ABSTRACT
Maps, pictures and diagrams are often grouped together, as all three have the fundamental characteristic of being two-dimensional. Although Goodman (1969), like Peirce (1934), appears to regard maps primarily as diagrams, maps, of course, can include both pictorial and diagrammatic elements, even though the fundamental structure of the map is distinct. In dealing with maps, this introduces a difficulty which parallels that generated by the concentration on language as the chief means of expression and communication. Most conceptions of the two-dimensional graphic image are dominated by the concept of picture, and so the essential distinctions between map and picture are often blurred. Even accounts of cartographic principles make use of the analogy of the map as a ‘picture’ of the ground. What maps and pictures have in common is that both are analogue devices, and both depend on the acceptance of conventions. In both the representation is continuous, just as three-dimensional space or the Earth’s surface is continuous. This is the fundamental contrast with linguistic sign systems which have a linear arrangement. The point is made by Goodman (1969) and amplified by Pitkänen (1980), but with maps the notion that the representation is continuous needs to be treated with some care. In pictorial linear perspective, where position in the picture space corresponds to a perceived view, real or imaginary, there are no ‘empty’ spaces or voids. With a map, the plane may represent no more than notional surface, on which particular objects are located.
