Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-ggg9q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-02T22:20:59.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the semiotic and material constraints of ideographies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Izzy Wisher  and
Kristian Tylén Open the ORCID record for Kristian Tylén [Opens in a new window]
Izzy Wisher
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark kristian@cc.au.dk https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/kristian-tylen(9950d8bc-e1cd-400a-a547-359cd0b07157).html izzywisher@cc.au.dk https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/isobel-wisher(d0e2fb0e-cb67-4ff2-9786-3c9dff72d291).html
Kristian Tylén
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark kristian@cc.au.dk https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/kristian-tylen(9950d8bc-e1cd-400a-a547-359cd0b07157).html izzywisher@cc.au.dk https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/isobel-wisher(d0e2fb0e-cb67-4ff2-9786-3c9dff72d291).html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite obvious advantages, no generalised ideographic codes have evolved through cultural evolution to rely on iconicity. Morin suggests that this is because of missing means of standardisation, which glottographic codes get from natural languages. Although we agree, we also point to the important role of the available media, which might support some forms of reference more effectively than others.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e257
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aubert, M., Lebe, R., Oktaviana, A. A., Tang, M., Burhan, B., Hamrullah, , … Brumm, A. (2019). Earliest hunting scene in prehistoric art. Nature, 576, 442–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 101, 150–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brilliant, R. (1991). The Bayeux Tapestry: A stripped narrative for their eyes and ears. Word & Image, 7(2), 98–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Challis, S., Hollmann, J., & McGranaghan, M. (2013). “Rain snakes” from the Senqu River: New light on Qing's commentary on San rock art from Sehonghong, Lesotho. Azania: Archaeologial Research in Africa, 48(3), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, N. (2013). The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential images. A&C Black.Google Scholar
Dideriksen, C., Christiansen, M. H., Tylén, K., Dingemanse, M., & Fusaroli, R. (2022). Quantifying the interplay of conversational devices in building mutual understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(3), 864–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fay, N., Ellison, M., & Garrod, S. (2014). Iconicity: From sign to system in human communication and language. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22(2), 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., Fay, N., Lee, J., Oberlander, J., & MacLeod, T. (2007). Foundations of representation: Where might graphical symbol systems come from? Cognitive Science, 31(6), 961–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203(3), 88–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolley, R. P. (2009). Children and pictures: Drawing and understanding. John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. M. (1975). The discrete text and the iconic text: Remarks on the structure of narrative (F. Pfotenhauer, Trans.). New Literary History, 6(2), 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. (2013). Contemporary meanings and the recursive nature of rock art: Dilemmas for a purely archaeological understanding of rock art. Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture, 6(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGranaghan, M., & Challis, S. (2016). Reconfiguring hunting magic: Southern Bushman (San) perspectives on taming and their implications for understanding rock art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 26(4), 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (2014). How arbitrary is language? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nawar, H. (2012). Multicultural transposition: From alphabets to pictographs, towards semantographic communication. Technoetic Arts, 10(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nölle, J., Staib, M., Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2018). The emergence of systematicity: How environmental and communicative factors shape a novel communication system. Cognition, 181, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perlman, M., Dale, R., & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science, 2(8), 150152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perlman, M., & Lupyan, G. (2018). People can create iconic vocalizations to communicate various meanings to naïve listeners. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stjernfelt, F., & Østergaard, S. (2013). FONK! HONK! WHAM! OOF!: Representation of events in Carl Barks – and in the aesthetics of comics in general. In Pedri, N. & Petit, L. (Eds.), Picturing the language of images (pp. 483–508). Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Tacon, P. S. C. (1989). From the “dreamtime” to the present: The changing role of Aboriginal rock paintings in Western Arnhem Land, Australia. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, IX(2), 317–339.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Żywiczyński, P., & Wacewicz, S. (2020). Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language Evolution, 5(2), 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar