Iconic semiosis and representational efficiency in the London Underground Diagram

Atã, Pedro; Bitarello, Breno; Queiroz, João

doi:10.1515/cogsem-2014-0012

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…famous redesign of 1931) present the optimal representation of a fixed configuration abstracting away from irrelevant details concerning shapes of trajectories (see Figure 4, cf. also Atã, Bitarello, & Queiroz, 2014).…”

Section: Manipulating Diagrams To Extract Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagrammatic reasoning

Tylén

Fusaroli

Bjørndahl

et al. 2014

P&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many types of everyday and specialized reasoning depend on diagrams: we use maps to find our way, we draw graphs and sketches to communicate concepts and prove geometrical theorems, and we manipulate diagrams to explore new creative solutions to problems. The active involvement and manipulation of representational artifacts for purposes of thinking and communicating is discussed in relation to C.S. Peirce’s notion ofdiagrammatical reasoning. We propose to extend Peirce’s original ideas and sketch a conceptual framework that delineates different kinds of diagram manipulation: Sometimes diagrams are manipulated in order to profile known information in an optimal fashion. At other times diagrams are explored in order to gain new insights, solve problems or discover hidden meaning potentials. The latter cases often entail manipulations that either generate additional information or extract information by means of abstraction. Ideas are substantiated by reference to ethnographic, experimental and historical examples.

show abstract

Section: Manipulating Diagrams To Extract Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagrammatic reasoning

Tylén

Fusaroli

Bjørndahl

et al. 2014

P&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ease of examination and manipulation of the relational parts in diagrams might even allow a better performance of the diagram as a cognitive artifact (Tylén et al 2014). By simplifying the visual elements and focusing on the relational parts, the diagram becomes easier to manipulate and understand, as shown in the case of metro maps (Atã et al 2014) -the simplifications of the railroads eases the reading of the map and makes it more functional. This emphasizes the need to examine the underlying relationships between the parts, rather than just the parts themselves, in order to understand the representation.…”

Section: Marking-for-self As Semiosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognition and diagrams in marking-for-self

Perissinotto,

Queiroz

2023

Cognitive Semiotics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metacognition relies on representations, which are commonly viewed as internal knowledge structures. We explore the idea that external embodied diagrams, rather than monomodal symbolic-based entities, can provide an accurate description of metacognition in choreographic dance. When marking, dancers use their bodies to represent properties, dynamics, or structures of dance phrases. Marking-for-self occurs when a dancer marks the dance in their own unique manner, potentially allowing for real-time reflection through the manipulation of external signs. These manipulations can be considered diagrammatic semiosis, as diagrams signify shared relational parts analogous to the parts of their objects. Based on Peirce’s semiotics, we argue that semiosis is crucial for metacognition. This paper is structured to first review marking and marking-for-self, followed by an overview of metacognition. We then define marking-for-self as a metacognitive phenomenon and introduce Peirce’s concept of semiosis and diagrams. Finally, we describe marking as a diagrammatic sign and explain how marking-for-self is an embodied metacognitive process achieved through the manipulation of diagrammatic structures.

show abstract

“…Diagrammatic iconicity is about how the systematic arrangement of different forms somehow mirrors the relationship between the things they reference. For example, the famous map of the London Underground mirrors the relations between different tube lines and stops along each line ( Atã et al, 2014 ); the sequence of conjugated verbs in the phrase veni, vidi , vici attributed to Julius Caesar mirrors the order in which these events occurred ( Jakobson, 1965 ); and the spatially motivated Auslan utterance POLICE CATCH THIEF mirrors both the spatial and agentive relations between policeman and thief ( Johnston, 1996 : 72). Diagrams do not perceptually resemble their object; they are better understood as a generality or schema ( Stjernfelt, 2019 ).…”

Section: Issues With Defining and Operationalising Iconicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Iconicity as Multimodal, Polysemiotic, and Plurifunctional

Hodge

Ferrara

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigations of iconicity in language, whereby interactants coordinate meaningful bodily actions to create resemblances, are prevalent across the human communication sciences. However, when it comes to analysing and comparing iconicity across different interactions (e.g., deaf, deafblind, hearing) and modes of communication (e.g., manual signs, speech, writing), it is not always clear we are looking at the same thing. For example, tokens of spoken ideophones and manual depicting actions may both be analysed as iconic forms. Yet spoken ideophones may signal depictive and descriptive qualities via speech, while manual actions may signal depictive, descriptive, and indexical qualities via the shape, movement, and placement of the hands in space. Furthermore, each may co-occur with other semiotics articulated with the face, hands, and body within composite utterances. The paradigm of iconicity as a single property is too broad and coarse for comparative semiotics, as important details necessary for understanding the range of human communicative potentialities may be masked. Here, we draw on semiotic approaches to language and communication, including the model of language as signalled via describing, indicating and/or depicting and the notion of non-referential indexicality, to illustrate the multidimensionality of iconicity in co-present interactions. This builds on our earlier proposal for analysing how different methods of semiotic signalling are combined in multimodal language use. We discuss some implications for the language and communication sciences and explain how this approach may inform a theory of biosemiotics.

show abstract

Iconic semiosis and representational efficiency in the London Underground Diagram

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Diagrammatic reasoning

Diagrammatic reasoning

Metacognition and diagrams in marking-for-self

Iconicity as Multimodal, Polysemiotic, and Plurifunctional

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About