Writing is not only read but also seen; in other words, beyond conveying linguistic meaning, writing is capable of communicating visual meanings through its form. While the visual meaning of typography in Persian has been examined in previous studies, what now calls for further investigation is the hypothesis that the typeface itself—through the formal qualities of its letterforms—can influence the transmission of visual meaning. Typefaces, as the most prevalent form of writing in the contemporary world, are widely used, and we encounter a variety of them in our daily lives. However, despite their extensive use, semiotic studies—particularly those focusing on Persian typefaces—remain limited. Considering that the contemporary movement of Persian typeface design in Iran has emerged only since the 2010s and it represents a relatively new and emerging segment of graphic design in Iran, further research in this area appears essential.
In order to analyze how the visual form of a typeface can affect its non-linguistic meaning, the following research question is: How can Persian typefaces, through their formal transformations, influence discursive systems and reshape the conditions under which meaning is received by readers? The present study is qualitative in nature and employs a descriptive-analytical method. To address the research question, a semiotic approach is adopted. It can be stated that within a system of codes, two types of value can be identified: systemic value and discursive value. Systemic value corresponds to what may be termed direct meaning, also referred to as linguistic value, and exists independently of discursive value. Discursive value, however, reactivates and reconfigures codes by granting them a renewed presence; it is at this point that semiotics emerges as significant and operative.
In this study, van Leeuwen’s approach is employed to analyze the visual meaning of typefaces. Van Leeuwen is recognized as one of the most influential social semioticians and has conducted extensive research in the semiotics of typography, particularly in relation to Latin typefaces. In his framework, he proposes an analysis based on distinctive features, identifying eight key characteristics of typefaces: curvature, connectivity, weight, expansion, slope, orientation, regularity, and non-distinctive features. He further interprets the visual meaning of each of these features through semiotic mechanisms such as connotation and metaphor.
In this study, this framework is applied to the analysis of the discourse of Persian typefaces, with the aim of examining their visual features and associated meanings. To analyze the meaning of letterforms, it was necessary to select a sample of typefaces as the statistical population of the study. The selection was limited to contemporary Persian typefaces, defined as those designed within the past fifteen years (1390–1405 / 2011–2026). This selection was conducted purposively by the researcher, with the intention that each sample would effectively demonstrate the feature under investigation. No claim is made that these represent the best or most comprehensive examples, as Persian typefaces are numerous and diverse. The analyzed corpus consists of 15 typefaces drawn from two principal categories: text typefaces and display typefaces. The display typefaces include Gramophone, Daftar, Edameh, Stencil 898, Mahal, Valhalla, Hamta, and Radikal, while the text typefaces include Kahroba, Anjoman, Gohar, Vanda, Damoon, Darvish, and Morabae.
In examining how form conveys meaning, it was observed that the meanings associated with certain typographic features are interpreted through connotation, while others are understood through metaphor. For instance, those formal characteristics of letterforms that derive from cultural or historical values are typically interpreted through connotation. An example is the Daftar typeface, whose visual discourse refers to texts printed approximately eighty years ago in Iran through letterpress printing. In contrast, features such as weight carry meanings that are interpreted through experiential metaphor, grounded in shared human perception of their experiences. For example, in the Anjoman typeface, heavier weights—due to their increased thickness—function as a metaphor for boldness, strength, and assertiveness. This corresponds to the experiential association in spoken language, where a louder voice conveys greater confidence and authority. Conversely, lighter weights in the same typeface, due to the thinness of the letterforms, metaphorically suggest inconspicuousness and lower priority, similar to how a softer voice tends to attract less attention.
Accordingly, it can be concluded that analyzing the semantic capacities of typographic form through the lens of connotation primarily engages with meanings that are specific to the cultural, historical, and social context, and may therefore vary across different writing systems. In contrast, meanings interpreted through experiential metaphor tend to possess a greater degree of universality and can generate similar interpretations across different typefaces and scripts. It should also be noted that the meaning of certain typefaces may be interpreted through both semiotic mechanisms simultaneously, or that a single typeface may embody multiple distinctive features.
An example of the first case is the Gramophone typeface, which, due to its letterforms derived from the Thuluth script, connotatively references this calligraphic tradition, while its rounded and curved forms simultaneously evoke metaphors of naturalness, organicity, and softness. An example of the second case is the Mahal typeface, which can be interpreted through multiple distinctive features: in terms of orientation, it is characterized by verticality, and in terms of expansion, it is considered a condensed typeface. As a result, it conveys not only concepts such as stability and alertness, but also notions of pressure, density, and restricted movement.
The analysis of the semiotic features of Persian typefaces demonstrates that the formal design of letterforms directly influences their visual discourse; in other words, in typeface design, form operates in the service of meaning. Thus, letterforms, through variations in vertical and horizontal structures, degrees of expansion or condensation, connectivity or disjunction, and all the features discussed above, generate meaning by means of metaphorical expression or through the production of connotation.
Recognizing this relationship—and understanding which formal features shape letterforms and what meanings they convey—can significantly assist type designers in the design process. It enables them to shape letterforms in accordance with the intended message or the desired discursive qualities. Furthermore, it assists graphic designers in selecting appropriate typefaces from among the vast number available, allowing them to choose options that visually align with the intended discourse. More broadly, the findings of this study have practical implications for type designers as well as for all users of typefaces, including graphic designers, publishers, and writers. By fostering a deeper awareness of the visual discourse of typefaces, it supports more informed and intentional selection. Choosing a typeface that corresponds appropriately to the subject matter can reinforce the discourse of a text, whereas selecting a typeface without attention to the meanings conveyed through its visual form may result in miscommunication or unintended effects. Therefore, both in the design of letterforms and in the selection of typefaces for written communication, it is essential to remain aware of the meanings carried by typographic form. Ultimately, it can be said that the form of the letter, too, has something to say.