapplyto
theentirediagramortoseveralparts.
Therearefurtherchoiceswithintheattributessystemthatarenotdepictedinthediagram.
Considerthecaseoflabels.Ananglemaybelabeledthroughitsvertexpointandpointsonits
componentrays;thus,inFigure5,wecouldusethelabelsofpointstorefertoangleDOA.But
angleslikesegmentscanalsobeassignedtheirownlabels,asisthecaseinFigure6.

Figure8:DiagramfromSchultzesPlaneGeometry(1913,p.18)

InFigure6,weseethatangles1,2,3,4havetheirownspecificlabels.Thisisjustone
exampleofthepossiblevariation.AswasthecasewiththeProminencesystem,theuseofthe
Attributessystemhasevolvedduringthe20thcentury,andtracingtheemergenceofthissystem
isanareaforfurtherstudy.

Summary
Geometryteachershavebeenconcernedwithhowtoteachstudentstocommunicatewith
geometricdiagramsformorethan100years(Baker,1902).Theevolutionofthediagrammatic
registerin20thcenturygeometrytextbooksspeakstothisconcern,andthearchitecturewehave
proposedinthisreportisonemeansthroughwhichthisevolutioncanbeanalyzed.Studyingthe
developmentofthediagrammaticregisterin20thcenturytextbookswillshinealightonhowthe
multiple,ambiguous,andsometimesconflictingrolesthatdiagramsplayinstudentmathematical
reasoningaresemioticallymanaged.Theworkreportedhereisastepinthisdirection.
 References
Barwise,J.,&Ecthemendy,J.(1996)VisualInformationandValidReasoning.InG.Allwein&J.Barwise(Eds.),
LogicalReasoningwithDiagrams(pp.3-25).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Baker,L.A.(1902)AutomaticdiagramsinGeometry.TheSchoolReview10(6),486-496
Duval,R.(1995)Geometricalpictures:kindsofrepresentationandspecicprocessing,inR.SuttherlandandJ.
Mason(eds.),Exploitingmentalimagerywithcomputersinmathematicseducation,Springer,Berlin,pp.142
157.Berlin,Germany:Springer-VerlagHeidelberg.
Duval,R.(2006).Acognitiveanalysisofproblemsofcomprehensioninalearningofmathematics.Educational
StudiesinMathematics,61(1&2),103131.
Engelhardt,Y.(2002).Thelanguageofgraphics.Amsterdam,theNetherlands:InstituteforLogic,Languageand
Computation.
Foster,A.G.,Cummins,J.J.,&Yunker,L.E.(1990)Geometry.Columbus,OH:MerrillPublishingCompany.
Greaves,M.(2002)Thephilosophicalstatusofdiagrams.Stanford,CA:CenterfortheStudyofLanguageand
Information.
Halliday,M.A.K.,&Matthiesen,M.I.M.(2004)Anintroductiontofunctionalgrammar(3rded.).NewYork,NY:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Herbst,P.G.(2002).EstablishingacustomofprovinginAmericanschoolgeometry:evolutionofthetwo-column
proofintheearlytwentiethcentury.EducationalStudiesinMathematics,49,283-312
Herbst,P.G.(2004).Interactionswithdiagramsandthemakingofreasonedconjecturesingeometry.ZDM36(5),
129-139.
Herbst,P.G.,&Chazan,D.(2011).Ontheinstructionaltriangleandthesourcesofjustificationforthemathematics
teachers.(paperinreview).
Kress,G.,andT.vanLeeuwen.(1996).Readingimages:thegrammarofvisualdesign.London:Routledge.
Laborde,C.(2004).Thehiddenroleofdiagramsinstudents'constructionofmeaningingeometry.InJ.Kilpatrick,
C.Hoyles,&O.Skovsmose(Eds.)Meaninginmathematicseducation(pp.159180).Dordrecht,The
Netherlands:KluwerAcademic.
Larkin,J.,&Simon,H.(1987).Whyadiagramis(sometimes)worthtenthousandwords.CognitiveScience,11,
6599.
Lemke,J.L.(2003).Mathematicsinthemiddle:Measure,picture,gesture,sign,andword.InM.Anderson,A.
Senz-Ludlow,S.Zellweger,&V.V.Cifarelli(Eds.),Educationalperspectivesonmathematicsassemiosis:
Fromthinkingtointerpretingtoknowing(pp.215234).Ottawa,Canada:LegasPublishing.
Lesh,R.,&Sriraman,B.(2005).Mathematicseducationasadesignscience.ZDM,37(6),490505.
Miller,N.(2007)Euclidandhistwentiethcenturyrivals.Standfir,CA:CenterfortheStudyofLanguageand
Information.
OHalloran,K.(2005)Mathematicaldiscourse:language,symbolism,andvisualimages.London,UK:Continuum.
Schultze,A.(1913)PlaneGeometry.NewYork:MacmillanCompany
Wells,W.(1915)PlaneGeometry.Boston:HeathandCompany
Wentworth,G.A.(1913)PlaneGeometry.Boston:GinnandCompany