Can Pictures Have Explicatures?

Forceville, Charles; Clark, Billy

doi:10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114

Cited by 69 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A problem that has been noted with moves to discuss images using theory with its origin in discussion of language is that even relatively straightforward pictures can admit an excess of possible interpretations, as demonstrated by Charles Forceville and Billy Clarke in "Can Pictures Have Explicatures?" [7]. Because even the simplest picture could be transformed into a wide variety of descriptive sentences, they argue that pictures cannot have explicatures in the classical, language-oriented, Gricean sense, though they do make the case for a kind of very explicature-like functioning in some cases where elements are combined in sufficiently rule-like ways as to more closely constrain translation [7].…”

Section: A Relevance-theoretic Approach -How Do We Understand a Diagram?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7]. Because even the simplest picture could be transformed into a wide variety of descriptive sentences, they argue that pictures cannot have explicatures in the classical, language-oriented, Gricean sense, though they do make the case for a kind of very explicature-like functioning in some cases where elements are combined in sufficiently rule-like ways as to more closely constrain translation [7]. Sperber and Wilson define an explicature as follows: There is an assumption (brought into play in Forceville and Clark's discussion) that this logical form is language-like, in the sense of involving conventionally-defined, combinable elements with some kind of grammar, that thus constrain the possible interpretations.…”

Section: A Relevance-theoretic Approach -How Do We Understand a Diagram?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untangling Knots: Embodied Diagramming Practices in Knot Theory

McCallum¹

2019

jhummath

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The editorial staff of JHM works hard to make sure the scholarship disseminated in JHM is accurate and upholds professional ethical guidelines. However the views and opinions expressed in each published manuscript belong exclusively to the individual contributor(s). The publisher and the editors do not endorse or accept responsibility for them. AbstractThe low visibility and specialised languages of mathematical work pose challenges for the ethnographic study of communication in mathematics, but observationbased study can offer a real-world grounding to questions about the nature of its methods. This paper uses theoretical ideas from linguistic pragmatics to examine how mutual understandings of diagrams are achieved in the course of conference presentations. Presenters use shared knowledge to train others to interpret diagrams in the ways favoured by the community of experts, directing an audience's attention so as to develop a shared understanding of a diagram's features and possible manipulations. In this way, expectations about the intentions of others and appeals to knowledge about the manipulation of objects play a part in the development and communication of concepts in mathematical discourse.

show abstract

Section: A Relevance-theoretic Approach -How Do We Understand a Diagram?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Relevance-theoretic Approach -How Do We Understand a Diagram?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Untangling Knots: Embodied Diagramming Practices in Knot Theory

McCallum¹

2019

jhummath

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some visuals are open to reconstruction just as literal language-use is. That is, the interactants are not aiming to avoiding commitment; they are aiming to be as clear as possible (for a more detailed discussion of such symbols, see Forceville and Clark 2014). The play/pause button discussed in Section 3 is an example of such visual.…”

Section: Two New Lines Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

We Have Yet to See the “Visual Argument”

Popa

2016

Multimodal Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I defend two skeptical claims regarding current research on visual arguments and I explain how these claims reflect upon past and future research. The first claim is that qualifying an argument as being visual amounts to a category mistake; the second claim is that past analyses of visual arguments fault on both end of the “production line” in that the input is not visual and the output is not an argument. Based on the developed critique, I discuss how the study of images in communicative events can be carried out without the concept of “visual argument” and I illustrate this with two new directions of interdisciplinary research.

show abstract

“…; Foolen 2012Foolen , 2016Dewaele 2013), or the cognitive abilities involved in the use of symbols or semiotic systems (e.g. : Forceville & Clark 2014), just to name a few of these important contributions.…”

Section: So What Do Discourse Analysts Do?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics: Their Scope and Relation

Alba-Juez

2016

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Lingvist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I delve into the seas of the disciplines of Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics, trying to perform the difficult task of delimiting their scope and discussing their common and non-common ground, in order to present a general idea of the state of the art of both disciplines in the 21 st century. Being conscious of the fact that one can learn a great deal about any field by observing what its practitioners do, and precisely because these disciplines are hard to delimit, I also discuss what it is that pragmaticians and discourse analysts actually do. The concepts of text and discourse are explored by looking into different approaches and studies in the areas of Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, as well as into how they have evolved from their beginnings to the present time. The main schools of Pragmatics, the Anglo-American and the European Continental (Huang 2016) are also explored, in order to compare their viewpoints and their relationship with the field of discourse analysis. As I see it, Pragmatics is not the same as, but is an indispensable source for, discourse analysis: it would be impossible to analyze any discourse without having a solid basic knowledge of pragmatic phenomena and the ways in which they work and interact (Alba-Juez, 2009: 46). I also examine some concepts and issues that are crucial for the topic of this paper, such as the concepts of context, cognition or culture, and the need to develop pragmatic awareness.

show abstract

Can Pictures Have Explicatures?

Cited by 69 publications

References 11 publications

Untangling Knots: Embodied Diagramming Practices in Knot Theory

Untangling Knots: Embodied Diagramming Practices in Knot Theory

We Have Yet to See the “Visual Argument”

Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics: Their Scope and Relation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About