Five dogmas of logic diagrams and how to escape them

IF 1.3 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Claudia Anger , Theodor Berwe , Alfred Olszok , Andrea Reichenberger , Jens Lemanski
{"title":"Five dogmas of logic diagrams and how to escape them","authors":"Claudia Anger ,&nbsp;Theodor Berwe ,&nbsp;Alfred Olszok ,&nbsp;Andrea Reichenberger ,&nbsp;Jens Lemanski","doi":"10.1016/j.langcom.2022.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the vein of a renewed interest in diagrammatic reasoning, this paper challenges an opposition between logic diagrams and formal languages that has traditionally been the common view in philosophy of logic and linguistics. We examine, from a philosophical point of view, what we call five dogmas of logic diagrams. These are as follows: (1) diagrams are non-linguistic; (2) diagrams are visual representations; (3) diagrams are iconic, and not symbolic; (4) diagrams are non-linear; (5) diagrams are heterogenous, and not homogenous. Using historical examples, we argue that none of these dogmas is an adequate criterion to distinguish logic diagrams from formal languages. Instead, we advocate that there is a common core between linguistic and diagrammatic representation and reasoning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47575,"journal":{"name":"Language & Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language & Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530922000775","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the vein of a renewed interest in diagrammatic reasoning, this paper challenges an opposition between logic diagrams and formal languages that has traditionally been the common view in philosophy of logic and linguistics. We examine, from a philosophical point of view, what we call five dogmas of logic diagrams. These are as follows: (1) diagrams are non-linguistic; (2) diagrams are visual representations; (3) diagrams are iconic, and not symbolic; (4) diagrams are non-linear; (5) diagrams are heterogenous, and not homogenous. Using historical examples, we argue that none of these dogmas is an adequate criterion to distinguish logic diagrams from formal languages. Instead, we advocate that there is a common core between linguistic and diagrammatic representation and reasoning.

逻辑图的五条教条及其逃避
在对图解推理重新产生兴趣的背景下,本文挑战了逻辑图与形式语言之间的对立,这是逻辑哲学和语言学传统上的共同观点。我们从哲学的角度来考察我们所说的逻辑图的五条教条。这些问题如下:(1)图表是非语言的;(2) 图表是视觉表示;(3) 图表是标志性的,而不是象征性的;(4) 图表是非线性的;(5) 图表是异构的,而不是同质的。通过历史例子,我们认为这些教条都不是区分逻辑图和形式语言的充分标准。相反,我们主张在语言和图解的表示和推理之间有一个共同的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: This journal is unique in that it provides a forum devoted to the interdisciplinary study of language and communication. The investigation of language and its communicational functions is treated as a concern shared in common by those working in applied linguistics, child development, cultural studies, discourse analysis, intellectual history, legal studies, language evolution, linguistic anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, the politics of language, pragmatics, psychology, rhetoric, semiotics, and sociolinguistics. The journal invites contributions which explore the implications of current research for establishing common theoretical frameworks within which findings from different areas of study may be accommodated and interrelated. By focusing attention on the many ways in which language is integrated with other forms of communicational activity and interactional behaviour, it is intended to encourage approaches to the study of language and communication which are not restricted by existing disciplinary boundaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信