05 # 4 8 8 | 0 4 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 6 中 大 品 牌 誌 / A natomy of a B rand 看得見的說話 A Word in the Hand 手語並非簡單的打手勢，而是語法系統豐富的自然語言，對聾人的口語發展百利而無一害。 這訊息已由中大手語及聾人研究中心孜孜傳播逾十年。自 鄧慧蘭 教授和 伍德華 教授2003年 創立以來，中心致力連結健聽者與聾人的世界，而其生動悅目的標誌便充分表達了這個使 命，教人一目了然。 標誌由三張卡通化、緊密相連的臉孔組成。左邊的臉露出一隻大耳朵，代表是健聽者。他嘴 巴張大，興高采烈地跟中間的臉孔聊天。不難猜出中間的是位聾人，因為其咀巴形狀是五 指，同時可以視作健聽者向前伸出的手，暗示這兩張臉既使用手語也使用口語溝通。 中間及右邊臉孔向外伸展的手傳達了主動接觸聾健世界的理念。這既是手又是口的設計環 環相扣，能無限拼接下去，寓意手語雙語促進社會共融。 標誌上共出現的三隻手還象徵了世界各地手語百花齊放，藉此打破「手語是全球統一的」這 個常見謬誤。事實上，每個國家均有發展各自一套本地手語。 面部表情是另一關鍵元素。三張臉的眉毛和眼珠方位各一，簡單數筆便描出豐富生動的表 情，同時傳遞出第三則資訊：面部與身體動作構成手語文法一部分。 標誌全採用檸檬黃，以黑線勾勒輪廓。黃色能喚起溫暖、幸福的感覺。通常黃色不會在標 誌用色上獨擔大旗，只略略用作強調某些重要特徵。單一的鮮黃色配以實線外緣，無論放 置在怎樣雜亂的環境、在中心網頁或是活動單張，這鮮活跳脫的標誌都保證會立時奪人眼 目，贏得關注。 這標誌由Mad Studios的 劉宇衡 和 陳儷儀 設計，除了體現中心的精神，更在American Design Awards的2005年冬季設計賽贏得亞軍。這三張可愛的臉不僅成為中心的代言人，更是優良 設計的表表者。 Sign language, instead of being a simple collection of hand gestures, is a natural language with a full-fledged grammatical system, and facilitates rather than impedes the development of spoken languages for deaf people. That is the message CUHK’s Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies has been spreading for the past decade. Founded by Prof. Gladys Tang and Prof. James Woodward in 2003, the Centre devotes itself to bridging the hearing and the deaf worlds, a mission that is clearly reflected in its delightful, eye-catching logo. The logo comprises three stylized, interconnected human faces. The prominent ear of the left one shows that it belongs to a hearing person. Mouth wide-open, it is chatting animatedly with the presumably deaf person in the middle. The latter’s mouth is in the shape of a hand which can also be viewed as an extension of the hand of the hearing. One may infer that these two faces are using sign language as well as speech to communicate. The extending hands of the centre and the right faces convey the notion of reaching out into the hearing and the deaf worlds. The series of mouths/hands form a connective chain that can be added on ad infinitum, signifying that sign bilingualism boosts social inclusion. The three hands in the logo further allude to the existence of different sign languages in the world. It is a common misconception that sign language is universal. In fact, each country has developed its own native sign language. Facial expression is also a key component of the logo. The hyper-expressiveness of the faces is rendered by some simple positionings of the eyebrows and eyeballs. A third lesson is embedded in the logo: facial and bodily movements are part of the grammar of a sign language. The logo adopts the single colour of lemon yellow traced in black contours. Yellow is a colour that invokes warmth and happiness. Generally it doesn’t play a central role in logo design and is sparingly used to highlight important features. Used alone and enclosed by solid lines, the colour makes the Centre’s logo stand out even when it is in a crowded surrounding, and guarantees it is the first thing you will notice on the Centre’s website or an event flyer. On top of embodying the Centre’s spirit, the logo, designed by Brian Lau and Lilian Chan of Mad Studios, won the second prize in the 2005 winter semi-annual design contest as part of the American Design Awards. The three cute figures in the logo become not only the face of the Centre, but also that of a good design. 如 琢 如 磨 / D raft C raft PROSAIC JUSTICE No matter how you call it—composition, paper, essay, report—expository writing or prose writing is the most common exercise of skill and labour required of many members of our society in school, in government or in the workplace. Within the four corners of the page or the computer screen, an educated mind has to pour forth her thoughts and put forth her case. The veteran journalist Lance Morrow said that an essay is a way of thinking through difficult and perhaps insoluble problems. The keyword to Morrow’s definition is through , indicating a drawn-out process at the end of which a workable structure of argumentation should emerge. More than vague ideas, intractable insights and dictions brilliant or contrived, it is this structure that determines if an essay will get written at all and if so if it’s any good. There are as many structures as there are essays, but all structures are built from three cornerstones, namely, theme, argument and constant awareness of what is known among professional writers and in creative writing circles as the Ideal Reader. To do justice to prose, the prose-writer must know how to lay down these stones properly. First, every piece of essay must have a theme, and the theme must be ‘predicated’. In grammatical terms, you must have a subject and a predicate. If you only have ‘campus’ or even ‘CUHK campus’ in your head, you are a long way from writing anything intelligent about it. It’s only when you are able to put your idea in the form, say, ‘What the CUHK campus has impressed me the most’ or ‘How electric vehicles can change the face of campus transportation’ that you should pick up your pen to write the first word. Second, the argument should be enumerated and presented logically and fully to the best of your ability. That means you have to say it or prove it not just once and not just twice but ordinarily thrice at least. This labour is called varying your theme, developing your arguments, or considering the pros and cons. To use the ‘campus’ example again, a skillful writer will enumerate one by one what the campus has captured her attention (natural landscape, physical facilities, historical significance, etc.) and why and/or how. To write about electric cars or buses on campus, the draftsman may, for example, start with a review of the problems (campus topography, service needs, air, energy), what current circumstance or technology can offer to address or ameliorate these problems, and end with some future vision or projection. Lastly, even the most seasoned writers may in their feverish moments of composition forget they do not write for themselves but for the Ideal Reader in their minds. Such lapse in composure usually has two consequences: the writer may think that she is speaking to her reader, and that her reader would give her approving nods as she speaks. Nothing does greater damage to writing than confusing it with speech. The former does not have the benefit of the immediacy of the utterance that comes with the full cast of facial expression and tone of voice. In the words of the American critic and essayist Louis Menand , ‘As a medium, writing is a million times weaker than speech. It’s a hieroglyph competing with a symphony.’ A draftsman must therefore not be too easy to satisfy herself in eliminating ambiguity and making her prose intelligible. A hearer will never fail to get the meaning of the following simple utterance but if it's put on paper, comic ambiguity ensues: He fed her dog biscuits. And then even if the meaning is as clear as is intended, do anticipate questions and challenges from your dear reader. This may involve citing your sources, defining special terms, and contextualizing the facts or substantiating the opinions put forward by you. Only then will justice be served to prose.