Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T06:41:36.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Puzzling out graphic codes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Olivier Morin Open the ORCID record for Olivier Morin [Opens in a new window]
Olivier Morin*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Geoanthropology, Minds & Traditions Research Group, Jena, Germany [email protected]; https://www.shh.mpg.de/94549/themintgroup Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS, ENS, PSL University 29, Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This response takes advantage of the diverse and wide-ranging series of commentaries to clarify some aspects of the target article, and flesh out other aspects. My central point is a plea to take graphic codes seriously as codes, rather than as a kind of visual art or as a byproduct of spoken language; only in this way can the puzzle of ideography be identified and solved. In this perspective, I argue that graphic codes do not derive their expressive power from iconicity alone (unlike visual arts), and I clarify the peculiar relationship that ties writing to spoken language. I then discuss three possible solutions to the puzzle of ideography. I argue that a learning account still cannot explain why ideographies fail to evolve, even if we emancipate the learning account from the version that Liberman put forward; I develop my preferred solution, the “standardization account,” and contrast it with a third solution suggested by some commentaries, which says that ideographies do not evolve because they would make communication too costly. I consider, by way of conclusion, the consequences of these views for the future evolution of ideography.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e260
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.)

References

Alant, E., Life, H., & Harty, M. (2005). Comparison of the learnability and retention between Blissymbols and CyberGlyphs. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820400009980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barach, E., Feldman, L. B., & Sheridan, H. (2021). Are emojis processed like words?: Eye movements reveal the time course of semantic processing for emojified text. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(3), 978–991. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01864-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boltz, W. G. (1993). The origin and early development of the Chinese writing system. American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2016). How many words do we know? Practical estimates of vocabulary size dependent on word definition, the degree of language input and the participant's age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burroughs, J. A., Albritton, E., Eaton, B., & Montague, J. (1990). A comparative study of language delayed preschool children's ability to recall symbols from two symbol systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6(3), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619012331275464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, L.-Y., Chen, Y.-C., & Perfetti, C. A. (2018). GraphCom: A multidimensional measure of graphic complexity applied to 131 written languages. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0881-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, C. R. (1981). Learning words using traditional orthography and the symbols of Rebus, Bliss, and Carrier. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 46, 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4602.191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, N. (2013). The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential images. A&C Black.Google Scholar
Crema, E. R., Kandler, A., & Shennan, S. (2016). Revealing patterns of cultural transmission from frequency data: Equilibrium and non-equilibrium assumptions. Scientific Reports, 6, 39122. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Częstochowska, J., Gligorić, K., Peyrard, M., Mentha, Y., Bień, M., Grütter, A., … West, R. (2022). On the context-free ambiguity of emoji. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16, 1388–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, J. (2021). Emoji frequency. Unicode. https://home.unicode.org/emoji/emoji-frequency/Google Scholar
Demattè, P. (2022). The origins of Chinese writing. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. (2011). Course in general linguistics (P. Meisel, Ed.; W. B. E. by P. Meisel & H. Saussy, Trans.). Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
du Ponceau, P. S. (1838). A dissertation on the nature and character of the Chinese system of writing. To which are subjoined a vocabulary of the Cochin Chinese language by J. Morrone [&c.]. Published for the American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Ecklund, S., & Reichle, J. (1987). A comparison of normal children's ability to recall symbols from two logographic systems. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.1801.34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgerton, W. F. (1941). Ideograms in English writing. Language, 17(2), 148–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/409622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2017). How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1883). On the scientific justification of a concept-script (J. M. Bartlett, Trans.). Mind; A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 73(290), 155–160.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1920/1981). Posthumous writing (Illustrated ed.). John Wiley.Google Scholar
Funnell, E., & Allport, A. (1989). Symbolically speaking: Communicating with Blissymbols in aphasia. Aphasiology, 3(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038908248995CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701703659CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelb, I. J. (1963). A study of writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guthrie, R. D. (2006). The nature of Paleolithic art. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmke, C., & Nielsen, J. (2021). Teotihuacan writing: Where are we now? Visible Language, 55(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.34314/vl.v55i2.4607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermalin, N., & Regier, T. (2019). Efficient use of ambiguity in an early writing system: Evidence from Sumerian cuneiform. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Efficient-use-of-ambiguity-in-an-early-writing-from-Hermalin-Regier/9a6898192ea9a9ad8f9d67fe95521a8532fdd3beGoogle Scholar
Hirshorn, E. A., & Harris, L. N. (2022). Culture is not destiny, for reading: Highlighting variable routes to literacy within writing systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1513(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmeister, R. J., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Acquiring English as a second language via print: The task for deaf children. Cognition, 132(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlbut, B. I., Iwata, B. A., & Green, J. D. (1982). Nonvocal language acquisition in adolescents with severe physical disabilities: Bliss symbol versus iconic stimulus formats. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, R., Dowsett, A. J., & Burton, A. M. (2018). How many faces do people know? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1888), 20181319. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koriat, A., & Levy, I. (1979). Figural symbolism in Chinese ideographs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8(4), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koshevoy, A., Miton, H., & Morin, O. (2023). Zipf's law of abbreviation holds for individual characters across a broad range of writing systems. Cognition, accepted.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozleski, E. B. (1991). Visual symbol acquisition by students with autism. Exceptionality, 2(4), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362839109524782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. L., & Frank, M. C. (2016). The length of words reflects their conceptual complexity. Cognition, 153, 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2005). How iconic are Chinese characters? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904002081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, J. R. (2008). Do bowerbirds exhibit cultures? Animal Cognition, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0092-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millikan, R. G. (1998). Language conventions made simple. Journal of Philosophy, 185(4), 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miton, H., & Morin, O. (2021). Graphic complexity in writing systems. Cognition, 214, 104771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mizuko, M. (1987). Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618712331274409Google Scholar
Mizuko, M., & Reichle, J. (1989). Transparency and recall of symbols among intellectually handicapped adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(4), 627–633. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5404.627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morin, O., & Miton, H. (2018). Detecting wholesale copying in cultural evolution. Evolution & Human Behavior, 39(4), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poupart, A., Trudeau, N., & Sutton, A. (2013). Construction of graphic symbol sequences by preschool-aged children: Learning, training, and maintenance. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. (2014). Speaking our minds: Why human communication is different, and how language evolved to make it special. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sevcik, R. A., Barton-Hulsey, A., Romski, M., & Hyatt Fonseca, A. (2018). Visual-graphic symbol acquisition in school age children with developmental and language delays. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(4), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1522547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Severi, C. (2019). Their way of memorizing: Mesoamerican writings and native American picture-writings. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 71–72, 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/706117Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (2010). Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamariz, M., & Kirby, S. (2015). Culture: Copying, compression, and conventionality. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urton, G. (2017). Inka history in knots: Reading khipus as primary sources. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Winters, J., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2018). Contextual predictability shapes signal autonomy. Cognition, 176, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winters, J., & Morin, O. (2019). From context to code: Information transfer constrains the emergence of graphic codes. Cognitive Science, 43(3), e12722. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12722CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiao, W., & Treiman, R. (2012). Iconicity of simple Chinese characters. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 954–960. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0191-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, A. W., Frühholz, S., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2020). Face and voice perception: Understanding commonalities and differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youngblood, M., Miton, H., & Morin, O. (2023). Signals of random copying are robust to time- and space-averaging. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 5, E10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar