Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2013 Volume 28
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Towards a diagrammatic classification

  • Pavillon Jardin

More Information
  • Abstract: In this article I present and discuss some criteria to provide a diagrammatic classification. Such a classification is of use for exploring in detail the domain of diagrammatic reasoning. Diagrams can be classified in terms of the use we make of them—static or dynamic—and of the correspondence between their space and the space of the data they are intended to represent. The investigation is not guided by the opposition visual vs. non-visual, but by the idea that there is a continuous interaction between diagrams and language. Diagrammatic reasoning is characterized by a duality, since it refers both to an object, the diagram, having its spatial characteristics, and to a subject, the user, who interprets them. A particular place in the classification is occupied by constructional diagrams, which exhibit for the user instructions for the application of some procedures.
  • 加载中
  • Barwise J., Etchemendy J.1996. Visual information and valid reasoning. In Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, Allwein, G. & Barwise, J. (eds). Oxford University Press, 3–25.

    Google Scholar

    Booker P. J.1963. A History of Engineering Drawing. Chatto and Windus.

    Google Scholar

    Derrida J. [1967] 1974. Of Grammatology. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Ferguson E. S.1992. Engineering and the Minds Eye. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Fischbein E.1987. Intuition in Science and Mathematics. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar

    Grosholz E. R.2007. Representation and Productive Ambiguity in Mathematics and the Sciences. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Lakoff G., Nuñez R.2001. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar

    Larkin J. H., Simon H. A.1995. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. In Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Chandrasekaran, B., Glasgow, J. & Hari Narayan, N. (eds). AAAI Press; The MIT Press, 69–109.

    Google Scholar

    Maynard P.2005. Drawing Distinctions: The Variety of Graphic Expression. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Nelsen R.1997. Proofs Without Words: Exercises in Visual Thinking, Classroom Resource Materials, The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar

    Nelsen R.2001. Proofs Without Words II: More Exercises in Visual Thinking, Classroom Resource Materials, The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar

    Peirce C. S.1885. On the algebra of logic: a contribution to the philosophy of notation. In The Writings of Charles S. Peirce (1980–2000), Vol. 5, Christian Kloesel et al. (eds). Indiana University Press, 162–189.

    Google Scholar

    Peirce C. S.1906. Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist16(4), 492–546.

    Google Scholar

    Pinker S.1990. A theory of graph comprehension. In Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, Feedle, R. (ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 73–126.

    Google Scholar

    Polya G.1945. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Sheffer H. M.1926. Review of A. N. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, in ‘Isis’ 8, 226–231.

    Google Scholar

    Shimojima A.2001. The graphic-linguistic distinction. Artificial Intelligence Review15, 5–27.

    Google Scholar

    Shin S.-J.2004. Heterogeneous reasoning and its logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic10(1), 86–106.

    Google Scholar

    Stenning K., Lemon O.2001. Aligning logical and psychological perspectives on diagrammatic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review15, 29–62.

    Google Scholar

    Stenning K., Inder R., Neilson I.1995. Applying semantic concepts to analysing medias and modalities. In Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Chandrasekaran, B., Glasgow, J. & Hari Narayan, N. (eds). AAAI Press; The MIT Press, 303–338.

    Google Scholar

    Tennant D.1984. The withering away of formal semantics?Mind and Language1, 302–318.

    Google Scholar

    Tufte E. [1983] 2001. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd edition. Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar

    Willats J.1997. Art and Representation: New Principles in the Analysis of Pictures. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Wittgenstein L. [1953] 2001. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar

    Wollheim R.2003. In difense of seeing-in. In Looking into Pictures. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pictorial Space, Hecht, H., Schwartz, R. & Atherton, M. (eds). The MIT Press, 3–15.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Valeria Giardino. 2013. Towards a diagrammatic classification. The Knowledge Engineering Review 28(3)237−248, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000222
    Valeria Giardino. 2013. Towards a diagrammatic classification. The Knowledge Engineering Review 28(3)237−248, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000222
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(23) PDF downloads(62)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Towards a diagrammatic classification

  • Pavillon Jardin

  • Published online: 24 July 2013
The Knowledge Engineering Review  28,  2013, 28(3): 237−248  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: In this article I present and discuss some criteria to provide a diagrammatic classification. Such a classification is of use for exploring in detail the domain of diagrammatic reasoning. Diagrams can be classified in terms of the use we make of them—static or dynamic—and of the correspondence between their space and the space of the data they are intended to represent. The investigation is not guided by the opposition visual vs. non-visual, but by the idea that there is a continuous interaction between diagrams and language. Diagrammatic reasoning is characterized by a duality, since it refers both to an object, the diagram, having its spatial characteristics, and to a subject, the user, who interprets them. A particular place in the classification is occupied by constructional diagrams, which exhibit for the user instructions for the application of some procedures.

    HTML

    Acknowledgments

    • I would like to thank Anouk Barberousse, Roberto Casati, Patrick Maynard, Elena Pasquinelli, Mario Piazza and Sandro Pignocchi for our discussions and their useful suggestions. I also thank the anonymous referees of the first version of this article for their accurate remarks. The research was supported by the European Community's Seventh Framework Program ([FP7/2007-2013] under a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship for Career Development, contract number No. 220686—DBR (diagram-based reasoning)).

    • The term ‘logocentrism’ was subsequently used by the deconstructivists to describe the tendency in Western thought of considering the logos, the ‘word’, as an ultimate principle of truth or reason, and will be put forth in other contexts as well, such as feminism and post-structuralism (see, for reference, Derrida, [1967] 1974).

    Rights and permissions
    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 2013Cambridge University Press
References (25)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Valeria Giardino. 2013. Towards a diagrammatic classification. The Knowledge Engineering Review 28(3)237−248, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000222
    Valeria Giardino. 2013. Towards a diagrammatic classification. The Knowledge Engineering Review 28(3)237−248, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000222
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return