Francesco Galofaro
email: semioatp@gmail.com

A Generative Grammar for Modal Syntagms

Keywords: Computational Narratology, Generative Grammar, Modal Structures, Semiotic Square, Automaton

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

1

State-of-the-Art

Greimas and Courtés [START_REF] Hjelmslev | Omkring sprogteoriens grundlasggelse[END_REF] highlighted how formalization could be useful for proving logical coherence to the structural framing of semiotics, and for comparing different theories applied to the same cognitive object. Generative grammar and its success have a clear influence on Greimas' project. He developed his structural semantics by utilizing computational linguistics [START_REF] Greimas | Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage[END_REF], formulating the semiotic square to describe the fundamental syntax of meaning [START_REF] Hopcroft | Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation[END_REF], which should then generate the more complex structural levels. Following the same line of research, this paper aims to develop a generative grammar that formalizes fundamental syntax. In particular, we are interested in generating modal operators which feature narrative enunciates. In this manner we intend to study the immanent articulation of modality, and describe it in terms of standard algorithmic procedures which can be applied by researchers -cf. "automaton" and "algorithm" in [START_REF] Hjelmslev | Omkring sprogteoriens grundlasggelse[END_REF].

Greimas' modal semiotic square 1 [START_REF] Greimas | The Interaction of the semiotic constraints[END_REF] is displayed in table 1:

1 Petitot tried to demonstrate the inconsistency of the semiotic square by using Boolean logic (cf. 3.3.3 in [20]), yet committed a trivial error. He wrote that 1+1 = 0 whereas, given the idempotent laws, in Boolean algebra 1 + 1 = 1. For an outline of the semiotic debate on the consistency of the semiotic square, see [START_REF] Fischer-Servi | Axiomatizations for some Intuitionistic Modal Logics[END_REF], [START_REF] Greimas | Esquisse d'une morphologie du français en vue de sa description mécanographique[END_REF]. The semiotic square summarizes the respective relations between four kinds of simple semiotic oppositions: antonymy (a versus b); presupposition (if a then not b and/or vice-versa); contradiction (a versus not -a); and neutralization (not a nor b). This abstract, fundamental syntax articulates the modalities. The table presents the relationships between the various possible modal syntagms, composed by a modal operator (M) and an enunciate (R), which can express an action (to do) or a state (to be). Modal syntagms are combination such as "Wanting to do"; "Not being able to be"; "Not having to do" …

In the framework of a structural semantics, modalities are considered to be general values that are immanent to different semiotic manifestations, such as a literary text, a movie, as well as a technical object [START_REF] Galofaro | Dal quadrato semiotico alle controversie bioetiche. Una discussione formale?[END_REF]. For example, the "Being able to do" modal syntagm can feature the hero of a movie or a real employee, when either of them find something that allows them to reach their goal (a magical potion; a new software).

Two distinct fields of research converge in Greimas' model: modal logics [START_REF] Béziau | New light on the Square of Oppositions and its Nameless Corner[END_REF], [START_REF] Baumgarten | An Abstraction Algorithm for the Verification of Generalized C-Slow Designs[END_REF], and structural linguistics. Greimas and Kalinowski worked together on the link between them [START_REF] Marsciani | Ricerche semiotiche II[END_REF], until the second scholar decided that the two disciplinary souls could not inhabit the same body [START_REF] Petitot | Morphogenèse du sens[END_REF]. Seen through deontic logic, for example, if "I have to do something" then "I can do it", "ought implies can" and therefore modal operators are inter-defined. In semiotics, on the contrary, the two modalities are largely independent, given the modal conflicts we find in texts. Kalinowski, instead, rejects this liberalization of the relationships between modalities, in spite of the fact that there are many logical systems in which the operators are not inter-defined 2 .

2 For example, in the intuitionistic framework, modal operators are usually independent [START_REF] Galofaro | Formalizing narrative structures. Glossematics, Generativity, and transformational rules[END_REF]. An example of intuitionistic deontic logical framework has been proposed in relation to the Talmud [START_REF] Abraham | Obligations and prohibitions in Talmudic deontic logic[END_REF]. Furthermore, since each system in modal logics represents a specific textual domain that assigns a specific non-ambiguous meaning: for example, Kripke's structures for temporal logic have been converted into Moore's machines [START_REF] Galofaro | We have to change mind. Neural Plausibility and the Crisis of Cognitive Explanation[END_REF].

A typology of different possible modalities is presented in table 2: Table 2. Modal typology. Each symbol represents a generative grammar category (upper case) or a terminal modality (lower case).

Modalities (S)

Virtualising (V) Actualising (A) Realising (R)

Exotactical (X) Having to (h) Being able to (a) Doing (d) Endotactical 3 (N) Wanting to (w) Knowing to (k) Being (b)
The kind of modal syntagms we would like to produce are composed of all of the possibilities generated by the semiotic square in table [START_REF] Abraham | Obligations and prohibitions in Talmudic deontic logic[END_REF], when M corresponds to virtualising or actualising modalities, and R to realising ones. For example: (+a+d); (-w+b); (+h-d) are well-formed syntagms because they can be generated by selecting a corner of the semiotic square and by substituting the values seen in table 2 for the categories M and R. We would also like to generate a structural description of these syntagms. There are numerous possibilities. If we want to accurately represent the typology in table 2, we require an unrestricted grammar. Otherwise, by making minor changes to the categories used to classify the modalities, we can design simpler grammars. This second option finds support in Hjelmslev's empirical principle, which privileges coherent, adequate, and simple theoretical choices [START_REF] Kalinowski | Du mètalangage en logique. Réflexions sur la logique déontique et son rapport avec la logique des normes[END_REF].

An Unrestricted Grammar

In order to represent Greimas' typology (table 2), we will first consider an unrestricted grammar G1, that is able to generate a modal syntagm, and is represented by a combination of two lower case letters each of which is preceded by a positive or negative signsee table 3. The grammar consists of two alphabets Z and T, variables (upper case letters) and terminals (lower case letters), and an initial variable I ∈ Z. It also contains a set of rules of substitution α → β where α is a string of variables, and β is a string of both variables and terminal symbols.

A derivation starts from the initial symbol S and applies one of the rules of substitution. The language generated by the grammar is a string consisting only of terminals that can be derived from I with a chain of substitutions.

In order to provide an example of the way in which the grammar works, we derive the modal syntagm:

(a): -w+d ("not wanting to do")

3
A modality is exotactical when it links enunciates with different subjects, endotactical when it attains a single subject. cf. "Modality" in [START_REF] Hjelmslev | Omkring sprogteoriens grundlasggelse[END_REF].

Table 3. The unrestricted grammar G1. Each symbol in Z represents a category within the grammar structure-cf. Tables 1 and2. We have added the category C to represent the endo/exotactical category, and the category G (+/-) to represent the affirmative/negative opposition. The subset I of Z includes the starting symbol S, whereas T is the set of terminal symbols.

Symbolic repertoire Rules

Z:={S, M, R, C, G, V, A, X, N}

I:={S} T:= {h, w, a, k, d, b, +, -} 1 -S → GCMGCR 2 -G → + 3 -G → - 4 -C → X 5 -C → N 6 -M → V 7 -M → A 8 -XV → h 9 -NV → w 10 -XA → a 11 -NA → k 12 -XR → d 13 -NR → b
We can also design the tree of substitutions, which reveals the hierarchical relationships between the terminals (see Table 4). The tree shows how each symbol of the alphabet Z represents a category in the meta-language. For example, w is an endotactical virtualising modality, whereas d is an exotactical realising modality. This grammar is an unrestricted one, therefore some of the substitution rules are contextual. For example, according to rule 8, one can substitute h in V iff it is preceded by an X.

A Context-Free Grammar

We can reduce the complexity of this grammar if we observe how the endo/exotactical category is implicitly represented by the two separate rules which allows to substitute each V/A/R modality with two and only two terminal symbols, without changes in the generated language. The result is the context-free grammar G2, shown in table 5. Table 6 shows the derivation of (a).

-G → + 3 -G → - 4 -M → V 5 -M → A 6 -V → h 7 -V → w 8 -A → a 9 -A → k 10 -R → d 11 -R → b
G2, is remarkably simpler than G1 not only because it requires less rules and symbols, but also because it is context-free, it does not use contextual rules.

A Right Linear Regular Grammar

If we drastically change the philosophy applied to the representation we can further reduce the complexity of the grammar (see G3 in table 7 and the corresponding derivation of (a) in table 8). This time we need only two categories (S, R) that respectively correspond to the modal enunciate and the doing/state enunciate. Both are preceded by a positive or negative symbol, and each category can be substituted with a terminal symbol.

Regular grammars generate regular languages: according to automata theory, a finitestate automaton can determine if a particular expression belongs to the grammar [START_REF] Kalinowski | Carré sémiotique et carré logique. Les remarques d'un logicien sur le carré sémiotique[END_REF] see table 9. The automaton is composed of three states. The initial one, q0, corresponds to the S category; the second one, q1, corresponds to the R category; and q2 is the final state. The symbols of the string (a) represent the transitions between states.

As the reader can see: when the automaton reads the (+, -) symbols it remains in the same state; when it reads the (k, a, h, w) symbols it changes its internal states to q1; and finally, if it reads (d,b) it reaches the final state. Then, the automaton accepts the string as belonging to the grammar. If this does not happen, the string is rejected. Following Chomsky, the grammar can be considered a model of modal competence, whereas the automaton is a model of modal performance [START_REF] Deni | Oggetti in azione[END_REF]. Table 9. A finite-state automaton that can establish if a string of symbols belongs to G2. The figure was generated with JFLAP (www.jflap.org).

Conclusions

What is the "true" grammar, among the three we proposed? There was a similar debate in the sixties concerning syntax grammar. Chomsky [24] proposed extralinguistic criteria to facilitate the choice between different models, such as the "psychological plausibility". In my opinion, this only led to a circular reasoning basing cognitive linguistics on cognitive psychology and vice-versa [25]. A grammar is just one of the possible solutions to the problem of how to construct a formal demonstration in semiotic theory, showing an immanent structural articulation of meaning. As is shown by G2, some semantic features are incorporated in the syntax. This means that the more complex grammars explicit simpler semantic features of each modality, h = +V+X, "Having to do" is "Virtualising and Exotactical". In Greimas' structuralist perspective, "Semantic" means simply relational and functional (a given tract such as the "virtualising" tract cannot exist positively, i.e. independently from the presence of "actualising" and "realising" tracts). In G3, some semantic features of modality are lost: the automaton in table 9 is just a simple form of the semiotic square. As Marsciani wrote, even formal languages have categories that represent their semantics [9, pp. 24-27]. Thus, the identification of Hjelmslev's symbolic systems [START_REF] Kalinowski | Du mètalangage en logique. Réflexions sur la logique déontique et son rapport avec la logique des normes[END_REF] with "asemantic" languages seems questionable.

A tree such as the one in table 8 at least reveals a structural feature which was unclear in the other grammars: the ipotactical relation between the (do/be) enunciate and the modal enunciate. Furthermore, given that modal syntagms are generated by a rightlinear regular grammar, they can be considered regular languages, a well-known class of formal languages. This is not a trivial result due to the properties shared by regular languages: commutativity, associativity, distributivity, idempotency … [START_REF] Kalinowski | Carré sémiotique et carré logique. Les remarques d'un logicien sur le carré sémiotique[END_REF]. Thanks to these properties it becomes possible to describe the complex chains of modal syntagms we find in semiotic processes as modal devices which "merge" smaller languages generated by simple grammars such as G3 [22, p. 70]. We observe another interesting structural property of regular languages, they are neither recursive nor selfembedded. Now this is puzzling because narrative programs are both recursive and self-embedded [START_REF] Greimas | Pour une théorie des modalités[END_REF]. They share these properties with language syntax, as represented in classical generative linguistics [START_REF] Deni | Oggetti in azione[END_REF]. Therefore, further important research questions concern the origins of recursiveness, given the fact that this property is not present in the simpler, deep fundamental structures of meaning described by Greimas, but appear only at a certain degree of structural complexity.

  -R:= antinomy +M+R --M+R := contradiction +M+R --M-R := presupposition +M-R --M+R := presupposition -M-R --M+R := neutralization

Table 4 .Table 5 .

 45 The derivation of (a). This figure was generated with JFLAP (www.jflap.org). The context-free grammar G2. Symbolic repertoire Rules Z:={S, M, R, G, V, A} I:={S} T:= {h, w, a, k, d, b, +, -} 1 -S → GMGR 2

Table 6 .

 6 The derivation of (a) in G2.

Table 8 .

 8 The derivation of (a) in G3.

Table 1 .

 1 The semiotic square.

Table 7 .

 7 The right-linear regular grammar G3.


Janos J Sarbo

Jessica H Yang
email: j.h.yang@henley.ac.uk

A Semiotic Approach to Critical Reasoning

Keywords: Semiotic, reasoning, rhetoric, argument, accounting narratives

d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

The Latin word 'informatio' equivalently designates information and bringing-intoform (cf. in-formation). The second refers to the potential of the form for the mediation of meaning (cf. interpreted information). In an extreme case, form and interpretation can be uniquely related. This is parodied by the classical joke of a psychiatric institute in which patients tell stories to each other. As the stories are told frequently they are assigned a number. One of the patients says 'number 42', which gets a big laugh. Another patient cries out 'number 68'. Everybody finds it hilarious. A new patient watching this cannot stop himself and shouts 'number 232'! The entire public bursts into a huge laugh. 'Why are you laughing so much?' the patient asks. His neighbor responds: 'We haven't heard this joke before.'

In everyday language use, form and intended meaning are rarely so closely related. In most cases we are in need of auxiliary words and more refined (formal) expressions for the communication of our thoughts. How does form mediate meaning? Traditional semiotics, which is concerned with interpretation enabled by the sign, does not consider this question. In this paper we suggest that an answer can be given by considering the sign to be an object, and following this line of thought, through introducing a form related, and in this sense, formal model of sign interpretation.

Form involved in information can be used for a derivation of meaning. In the example above, saying a number can be satisfactory as long as the relation between numbers and stories is known by the receiver. If the receiver is not familiar with this relation, the sender may have to use additional information, e.g. syntactic information, and so, a more elaborate form of expression in order to enable the interpretation intended to arise. Besides syntactic information hence a syntactic perspective, many other types of perspectives are possible such as a semantical, mathematical, and logical one, that all involve rules of interpretation including those that are related to the form.

If complex thoughts are to be communicated, for instance, an entire text, a sequence of signs is needed. In this case, an important goal is to enable the reader to reveal the line of reasoning by the writer. Reasoning too can be associated with form. In this paper we ask: what are the types of reasoning information, what are the involved forms, and what are the effects of the form on the mediation of reasoning? The answer suggested by this paper is briefly discussed below.

Sign interpretation can be modeled as a process. An analysis from the perspective of reasoning reveals the potential of the events of this process for a representation of the three types of reasoning, deduction, induction, and abduction, as sign aspects. The involved form can be associated with Aristotle's three syllogistic figures as a structure. Through their type of reasoning, the events of the process can be assigned a degree of truthfulness: necessarily true (cf. deduction), expectedly true (cf. induction), and hypothetically true (cf. abduction). By linking the forms of reasoning with their associated claims to truth, the process model can be used for measuring the plausibility and understandability of a sign, e.g., an accounting narrative.

Sign aspects are representations that are in a process of becoming a sign. The development of meaning through sign aspects can be explained by the metaphor of apparent motion perception. In that phenomenon, a series of steady pictures are presented and, although each picture may be meaningful in itself, combined they are interpreted as parameters in the experience of the series of pictures as motion. Snapshots correspond to a sign aspect, the experience of motion to a meaningful interpretation of a sign.

An advantage of the semiotic approach is its potential for a uniform representation for sign interpretation. 1 This enables syntactic information (e.g. required by a reasoning analysis) and reasoning information to be combined easily. Because of the involvement of the relation between formal and meaningful interpretation, we assume that through analyzing the form, we may draw conclusions about a possible meaning, e.g. from the syllogistic structure of a text about a type of reasoning. This paper proposes the use of the process-oriented semiotic approach, as an alternative text-focused approach, to interpret corporate disclosures. Corporate disclosures constitute an important channel for organizations to communicate with the public users since it contains rich content of information. Decision-making is built on efficient and effective processing of financial and non-financial (narrative) information [START_REF] Smith | Traditional and alternative methods of measuring the understandability of accounting narratives[END_REF]. The paper is based on the premise that goal of a critical corporate disclosure should be to reach conclusions by means of reasoned argument.

Research on understandability of accounting narratives in corporate disclosure has gained increasing importance over the years [START_REF] Courtis | An Investigation into Annual Report Readability and Corporate Risk-Return Relationships[END_REF][START_REF] Tregidga | Re)presenting 'sustainable organizations[END_REF]. Prior studies can be categorized into two groups measured by content (thematic analysis) [START_REF] Aerts | On the use of accounting logic as an explanatory category in narrative accounting disclosures[END_REF][START_REF] Kothari | The Effect of Disclosures by Management, Analysts, and Business Press on Cost of Capital, Return Volatility, and Analyst Forecasts: A Study Using Content Analysis[END_REF][START_REF] García Osma | Corporate governance and impression management in annual results press releases[END_REF][START_REF] Li | The Information Content of Forward-Looking Statements in Corporate Filings-A Naive Bayesian Machine Learning Approach[END_REF] and form (syntactical analysis) [START_REF] Smith | Readability: A Measure of the Performance of the Communication Function of Financial Reporting[END_REF][START_REF] Jones | A Longitudinal Study of the Readability of the Chairman's Narratives in the Corporate Reports of a UK Company[END_REF][START_REF] Loughran | Measuring Readability in Financial Disclosures[END_REF]. Thematic content analysis is to 'extract and analyze themes inherent within the message' [START_REF] Jones | Accounting narratives a review of empirical studies of content and readability[END_REF] so as to find trends, correlations or attitudes from the text. Syntactical studies adopt readability formulas such as Flesch index, Dale-Chall index, and Fog index to measure the probable readability of texts from the perspective of syntactical complexity. This study fills in a gap in the literature on corporate disclosures and communication research in relation to the meaning interpretation of accounting narratives. This approach shows advantages over other traditional ones, in a high degree of focus on the form and process of disclosures rather than on the text itself.

The structure of the paper is the following. First we briefly delve into Peircean semiotics (sect. 2). This is followed by an introduction of a process model of sign interpretation (sect. 3). Finally we offer an explorative study of our model to an analysis of accounting narratives i.e. chairman statements (sect. 4). We close the paper with a summary of the results (sect. 5).

Signs and interpretation

Peircean semiotics is founded in Peirce's theory of categories [START_REF] Peirce | Collected papers by Charles Sanders Peirce[END_REF]. Contrary to the Aristotelian view that phenomena can be classified in two types, attributes and substances (that are a carrier of attributes), Peirce distinguished phenomena in three categories, firstness, secondness, and thirdness, that have a relational character. An example of phenomena is a letter-V formed by a pair of fingers. The two fingers, their shape, incidence, etc., as a quality, are a firstness; ad-hoc relations between the qualities, such as the simultaneity involved in the incidence of the two fingers, are a secondness; meaningful interpretations of a relation, such as the interpretation of the incidence relation of the fingers as the symbol of victory, are a thirdness. The categories are ordered according to a relation of involvement, e.g. simultaneity (secondness) is involved in the interpretation of the letter-V as a symbol of victory.

Beyond the above dependency between the categories, we are interested in the process generating meaningful interpretations (thirdness) from qualities (firstness), through a mediation of relations (secondness). In order to develop a model for this process we need to introduce a few assumptions that are concerned with the questions how qualities may appear, how they may establish relations in an ad-hoc, and a meaningful sense.

In our model below we assume that qualities appear via interactions with the interpreting system (e.g. the human). In an interaction, the qualities of the stimulus (cf. effect) affect the interpreting system occurring in some state. This effect (q1) and state (q2), that both are collections of independent qualities, define the input for information processing (cf. firstness). The goal of interpretation is establishing a relation: why this effect is occurring to this state. To this end, the interpreting system has to sort out the two types of qualities in the input, abstract them from one another in order to determine their interpretation in the light of complementary or context information (cf. secondness), and finally, establish a relation between the input qualities in context, through predication (cf. thirdness). See Fig. 1. Conforming to our goal, which is the definition of a process model of interpretation, our focus is restricted to interpretation as a sequence of events (hence in the paragraph above references to the Peircean categories are references to categorical aspects only). Following this line of thought we offer a semiotic analysis of our process model and assign sign aspects to its events [START_REF] Sarbo | On Well-formedness in Requirement Elicitation Processes[END_REF]. See Fig. 2. The goal of this slightly technical part in the next paragraph is to show that the events can be assigned to all Peircean sign aspects hence, in this sense, the process is semiotically complete.

State and effect appear as independent qualities ([q1 q2]; qualisign). Sorting of the input has the sign aspects of likeness or constituency ([q1]; icon), simultaneity ([q2]; sinsign), and connection2 ([C]; index). As a state may occur in itself, but an effect always assumes the existence of a state, qualities of the state and effect can be used for a representation of a relation of constituency and simultaneity, respectively. Abstraction of the input qualities has the sign aspects of a possible state (q1; rheme), and effect (q2; legisign). By virtue of the involvement relation between state and effect, the abstract effect, which stands for the possible combinations known about the input state and effect, has the sign aspect of a habitual event. An expression of the abstract state and effect, in context ([C]), has the sign aspects of an existent or actual state ((q1,C); dicent), and a conventional event ((q2, C); symbol). Finally, predication, expressing a relation between the input state and effect in context has the sign aspect of a proposition which is a premise ((q1,C)-(q2,C) ; argument). The introduction of a semiotic analysis above was necessary in order to be able to offer a reasoning analysis of our process model. In this paper, our focus is on the relational events themselves. The reasoning aspects, syllogistic functions (following Peirce [START_REF] Peirce | Collected papers by Charles Sanders Peirce[END_REF]), and formal expressions, associated to them are depicted in Fig. 3. In our analysis below we may refer to the events by their syllogistic terms in Fig. 4.

The generation of the final predication relation has the reasoning aspect of abduction [START_REF] Courtis | An Investigation into Annual Report Readability and Corporate Risk-Return Relationships[END_REF]. Through combining the expressions of the state (A) and effect (B), in context (C), we raise a hypothesis concerning their relation, which is involved in a meaningful interpretation of the input interaction. The generation of a possible representation of the input state in context has the aspect of deduction [START_REF] Smith | Traditional and alternative methods of measuring the understandability of accounting narratives[END_REF]. In this event, complementary information (Y), that the interpreting system is familiar with, is used to derive 'new' information (C) about the state (A). This is opposed to the event generating an expression of the effect in context, which has the aspect of induction [START_REF] Tregidga | Re)presenting 'sustainable organizations[END_REF]. In this event, a habitual interpretation of the effect (B) is applied to hence tested for a new state (C), enabled by the context (Y). A presentation of the input qualities as co-occurring premises, by sorting, has the aspect of abduction, degenerately (in a reasoning sense).

Noting the completeness of the process model, the semiotic analysis (Fig. 2) shows the involvement of all nine Peircean sign aspects, the reasoning analysis (Fig. 3) reveals the potential of the process for a representation of all three types of reasoning as aspects of reasoning, syllogistic functions and formal expressions. By virtue of the dependency between the categories, we may assume that the above completeness (secondness) is involved in a meaningful interpretation of the input as a phenomenon as well (thirdness).

In the case of language phenomena, examples of an effect are words, sentences, paragraphs, or even entire texts, for instance, chairman statements. In this paper, we assume that in such statements, complex thoughts by the author are split into smaller fragments, in order to help the reader's comprehension. Each paragraph is meaningful in itself and layout is used to draw the reader's attention as well. If a paragraph is an expression of a single thought, then by virtue of the completeness of meaningful interpretation, it must represent all three types of reasoning (aspects). From this we conclude that when the line of reasoning is complex, the author of the text may wish to add formal information thereby enhancing a reasoning interpretation by the reader. We conjecture that through analyzing the form of reasoning involved in a text, a measure of plausibility and understandability by the reader can be derived.

An illustration of corporate disclosures

We apply our theory to a paragraph found in a chairman's statement 3 (See also Fig. 5).

We assume that a syntactic analysis of the input sentences is available. In our reasoning analysis below, sentences are interpreted as premises, the subject and predicate of a sentence as the minor and major terms of a premise. A common term can be found by matching. Information, such as syntactic and semantic-syntactic, necessary for this operation is assumed to be available (this may put a great burden on lexicon definition).

A sentence may function as a premise in different syllogisms. A syllogism can be interpreted from the perspective of itself, as well as from the stance of the paragraph as a whole. The import of a syllogism can be the expression of a reasoning aspect in the interpretation of the paragraph (cf. the positions in the upper 'triangle' marked by rheme, legisign and argument), but also it can be only a representation of a single sign aspect (cf. the positions in the lower 'triangle' marked by qualisign, rheme, and legisign). In the second case the involved reasoning aspect is represented degenerately, from a logical stance (see sect. 3.1 and 3.2).

S1:

Rebuilding the bank is a significant challenge but I believe we now have the tools to begin turning the business around. S2: Niall Booker, a veteran of the banking world, joined the Bank at the same time as me, and he and his new Executive Team have worked closely with the Board over the second half of last year to understand the true state of the Bank. S3: Devising a Recapitalisation Plan acceptable to all stakeholders in very difficult circumstances, we were able to complete the Liability Management Exercise (LME) in December without which we wouldn't be here today.

S4: This could not have been accomplished without the support of the vast majority of our subordinated bondholders, customers and colleagues for which we are extremely grateful.

Fig. 5. A sample paragraph from a chairman's statement Fig. 6. A reasoning interpretation of the paragraph depicted in Fig. 5. A representation of the qualisign position is omitted. In the icon position, 'have the tools' mediates between 'we' (agent) and 'to begin turning the business around' (theme). The term, 'Recap Plan' is used as short for 'a Recapitalisation Plan acceptable to all stakeholders'. Reasoning aspects that are represented degenerately (in a logical sense) are omitted.

S1

The first sentence, S1, is setting the scene (the first clause in S1 is setting the context). This sentence is not part of a syllogism, except as a proposition which is a conclusion. The subject ('we') and predicate ('have the tools to begin turning the business around') are brought into relation via predication. In the interpretation of the paragraph as a whole, the above two symbols are used for a definition of the icon and sinsign positions. The first clause of S1 is represented as complementary information in the index position ('Rebuilding', 'challenge'). See Fig. 6. Note the relation of overlapping between the abduction involved in predication (cf. S1) and in sorting (cf. paragraph).

S1 -S2

S1 and S2 can be interpreted as premises of a syllogism exhibiting the aspects of induction (cf. Fig. 4). The common term is defined by the expressions 'Rebuilding the Bank', and by 'Niall Booker' and 'Executive Team', as theme and agent, respectively, of the predicates of S1 and S2 interpreted as major terms. The import of this syllogism in the paragraph as a whole is an expression of the legisign position:4 'understand the true state of the Bank' (a full definition: '(they) worked closely to understand the true state of the Bank IS (enabled by) having the tools to begin turning the business around'). In addition, S1 and S2 can also be interpreted as premises of a syllogism exhibiting the aspects of deduction. This time the common term is defined by 'Rebuilding the Bank' (S1), and 'worked closely to understand the true state of the Bank' (S2). The import of this syllogism is an expression of the rheme position5 : 'Executive Team'.

S2 -S3

S2 and S3 can be interpreted as premises of a syllogism exhibiting the aspects of induction. The common term is defined by the expressions 'He and his Executive Team', and 'we'. The import of this syllogism in the analysis of the entire paragraph is a representation of the aspect of induction and an expression of the symbol position (rule): 'completion of the LME' (a full definition: '(we) were able to complete the LME IS (through) understand(ing) the true state of the Bank'). Information about 'the Liability Management Exercise', involved in the expression of the symbol position, as well as information about 'devising a Recapitalisation Plan', occurring in the first clause of S3 are represented as a context sign, in the index position ('LME', 'Recap Plan').

S1 -S3

S1 (by its first clause) and S3 can be interpreted as premises of a syllogism exhibiting the aspects of deduction. The common term is defined by 'challenge' (S1) and 'we' (S3), as theme and agent, respectively. The import of this syllogism in the paragraph as a whole is a representation of the aspect of deduction and an expression of the dicent position (result): 'Rebuilding the Bank' (a full definition: 'Rebuilding the Bank IS (was) enabled by the completion of the LME (through) devising a Recapitalisation Plan').

S3 -S4

S3 and S4 can be interpreted as premises of a syllogism exhibiting the aspects of abduction. The common term is defined by the expressions 'complete', and 'accomplish'. The import of this syllogism in the paragraph as a whole is a representation of the aspect of abduction and an expression of the argument position A reasoning interpretation of S1 and S4 is already involved in that of S3 and S4; a reasoning interpretation of S2 and S4 is not possible.

Experimental results

We devised a test to measure understandability and plausibility, using two sample chairman's statements taken from 2009 and 2013 Annual Report of a UK company. Understandability was tested through questions concerning the meaning involved in the informationally not represented syllogistic aspects according to our analysis, while their meaning must be clear to the reader, by virtue of the assumed completeness of the paragraphs. Completeness offers the possibility to verify whether the syllogistic structure is a good approximation of reasoning involved in meaningful interpretation.

For instance, a paragraph, which can be analyzed in inductive syllogism(s) must convey information about the reasoning aspects of an involved deduction and abduction as well that can be verified through questions. Scale questions (1=Not at all plausible, 4=Plausible) were employed to test plausibility thereby to determine the persuasiveness. The score can be used for verifying our hypothesis concerning the ordering of syllogistic schemes. We conjecture that a text mostly representing the reasoning aspects of deduction will be perceived to be more plausible than a text, which mostly representing the reasoning aspects of induction (testing) and abduction (hypotheses). A tacit goal of this experiment is to show that an analysis of reasoning can be analogous to syntactic parsing.

The experiment was conducted with undergraduate accounting students in a UK university. It resulted in 27 responses, from which 21 were acceptable, from a group of 70 students. These students' first language was English and can be classed as knowledgeable users of financial reports. Each student was required to read five paragraphs extracted from two chairman's statements and fill out an on-line questionnaire via Kwiksurvey, consisting of 14 multiple-choice questions. The experiment required about 20-30 minutes to complete. SPSS was used to analyze the data as part of a descriptive statistics research, which measures the occurrence of the 'correct' answers for each question. When measuring understandability, one cannot expect a single correct answer since the interpretation process among individuals is different. Therefore the answers to the type of questions were distributed in levels of 'correctness' (1=worst answer, 4= best answer).

We found that in questions measuring understandability, once the text is complete from a reasoning stance, 76% students were able to select the best and second best answers, while 14% chose the worst answer. In the case of incompleteness, only 9% students managed to select the best and second best answers. This indicates that completeness leads to better understandability. The results from the plausibility questions showed that the use of aspects of deductive reasoning makes the paragraphs more plausible as deductive reasoning conforms to more logical reasoning and to less persuasive reasoning. In the experiment, all questions deriving from deductive reasoning type attracted only one "not at all plausible" answer. The answers to questions involved in inductive reasoning were more dispersed than others, ranging from "plausible" to "not at all plausible". A very interesting finding was that no students chose "not at all plausible" for abductive type of reasoning questions, which is deemed to the correct answer. Instead, nearly half of the students selected "plausible" in their answers, which means that students could still be persuaded by a "good reason". This supports Fisher's (1987) narrative assumption that human beings are fundamentally storytelling creatures, therefore, the most persuasive information is not that of a logical argument, but instead a narrative rationality.

Summary and future research

Accounting narratives in annual reports constitute a key part of corporate disclosures. Organizations utilize narratives to communicate corporate information to various publics. Effective communication depends on the accuracy in the construction and transmission of the message between senders and readers. In this paper, we presented a practical illustration of the application of our semiotically inspired process model to interpret a text (i.e. chairman's statement), through the analysis of syllogistic forms.

Our experiment results suggest that the syllogistic form analysis measure aspects of the understandability and persuasiveness. This form-oriented study contributes to the narrative studies by capturing both syntactic and semantic interpretation. The limitation of the study is that we only investigate 2 chairman statements and the scale of the experiment is small. We leave an examination of the statistical correlation between syllogistic reasoning and understandability/plausibility for further research.

Fig. 1 .Fig. 2 .

 12 Fig. 1. The process model of cognitive activity. State (q1), effect (q2), context (C). Horizontal lines designate relations. The types of interpretation events are displayed on the right-hand side, in italics. Square brackets indicate that an entity is not yet interpreted, usual bracket symbols and a lack of brackets indicate that some interpretation is already available

Fig. 3 .Fig. 4 .

 34 Fig.3. A reasoning analysis of the process model. Types of reasoning aspects (left), syllogistic functions (middle), and formal expression (right). Aristotle's three figures are referred to by integers in parenthesis (see also Fig.4). A Y and Y B designate q1 and q2 as premises

  (case): 'This (=the completion of the LME hence the Rebuilding of the Bank) IS (accomplished through) devising a Recapitalisation Plan' (a full definition, following paraphrasing: 'Through devising a Recapitalisation Plan we completed the LME. (This way) we are rebuilding the Bank'.

For a number of perspectives (cf. knowledge domains), including those mentioned earlier, this has been illustrated in[START_REF] Sarbo | Knowledge in Formation: A Computational Theory of Interpretation[END_REF].

We tacitly assume that C, representing complementary information corresponding to q1 and q2, appears together with q1 and q2 as a quality. In Fig.1this is omitted.

It will be applied as result in a later syllogism exhibiting the aspects of induction.

It will be applied as rule in a later syllogism exhibiting the aspects of deduction.


Roberto Pereira
email: rpereira@ic.unicamp.br

M Cecília
email: cecilia@ic.unicamp.br

C Baranauskas

Kecheng Liu
email: k.liu@henley.ac.uk

On the Relationships between Norms, Values and Culture: Preliminary Thoughts in HCI

Keywords: Norms, Organizational Semiotics, Values in Design, Culture in Design, Information Systems

Different studies and initiatives have indicated a new moment in the Human-Computer Interaction field that requires it to consider aspects that are difficult to be identified, such as values and culture. However, these aspects have been traditionally left on the margin of approaches for technology development, and still demand investigations on how to effectively deal with them in design activities. In this paper, we consider the concept of Norms as a promising concept to advance the understanding and knowledge on this topic, and draw on a socially aware perspective to the design of information systems, presenting preliminary discussions on the concepts of norms, values and culture, and their possible relationships, as a first step into a norm-oriented perspective for values and culture in HCI.

Introduction

Every technology triggers (positive and/or negative) impacts on the environment in which it is inserted and on the people who live in this environmenteven if they do not use it directly. Ubiquitous Computing, Wearable Computing and Social Software are some examples of how Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have permeated all aspects of personal and collective life. In this sense, the task of designing interactive systems has assumed new dimensions in terms of complexity and has required a wider and deeper understanding of the ethical and social responsibilities of those who create them [START_REF] Pereira | Value Pie: A Culturally Informed Conceptual Scheme for Understanding Values in Design[END_REF]. Different studies and initiatives intended to identify, discuss and inspire the research in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) have indicated a new paradigm, or wave, in the area [START_REF] Bannon | Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered perspective[END_REF] [5][8]. This new moment requires HCI theories, methods and practices to be rethought in order to consider aspects that are difficult to be identified, such as values and culture. Values are culturally built [START_REF] Rokeach | Understanding Human Values: individual and societal[END_REF], varying in meaning, importance and priority according to the culture being analyzed and across time and space. Therefore, although there are some universal values, it is possible to say that values cannot be properly understood outside their cultural context: while a value indicates what is important for people, culture explains why [START_REF] Pereira | Value Pie: A Culturally Informed Conceptual Scheme for Understanding Values in Design[END_REF]. The (lack of) consideration and implication of values in technology are usually too subtle and only noticed when a social rule is violated, a behavioral pattern is broken, or a conflict of interest arises. The lack of attention to values and the complex cultural context of people have led to the creation of products that are not suitable to their needs and expectations, that do not make sense to them, and that often generates undesirable side-effects. In the literature, there are relevant works on values and culture that discuss the design, adoption, use, and impact of technologies, the relationship between culture and usability, and that address the involvement/concern with values during design activities [START_REF] Friedman | Value-Sensitive Design[END_REF]. However, there is still a lack of studies that support the explicit and articulated involvement of both values and culture throughout the design process, helping designers to deal with them, reflecting them in their design decisions and products. From the perspective of the Semiotic Onion [START_REF] Stamper | Signs, norms, and information systems[END_REF], there is a need for investigation on how to deal with values and cultural aspects not only in the informal layer, but also in the formal and technical ones. In this paper, we start discussions about the potential of norms for supporting the understanding, involvement and formalization of aspects related to values and culture in the design of information systems from a HCI perspective. These discussions are grounded on different theories on norms, values and culture, as well as on practical examples. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we present the background and a brief discussion on the concepts of values and culture, and in Section 3, we present different types of norms related to these concepts. In Section 4, we draw on the Value Pie artifact to exemplify different perspectives for the relationship between norms, values and culture, and in section 5, we present our conclusion and suggestions for future work.

Background

The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) defines HCI as "a discipline concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them". This definition represents the complexity and comprehensiveness of the area, and attributes to HCI the responsibility to consider beyond technical issues, the formal and informal ones that coexist in society. Aligned with ACM's definition for HCI, Winograd [START_REF] Winograd | The design of interaction[END_REF] asserts that the role of an interactive system designer goes beyond the construction of an interface to encompass all the interspace in which people live, and argues that it is necessary a shift from understanding the machinery to understand the lives of the people using it. This shift is key to the new moment in HCI that have been indicated by authors, such as [START_REF] Bannon | Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered perspective[END_REF][5][8] [START_REF] Sellen | Reflecting human values in the digital age[END_REF], and results in a quite different perspective for the design of interactive systems, where technical issues play only part of the role, and not necessarily the most important one.

Such perspective have been proposed and explored by Baranauskas [3][4] for more than a decade through her social perspective to the design of interactive systems, often named as "Socially Aware Design". Baranauskas recognizes the existence of three levels in which humans operate and understand the world: the informal, formal and technical. These levels were introduced by Hall [START_REF] Hall | The Silent Language[END_REF] and structured by Stamper [START_REF] Stamper | Signs, norms, and information systems[END_REF], through the Semiotic Onion (Fig. 1.), in order to explain how these levels exist in the context of organizations and information systems. The informal represents the culture, values, habits, beliefs, behavioral patterns of people and other aspects that are usually difficult to describe and even identify. The formal represents aspects that are well established and accepted, becoming social conventions, norms, or laws. Finally, the technical represents aspects that are so formalized that can be automated or approached in a technical way. Grounded on Organizational Semiotics [START_REF] Liu | Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering[END_REF] and inspired by Participatory Design [START_REF] Schuler | Participatory design: principles and practices[END_REF], Baranauskas [2][3][4] brings to HCI the understanding that any technical system exists in the context of a formal system that, in turn, exists in the context of an informal one. In this sense, a design process that is centered in technical aspects ends up giving little (or no) attention to the formal and informal aspects of organizations and the society, preventing designers from a wider sense-making of the problem being handled, the solution being designed, the stakeholders involved and the complex social world in which they live. Therefore, positive and negative effects on the formal and informal layers are completely undefined and unanticipated, leading to solutions that frequently do not make sense to users and trigger negative side effects on them and on the environment in which they are introduced. Friedman [START_REF] Friedman | Value-Sensitive Design[END_REF] argues that, although the neglect of values (and here we include culture) in any organization is disturbing, it is particularly damaging in the design of computer technology where we can hardly disagree and negotiate about values and their meanings. In fact, as Hall [START_REF] Hall | The Silent Language[END_REF] indicates, the technical system is where one can introduce changes with the greatest ease. However, as Baranauskas [START_REF] Baranauskas | Socially Aware Computing[END_REF] indicates, the degree to which the system will respect or violate the norms of the informal and formal systems depends on how much these levels were understood. In her socially aware design, Baranauskas [START_REF] Baranauskas | Socially Aware Computing[END_REF][3] [START_REF] Baranauskas | Social awareness in HCI[END_REF] recognizes design processes as a movement that begins from outside to inside the Semiotic Onion (see the dashed arrows in Fig. 1.), crossing the informal and formal layers of signs towards the construction of the technical system. This movement favors the identification, articulation and formalization of relevant aspects of the social world, such as the ones related to stakeholders' values and culture. Therefore, when the movement returns, the technical system will impact on the formal and informal layers and on the society in an informed way, reflecting an understanding of the social world, potentially making sense to users, promoting its acceptance and adoption. Adopting Baranauskas perspective, Pereira [START_REF] Pereira | Keeping Values in Mind-Artifacts for a Value-oriented and Culturally Informed Design[END_REF] [START_REF] Pereira | Value Pie: A Culturally Informed Conceptual Scheme for Understanding Values in Design[END_REF] proposed and experienced a set of artifacts to support the consideration and involvement of aspects related to culture and values in different design activities: from the identification of stakeholders, to the clarification of requirements and the evaluation of the resulting interactive system. Results obtained from different case studies recognized the need for further studies to support designers in the representation and formalization of such aspects, suggesting norms as a promising concept to be considered.

The three main words in this paper, "Values", "Culture" and "Norms" have been used in many senses, often with an unclear meaning. Each one has been the main concern of researchers from different disciplines, being approached and investigated for and from quite different perspectives. Therefore, we are not looking for an ultimate definition, and do not intend to unify the different interests and understandings around these words. Instead, we are presenting one possible view for them, which may support their consideration in the design of information systems from a HCI perspective. In the next sections, we introduce the definitions we are adopting for each one, and develop a discussion about the relationships between them.

Values and Culture

In HCI, Friedman [START_REF] Friedman | Value-Sensitive Design[END_REF] have adopted a broad understanding for value, defining it as something that a person or a group of people consider important in life. This understanding goes beyond the notion of moral and ethical values, allowing additional notions (e.g., personal values, technical values). The key point we highlight in this understanding is that it opens space for considering (and inquiring) not only what theories and formal definitions determine as values, but mainly what people think about when they are thinking about values. However, a more elaborated definition may be useful to support our discussions. According to Williams [START_REF] Williams | Change and Stability in Values and Values Systems: A Sociological Perspective[END_REF], the word "values" has been used to refer to interests, pleasures, preferences, moral obligations, desires, goals, needs, etc., reflecting a kind of selective orientation where the core phenomenon is the presence of criteria or standard of preference. The author defines values as core conceptions of the desirable within individuals and society that serve as standards or criteria to guide not only action, but also judgment, argument, evaluation, choice. This definition encompasses Friedman's aforementioned understanding and is the one we consider in this paper. Stamper et al. [START_REF] Stamper | Understanding the Role of Signs and Norms in Organisationsa semiotic approach to information systems design[END_REF] assert that people's systems of values are largely determined by their culture or subculture. Different authors, such as Hall [START_REF] Hall | The Silent Language[END_REF] and Rokeach [START_REF] Rokeach | Understanding Human Values: individual and societal[END_REF], recognize the cultural nature of values, arguing that their importance and roles vary strongly according to the culture being analyzed. In this paper, we adopt Hall's [START_REF] Hall | The Silent Language[END_REF] understanding of culture, which refers to people's attitudes, material things, and learned behavioral patterns, representing the very different ways of organizing life, thinking, and understanding basic assumptions about the family, the economic system, and even the mankind. For Hall, culture controls the behavior of people in deep and persisting ways, many of which are out of their awareness, being the link between people and the means they have of interacting with others. When talking about culture, Hall [START_REF] Hall | The Silent Language[END_REF] believes it is more important to look at the way things are put together than at specific theories, suggesting that, although it is useful to question about specific situations, understanding the cultural context in which people live, the way they interact, and their behavioral patterns can offer more information than looking at pre-defined hypothesis. In this sense, the author proposed 10 Primary Messages Systems (PMS), or areas, he named the basic building blocks of culture (Interaction, Association, Learning, Play, Protection, Exploitation, Temporality, Territoriality, Classification, and Subsistence), arguing that any culture could be characterized, analyzed and compared through a combination between these areas (e.g., in a 10x10 matrix). Hall also suggests that values are developed according to these areas and their combination. According to the exposed above, one may consider that: 1. if values are core conceptions of the desirable, and these conceptions are culturally determined, then, the desirable is not only influenced by what is taught, verbally communicated and explicitly identified in a society, but also by time and space (and their role in people's lives), socioeconomic conditions, and the environment characteristics (e.g., climate, natural resources). 2. If values serve as standards to guide action, judgment, argument, evaluation, and choice, then, they may act as a specific kind of force that make "the members of a community tend to behave or think in a certain way [START_REF] Stamper | Understanding the Role of Signs and Norms in Organisationsa semiotic approach to information systems design[END_REF]", i.e., a norm.

Types of Norms

The OS theory considers an organization and its information system as a social system in which human behaviors are organized by a system of norms [START_REF] Liu | Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering[END_REF]. Norms are a key concept in OS, being understood as collective constructions of agents at the social level, providing guidance for their actions. Among the methods offered by the OS there is the Norm Analysis Method, which supports the study of an organization from the perspective of the behavior of agents that are governed by norms, and that makes it possible to specify the studied organization by specifying norms. Stamper et al. [START_REF] Stamper | Understanding the Role of Signs and Norms in Organisationsa semiotic approach to information systems design[END_REF] argue that the shared norms are what define a culture, or a subculture, presenting and explaining different taxonomies for norms: 1. formality (informal, formal, technical); 2. Social psychological (perceptual, evaluative, cognitive, behavioral); 3. Kinds of tasks (substantive, communication, control). From these different kind of norms, the Evaluative Norms are considered the most basic ones, being directly related to people's system of values and influencing people's behavior (e.g., action, judgment, argument, choice). However, understanding evaluative norms, the way they interact with other kinds of norms, and representing them are still issues that demand further investigations. In his book "Norm and Action", von Wright [START_REF] Wright | Norm and action: a logical enquiry[END_REF] developed a deep discussion on norms in general, exposing the complexity of giving a definition for the word norms, focusing on norms related to actions, and distinguishing between three major groups of norms: 1. rules, 2. prescriptions, and 3. directives. Briefly, 1) Rules are regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity, such as the rules of game, grammar, and even logic. 2) Prescriptions are commands, permissions and prohibitions, such as the laws of the state. 3) Directives are also understood as technical norms and are concerned with the means for reaching an ending, such as the instructions that will take the person who follows them to a specific result. Additionally to the three major groups, three minor groups were introduced by von Wright [START_REF] Wright | Norm and action: a logical enquiry[END_REF]: i) customs, ii) moral principles, and iii) ideal rules. These groups may be related to one or more of the major groups, and can help us to discuss more about evaluative norms. Customs determine certain patterns of conduct, exerting a normative pressure on the members of a community to follow them. They can be understood as social habits that are imposed on the members of a community rather than acquired by them individually. For instance, if a person is late for a meeting, it may be a custom he or she to apol-ogize to the other participants for being late. Whether the apology happens, its intention (inform, explain, justify), in what moment (when the person arrives, at the end of the meeting) and in what way (gestures, voice tone, vocabulary) it happens, etc., reveal additional cultural norms. Moral principles enter in the realm of ethics and, therefore, require a deeper and critical discussion that is out of the scope of this paper. The key point suggested by von Wright [START_REF] Wright | Norm and action: a logical enquiry[END_REF] is that moral norms are "conceptually autonomous", standing by themselves, and having complicated relationships to the other kind of norms and to the (value) notions of good and evil. For instance, introduced in 2010, full body scanners at airports produced livid naked pictures of people. In several countries, the concern with the possible ethical problems triggered by these scanners resulted in different movements and actions: in United Kingdom, these scanners conflicted with child protection laws that ban the creation of indecent images of children [START_REF] Guardian | New scanners break child porn laws[END_REF]. While no one could argue against the possible evil consequences of producing and storing images of naked people, prioritizing people's security and well-being for the common good (e.g., against terrorism) was often used as a justification. Ideal rules, in turn, are not directly related to actions, i.e. something to be done, but to the nature of being (or not being). Ideal norms are usually related to the idea of goodness, and unlike moral rules that are related to moral action, they set a pattern of what is good (the characteristic of being good). Ideal rules apply to people, organizations, as well as classes and objects, allowing us to say they apply to both agents and affordances. In the example of full body scanners, ideal norms would not define the properties or behavior of every scanner, but the ones that would characterize an ideal body scanner. One may develop extensive discussion about these three minor groups of norms, bringing innumerous examples and exceptions. However, we can highlight two common points shared by these minor groups: 1) the existence of relationships with the major groups and between them; and 2) the idea of the desirable and, therefore, the link to the notion of valueswhat allow us to talk in terms of evaluative norms. In von Wright's theory [START_REF] Wright | Norm and action: a logical enquiry[END_REF], the author argues that to understand the nature of moral norms is not to discover some unique features in them, but to survey their complex relationships to a number of other things. This may suggest that understanding evaluative norms is not to specify and represent their unique characteristics, but to recognize and understand their possible relationships to the other kind of norms. In the next section, we draw on the Value Pie artifact to expose practical discussions on values, culture and norms.

The Links between Values, Culture and Norms

The Value Pie (VP) is a culturally informed conceptual scheme for guiding discussions on values and culture in design [START_REF] Pereira | Social Software and Educational Technology: Informal, Formal and Technical Values[END_REF] [START_REF] Pereira | Value Pie: A Culturally Informed Conceptual Scheme for Understanding Values in Design[END_REF]. The VP was built on the grounds of Organizational Semiotics [START_REF] Liu | Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering[END_REF] and the Building Blocks of Culture [START_REF] Hall | The Silent Language[END_REF], presenting three layers and ten slices that organize and support the discussion about values according to their dominant level of formality (informal, formal and technical) and cultural nature (Hall's 10 areas of culture) -see Fig. 2. Formality means that values are mani-fested on one of the three levels, but have aspects to be considered in all the three simultaneously. Cultural nature means that values are developed according to an area of culture, and with possible intersections between different areas. In [START_REF] Pereira | Value Pie: A Culturally Informed Conceptual Scheme for Understanding Values in Design[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | Keeping Values in Mind-Artifacts for a Value-oriented and Culturally Informed Design[END_REF], the interested reader can find additional discussions and examples of values according to the VP and its dimensions.

According to the notion of "privacy" given by Encyclopedia Britannica: "the quality or state of being apart from company or observation; freedom from unauthorized intrusion (one's right to); a private matter", one may see it was a value developed in the VP's "Protection" area, reflecting the importance of protecting personal information, things, ideas etc. -see Fig. 2. Because the areas of culture interact with each other, it is natural their values to present aspects developed from the intersection among them. For instance, when privacy refers to the protection of space (personal, social, physical), then it has a clear relationship to the "Territoriality" area. Furthermore, what is necessary or expected to protect and why, what are the means to protect it, the extension and limits of privacy, and the importance given to it are examples of aspects that differ strongly according to the culture being analyzed. People from different cultures have their own informal understanding of what privacy is, as well as its meaning and importance. There are social protocols, conventions, rules and laws that are formally established to define the limits and guarantees of an individual's privacy. There are also some facets of privacy that are so formally accepted that can be technically supported, such as a curtain to cover a window, the wall for restricting the visibility of a house, and the privacy of medical examinations, just to name a few. Considering Baranauskas' perspective to the design of information systems [START_REF] Baranauskas | Socially Aware Computing[END_REF][3], the VP's structure suggests at least two core ideas on norms and values. The first idea is that each value has formal issues to be understood and considered, and that may be represented by norms. Therefore, norms may act as the bridge between the informal and the technical levels, specifying the way technical features should work. The second idea is that cultural areas, their values and, consequently, the norms related to them, are not isolated, but interact with each other in a complex interplay. Thus, if values are not understood in their cultural context, the norms related to them tend not to reflect their role and importance, being supported by technical features that do not make sense to users, do not afford the behaviors they are used to in their social world, In Brazil, public policies for inclusive education created the Specialized Educational Services (SES), in which teachers conduct activities with students in rooms equipped with specialized resources at traditional schools. In order to qualify professionals, teachers from all over the country started specialization courses within e-learning environments, but with a limited period (18 months). After that, teachers must be able to work with students regardless their disability, and have no additional support for a continuing learning. In this context, researchers from Education and Computer Science have been working in a research project, which one of the main goals is to design a social network system for these teachers. This system is intended to support teachers in their day-by-day work in a continuing education process.

The TNR system is being designed with representatives from the target audience in an iterative and incremental style according to Baranauskas' design model [START_REF] Baranauskas | Socially Aware Computing[END_REF][3] [START_REF] Baranauskas | Social awareness in HCI[END_REF]. During all the design activities, artifacts created on the grounds of the VP were used to support the explicit consideration of stakeholders' values and culture. Therefore, the TNR system is a viable context to investigate and analyze the different norms related to values and culture. Following we present some examples. Customs: participatory activities with representatives from the teachers revealed the concept of "authorship" (property, ownership) as a value for them. Using a teacher's words: "I understand that a contribution must be edited only by its authors. I think it is interesting a space for discussion, but respecting and keeping the contribution of each member. The interventions/editions in texts created by other people may not be well-accepted".

In fact, teachers are used to work in groups, exchanging ideas and sharing materials; they believe it is possible to develop better solutions when they work together. However, the identification and the recognition of the individual contribution and participation must always be explicit and preserved. In an information system, they would not conceive the idea of someone but the author modifying an existing contribution (content). Therefore, a collaborative editor would trigger conflicts between the participants: e.g., a user could modify the text typed by other user when adding his or her own contribution. In this sense, a cooperative feature that allows users to contribute to each other but that identifies and keeps the individual contribution would be more adequate.

Norms may be derived from the explanation about this custom and may be represented according to the format proposed by the OS theory [START_REF] Liu | Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering[END_REF]. For instance: i) "WHENEVER new data is created in the system, IF it was created by a user, THEN the user must be defined as the data author". ii) "WHENEVER an existing data is selected, IF the user is the data author, THEN the user may update the data." Moral Principles: because teachers are used to discuss their problems and ideas at their schools, they first did not express concern with privacy: they think it is good to share their opinions and information, and do not see risks in making them available to others. However, they are very concerned about security issues, and start to worry about privacy when they became aware of the possible impact on their life, or on the file of students and their families. This indicates that teachers believe privacy is important and must be considered, but they usually become aware of that only when a problem or conflict arises. Therefore, the system should be designed not only to protect the stakeholders' privacy, but also to instruct users to be aware of it.

Example of norms: i) "WHENEVER new data is created in the system, IF it contains personal information of others, THEN its author must have the authorization to use the information". ii) "WHENEVER a new content is shared to other users, IF it is publicly available, THEN the user must indicate that the content does not offer risks to his/her privacy and the privacy of others". Ideal rules: the system's terms of usage were also defined in a participatory way. As a by-product, teachers and researchers identified values that were not being considered in the terms, but that were important to guide the users' ethical behavior in the system (the ideal behavior). Thus, it was created a "Letter of Principles" to make these values explicit at the system home page. Examples of values are: i) Accessibility: the network must be able to attend to the different needs of a heterogeneous group of participants. ii) Autonomy: people may be capable of making decisions, planning, and acting in order to achieve their goals; of controlling the technology and using it.

iii) Collaboration: possibility to cooperate, working together for a common goal. iv) Groups (team spirit): participants may work together, with common interests, needs and goals, supporting each other.

Mapping the values listed in the Letter into the VP supports a deep discussion about each one, and provides useful information for their effective consideration and promotion in the TNR system (due to the limited space we will not develop such discussion here). Example of norms: (accessibility) "WHENEVER a new content is shared, IF it is a picture or a video, THEN the author may inform a textual description for it."

The examples presented in this section demonstrate the existence of values related to different types of norms. For each type (customs, moral principles, ideal rules), behavioral norms where identified, indicating a relationship between them. These examples support our previous discussions about the importance of considering the different types of norms and their possible relationships. However, understanding how evaluative norms influence behavioral norms, and how they can be represented is still an issue that requires further research.

Conclusion

Considering values and culture in the design of information systems is still a challenge for the Human-Computer Interaction field. Although literature presents relevant works on these issues, how to support designers to deal with them and to reflect them in their design decisions and products are still open issues that require further investigations.

In this paper, we presented preliminary discussions about the relationships between norms, culture and values, offering a perspective to understand these concepts and articulate them. We consider norms as a concept able to support designers to move from informal understandings about values and culture of different stakeholders to their effective involvement and consideration in the resulting technical artifact. We also suggest that different types of norms interact with each other, and are required to represent different facets of values and culture.

For further investigations, it is necessary both deepen theoretical discussions and to analyze more practical examples. A conceptual scheme to represent norms and their interplay may contribute to clarify the relationship between norms and values, as well as to support the creation of artifacts and methods to carry design activities.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. The Semiotic Onion.

Fig. 2 . 4 . 1

 241 Fig. 2. The Value Pie. . .

Privacy

Acknowledgements: This research is partially funded by FAPESP (2014/01382-7; 2013/02821-1) and Proesp/CAPES through the TNR Project (23038.01457/2009-11).