Skip to main content
Log in

The Graphic-Linguistic Distinction Exploring Alternatives

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What properties, if any, distinguish graphical representations from linguistic representations? This paper looks for answers in the literature of philosophy, logic, artificial intelligence, and cognitive psychology, and extracts seven alternative binary classifications of representations that may characterize the graphic-linguistic boundary. We assess each alternative by two standards: (a) whether it extensionally fits the graphic-linguistic distinction, and (b) how far it explains the properties commonly attributed to graphic representations but not to linguistic ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barwise, J. & Etchemendy, J. (1990). Visual Information and Valid Reasoning. In Zimmerman, W. (ed.) Visualization in Mathematics, 9-24. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. & Etchemendy, J. (1995). Heterogeneous Logic. In Glasgow, J. I., Narayanan, N. H. & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 211-234. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. & Hammer, E. (1995). Diagrams and the Concept of Logical System. In Barwise, J. & Allwein, G. (eds.) Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, 49-78. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. & Seligman, J. (1996). Information Flow in Distributed Systems. Manuscripts. (A significantly revised version has been published as Information Flow: the Logical of Distributed Systems, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.)

  • Berkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning Principles of Human Knowedge. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertin, J. (1973). Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. Translated by William J. Berg. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1969). Content and Consciousness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. I. (1981). Knowlege and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funt, B. V. (1980). Problem-Solving with Diagrammatic Representations. In Glasgow, J. Narayanan, N. H. & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cogitive and Computational Perspectives, 33-68. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelernter, H. (1959). Realization of a Geometry-Theorem Proving Machine. In Feigenbaum, E. A. & Feldman, J. (eds.) Computers and Thought, 134-152. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art: an Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: the Bobbs-Merrill Company, INC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, E. (1995). Logic and Visual Information. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. The Philosophical Works of David Hume. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. In Glasgow, J., Narayana, N. H. & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 69-109. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H. J. (1988). Logic and the Complexity of Reasoning. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17: 355-389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H. J. & Brachman, R. J. (1985). A Fundamental Tradeoff in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Revised Version). In Brachman, R. J. & Levesque, N. J. (eds.) Readings in Knowledge Representation, 42-70. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsay, R. K. (1988). Images and Inference. In Glasgow, J. I., Narayanan, N. H. & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.) Digrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 111-135. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental Aspects of Cognitive Representation. In Rosch, E. & Llyod, B. B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, 259-303. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the Mind's Eye Tells the Mind's Brain: A Critique of Mental Imaginery. Psychological Bulletin 80: 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1923). Vagueness. In Slater, J. G. (ed.) Essays on Language, Mind and Matter: The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 9, 145-154. London: Unwin Hyman, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimojima, A. (1996a). On the Efficacy of Representation. Ph.D. Thesis. The Department of Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimojima, A. (1996b). Operational Constraints in Diagrammatic Reasoning. In Barwise, J. & Allwein, G. (eds.) Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, 27-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimojima, A. (1996c). Reasoning with Diagrams and Geometrical Constraints. In Westershåhl, D. & Seligman, J. (eds.) Language, Logic and Computation, Volume 1, 527-540. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1971). Interactions between Philosophy and AI: the Role of Intuition and Non-Logical Reasoning in Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 2: 209-225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1975). Afterthoughts on Analogical Representations. In Brachman, R. J. & Levesque, H. J. (eds.) Readings in Knowledge Representation, 432-439. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1995). Musings on the Roles of Logical and Nonlogical Representations in Intelligence. In Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H. & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 7-32. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenning, K. & Inder, R. (1995). Applying Semantic Concepts to Analyzing Media and Modalities. In Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H. & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 303-338. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation. Cognitive Science 19: 97-140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1921). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Second Edition. Translated by D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shimojima, A. The Graphic-Linguistic Distinction Exploring Alternatives. Artificial Intelligence Review 13, 313–335 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006544013197

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006544013197

Navigation