12 Kostas Dimopoulos
Apart from the aforementioned mechanisms, the compartmentalization of space which
symbolically corresponds to the construction of semiotic boundaries is complemented by
reference to the notion of the informational value of different spatial arrangements
corresponding to horizontality (left/right and front/back), verticality (upper/lower parts) and
centrality (centre/margin). According to Kress and van Leeuwen, (1996) these differentiated
spatial arrangements tend to polarize and thus semiotize the space. This means that all three
of these spatial arrangements not only create different distributions in space but they also
provide coherence and meaningful structure to the elements comprising the material culture
of a community since they carry specific culturally anchored meanings.
More specifically, as far as the horizontal polarization of space is concerned, according to
Kress and van Leeuwen, (1996) throughout history and across different cultures, the
distinction between left and right has become an important source of meanings and cultural
values. Through mainly religious connotations right has come to be associated with positive
moral values, whereas the opposite applies to left. In the horizontal axis the left part,
according to western cultural conventions associated with the direction of eye-tracking during
reading, corresponds to the informational value of the given, commonsensical and self-
evident knowledge which acts as a starting point for the learner. On the contrary the right part
is attached the informational value of the new.
With regards to the other dimension of horizontality what is placed in front is usually
more highly valued and appreciated, while what is placed at the back is mainly of lower
social value. Furthermore, in the vertical axis the upper section connotes the ideal or the
theoretical, whereas the lower section is attributed the informational value of the more
detailed and specific elaborations, corresponding to the practical forms of applied knowledge
in real life contexts (Kress and vanLeeuwen, 1996). Using the Durkhemian dichotomy we
could argue that the upper parts correspond to the sacred whereas the lower parts correspond
to the profane.
Finally, centre and margin form another semiotic principle, a principle which can apply
to the way buildings are arranged, the way items of furniture are arranged in a room; to the
way people arrange themselves in rooms or objects are displayed on a surface. As van
Leeuwen (2005) puts it ―if a composition makes significant use of the center, placing one
element in the middle and the other elements around it-or placing elements around an
„empty‟ center-the center is presented as the nucleus of what is communicated, and the
elements that flank it, the margins, are presented as in some sense subservient to it, or
ancillary to it, or dependent on it.‖ (p.208).
In Table 2 below, all the aforementioned resources of material culture signifying
classification are shown.
The following three case studies exemplify the different ways various combinations of
the aforementioned semiotic resources can realize varying levels of classification.
Case study 1: Moving from cellular school space to open plan schools
Ian Cooper, (1982) tracing advice given by a UK government department on the design
of school buildings over the period between early fifties and early eighties notes a gradual
abandonment of the idea that a school was to be accommodated in a series of individual, self-
contained classrooms connected by corridors: an idea which had served as the mainspring of
school design for at least the previous 80 years. The archetype plan of this type of school took
the form of a series of individual, self-contained classrooms connected by a corridor to a hall
(see Figure 1).