Species Nomenclature: Problematic Or Unavoidable Fact?

Copyright 2002 by  Margaret Constantineau and Laurent Lamoureux

Questa pagina è anche in italiano   Ce site est aussi en francais 

Introduction

It is our desire to increase awareness of the problems surrounding the nomenclature of general species. In light of our research, we would like to see the use of a common terminology. The result would facilitate exchanges between graphologists and further validate their analyses. As part of our graphology research course, we were both asked to identify the general species as they are documented in French language textbooks. Due to the multiplicity of terms encountered in these books alone, we clearly feel that we could well benefit from comparing notes with non French-speaking graphologists.

Our primary objective was to create a new teaching aid for Scriptos (a school connected to Collège Notre-Dame-de-Foy in Québec city, Canada). In addition to listing the general species, our document contains the main definitions given by our chosen authors as well as a summary of their interpretations. It also contains examples for each species thus enabling the student to detect the presence of each, whether in a small or in a big way. The complete document is currently being tested in the classroom and will soon be published.

Our intention is neither to inondate you with definitions, new interpretations nor to defend the usefulness of any quantifying system whatsoever. We only wish to point out the problems we faced during our research. It is our desire that longtime practicing graphologists also lend themselves to a similar exercise instead of considering terminology an unavoidable fact.

Research objective

We believe that the development for teaching graphology goes hand in hand with the creation of new training implements. That’s the reason we gladly accepted to develop this additional implement for interpreting such species by using the cornerstones of reknowned French authors. We identified the commonly used species by making an inventory of all terms and interpretations used by nine authors. The complete bibliography is appended to this paper. We could have included other graphologists in our research but we decided to limit ourselves at this point. Meanwhile, we welcome contributions from other graphologists to enrich our general species selection.

Results

We compiled the list of species by category  from each author before selecting the ones most used . When an author used a specific term for a species, we tried to find another author that used the exact same term. That gave us a frequency grid for the use of each term. The problem only arose with the species nomenclature, since the authors seem to agree on the names of the different categories.

Excluding terms used for margins and those for particular signs, we arrive at a list of some 260 terms that our authors use. Since all the text books are being used frequently , far be it from us to discredit any of these authors’ work. We aim to bring graphologists to exchange amongst themselves in harmonizing the general species terminology. The training document is reproduced in the appendix. We do not show the authors by name in our tables in order to spare them needless comparisons and to restrict the debate to the subject matter. Authors are identified by a single letter. Our results are presented as three different analyses: Rare species; Most frequently used Species and Species present in two categories.

Rare species.

Here is a sample of species cited only once or twice by four chosen authors. Some authors use identical terms in a number of cases while in other cases they come up with their own vocabulary. In all likelihood, quite a number of us do use some of these terms in our trade.

Among the 260 terms recorded, more than 130 of them are used only once or twice when some 110 are used only by three authors or more. Barely 56 similar terms are common to five authors or more(see next crosscheck) and 37 terms are common to six or seven authors. Besides the general species, we also use species other than those aforementioned. But we have to admit that they are used in particular cases only thus they are not general species. We could also keep on using all the terms or in other words not change an iota from what we have been doing up until now even if this means that comparisons made amongst graphological analyses would be weakened.

Most frequently used species.

This table contains the 56 terms found in five or more authors. At the outset of our compilation, we expected to find a large terminology concensus amongst authors. When we found that only 55% of them identified 56 common species, i.e 25% of all compiled terms, we took it upon ourselves to include in our document those common terms used by only three or four authors.

Beyond historical explanations and professional ties binding the authors, it is odd that more than a century since graphology’s birth, that the rate at which French speaking graphologists harmonized its terminology has been so low. 

Species present in two categories.

This final table lists some examples in which species are found in different categories according to different authors. Since some general species were found in two different categories, we chose to include them in the category to which we felt they most belonged to. Moreover, since we included species less frequently used we decided to show their respective antonyms alongside our general species list.

Conclusion

Aptly defined as both a science and an art form, one sometimes forgets to place graphology’s dichotomy in context. The scientific approach would require that two graphologists see at least thirty of the most significant signs in the same handwriting specimen. The creative approach, on the other hand, offers the same graphologists the opportunity to interpret in their own way the presence of these signs while at the same time qualifying their varying degree.

If graphologists acknowledge the fact that by using a common terminology in identifying the standard aspects of handwriting, they are, in our humble opinion, being instrumental in developing the scientific approach to graphology. Graphology has taken on over the years a greater role in numerous fields such as criminology, psychology, education and in career planning. On a day to day basis, many graphologists work with other professionals and share with them the fruit of their observations. In light of these prospects, we believe an effort should be made to systemize its terminology and in so doing arrive at some kind of quantification of handwriting observations.

In spite of our observations, we gladly admit that our authors do not all adhere to the same school of thought, which in itself hinders  harmonisation. But even among authors who clearly draws on the work of Crépieux-Jamin, we have also noted different uses of vocabulary. We hope that future textbooks on the subject help clear up these differences as well as harmonise the terminology of general and particular species. 

Bibliography

COLO, Catherine et Jacqueline PINON (2002) Traité de graphologie Dynamique de l’écriture, Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris,