Hmm…
1. Theory Behind the Brand
Communication Beyond TranslationThe core design move in Hmm… comes from understanding of communication. Following the semiotic tradition, language is not a simple code, but a system of signs full of connotations, context, and ideology. In terms of narrative paradigm language can be seen as a set of stories through which people make sense of the world.
If communication is signs + stories, then a translator cannot be just a ''dictionary machine''. This theoretical view directly shapes the product:
Hmm… shows layers of explanation instead of a single output. It offers local variants of the same expression across regions and communities. It includes an ''Explore'' mode, where users can dive into narratives behind words, not just their surface meaning.
In other words, the product follows from the theory: change the model of communication. You gain tools to be fully responsible for choosing words and free in your communications.
Brands in the language space already use communication theory implicitly. Duolingo, for example, built its success not only on features, but on a clear archetype: the «fun, slightly chaotic teacher» embodied in its mascot. The mascot translates tov, values and even becomes a meme that makes product more trendy.
Hmm… takes a different route. Instead of a cartoon character, it adopts the archetype of an «excited linguistic guide» — a mentor who is obsessed with nuance, loves mistakes as learning moments, and invites the user to explore.
This shows an important point: a brand is not only a set of functions, but also a narrative and a role in communication. We design not just what the product does, but how it speaks, what position it takes in relation to the user, and which story it tells about language.
As a design case, Hmm… shows how semiotics, narrative thinking and archetypes can directly inform visual language, interaction patterns and tone of voice. As a communication experiment, it questions the norm of flat, algorithmic translation and proposes an alternative: a translator that preserves complexity instead of deleting it.
2. Hmm… for Explorers
Brand Presentation for a General Audience3. Hmm… for Professionals
Brand Presentation for Experts and Educators4. Theory-Guided Design
How Communication Theory Shapes Hmm…The interface and brand strategy of Hmm… are direct applications of communication theories.
Semiotics (Craig, 1999) treats language as a system of signs, each carrying cultural meaning and historical weight. Design response: word cards do not display only dictionary definitions. Each card shows emotional register (formal / casual / colloquial / offensive), typical social context (who tends to use this), regional distribution (where it appears) and temporal status (is it modern or archaic). Users see that every word is a sign embedded in a social map, not just a label.
Fisher argued humans understand the world through stories and lived narratives, not abstract rules. Design response: the Explore mode and example sections link every variant to a narrative context. Users see the expression inside a story — a line of film dialogue, a passage from a novel, a chat fragment, an interview excerpt. Learning happens through narrative fidelity (does this feel true to life?) and coherence (does this make sense in context?).
Any communicative frame selects and emphasizes certain meanings while excluding others (Entman, 1993). A standardized translator’s frame is: «There is one correct output.» Hmm… reframes: «Many frames are possible; context determines which is appropriate.» Design response: result screens do not rank variants. All options appear with equal visual weight and prominence. Users actively choose which frame fits their situation — formal, regional, playful, conservative. The interface itself demonstrates framing theory to users.
Marcuse warned that standardization removes alternatives and narrows thinking. Design response: the «Dying words» feature explicitly labels expressions that are disappearing from algorithmic platforms but persist in human speech. Each dying word includes data: where it still lives (regions, age groups, subcultures), why it matters (cultural identity, history, local pride). This feature makes algorithmic erasure visible — users see that standardization is a choice with consequences.
A healthy democratic public sphere requires visibility for many voices, not just central or dominant ones (Habermas, 1989). Design response: filters allow users to surface variants from underrepresented communities — rural speakers, older generations, minority dialects, working-class speech, immigrant communities. These variants are presented on the main interface, not hidden away as «incorrect.» This design supports linguistic democracy — all speech varieties have equal claim to visibility.
Effective communication respects the user’s «face» — their need for autonomy and social respect (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Design response: copy and interface language never use correction frames («wrong,» «incorrect,» «you should say»). Instead: «Another way to express this is…», «In Glasgow, speakers might say…», «This variant appears in working-class speech.» Suggestions are gentle and contextual. Users maintain dignity and agency.
True public communication is dialogue — mutual understanding, not one-way transmission (Kent & Taylor, 1998, 2002). Design response: users can suggest new variants or corrections. The team reviews and implements suggestions from the community. Updates can acknowledge «Based on user feedback from [region/community], we added…» This creates a partnership model rather than expert-to-audience hierarchy.
Users actively choose media to satisfy specific needs: information, entertainment, social connection, identity formation. Design response: Hmm… targets gratifications that standard translators ignore — curiosity («I wonder how they say this in Scotland»), cultural identity («I want to sound local, not like a textbook»), and play («Language is fun, let’s explore»). The Explore mode and visual maps support these intrinsic motivations.
These theories do not float above the product; they structure every decision — from which variants are shown to how text is written to what data is collected and displayed.
5. Resources
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161.
Calhoun, C. (2011). Communication as social science (and more). International Journal of Communication, 5, 1479–1496.
Fisher, W. R. (1984). The narrative paradigm: In the beginning. Journal of Communication, 34(1), 74–89.
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Revised edition. New York: Harper Business.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334.
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. (Original work published 1944).
Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Duolingo. (accessed 2025). App interface screenshots used as reference for gamified language learning UX.
Aleem campaign visuals. (accessed 2025). Branding and communication examples used as reference for archetype and mascot-based communication.
