Abstract
A number of criteria for discriminating diagrammatic from sentential systems of representation by their manner of semantic interpretation have been proposed. Often some sort of spatial homomorphism between diagram and its referent is said to distinguish diagrammatic from sentential systems (e.g. Barwise & Etchemendy 1990). Or the distinction is analysed in terms of Peirce’s distinctions between symbol, icon and index (see Shin (forthcoming)). Shimojima (1999) has proposed that the sharing of ‘nomic’ constraints between representing and represented relations is what distinguishes diagrams. We have proposed that the fundamental distinction is between direct and indirect systems of representation, where indirect systems have an abstract syntax interposed between representation and represented entities (Stenning & Inder 1994; Gurr, Lee & Stenning 1999; Stenning & Lemon (in press).
The purpose of the present paper is to relate the distinction between directness and indirectness to the other criteria, and to further develop the approach through a comparison Peirce’s Existential Graphs both with sentential logics and with diagrammatics ones. Peirce’s system is a particularly interesting case because its semantics can be viewed as either direct or indirect according to the level of interpretation. The paper concludes with some remarks on the consequences of sentential vs. diagrammatic modalities for the conduct of proof.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
R. B. Nelsen. 1993. Proofs without Words: Exercises in Visual Thinking. The Mathematical Association of America.
Barwise & Etchemendy Barwise, J. & Etchemendy, J. (1990) Visual information and valid reasoning visualization in mathematics. In W. Zimmerman (ed.) Mathematical Association of America: Washington, D. C.
Goodman, N. (1968) The languages of Art. Bobs Merrill: Indianapolis.
Gurr, C., Lee, J., & Stenning, K. (1998) Theories of diagrammatic reasoning: distinguishing component problems. Minds and Machines 8(4), pps. 533–557.
Netz, R. (1999) The origins of proof in Greek Geometry. CUP.
Scotto di Luzio, P. (2000) Formality and logical systems. This volume.
Shimojima, A. (1999) The graphic linguistic distinction. Artificial Intelligence Review, 13(4), 313–335.
Shin, S. (1998) Reading Peirce’s existential graphs. Thinking with Diagrams Conference: Aberystwyth.
Shin, S. (forthcoming) Iconicity in logical systems MIT Press.
Sowa, J. F. (1984) Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine Addison Wesley.
Steedman, M. (2000) The syntactic process: language, speech and communication, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Stenning, K. (1992) Distinguishing conceptual and empirical issues about mental models. In Rogers, Y., Rutherford, A. and Bibby, P. (eds.) Models in the Mind. Academic Press. pps. 29–48.
Stenning, K. (forthcoming) Seeing Reason: image and language in learning to think. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Stenning, K. & Lemon, O. (in press) Aligning logical and psychological perspectives on diagrammatic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review.
Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, pps. 97–140.
Stenning, K., Inder, R., & Neilson, I. (1995) Applying semantic concepts to the media assignment problem in multi-media communication. In Chandrasekaran, B. & J. Glasgow (eds.) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Computational and Cognitive Perspectives on Problem Solving with Diagrams. MIT Press. pps. 303–338.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stenning, K. (2000). Distinctions with Differences: Comparing Criteria for Distinguishing Diagrammatic from Sentential Systems. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds) Theory and Application of Diagrams. Diagrams 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1889. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67915-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44590-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive