Cover not available
Article published In:
Diagrammatic Reasoning
Edited by Riccardo Fusaroli and Kristian Tylén
[Pragmatics & Cognition 22:2] 2014
► pp. 264–283

Diagrammatic reasoning

Abstraction, interaction, and insight

| aCenter for Semiotics, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Denmark
| bThe Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, Denmark
| cInstitute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, University of Warszawa, Poland
| dHumanomics Center, Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, University of Copenhagen

Many types of everyday and specialized reasoning depend on diagrams: we use maps to find our way, we draw graphs and sketches to communicate concepts and prove geometrical theorems, and we manipulate diagrams to explore new creative solutions to problems. The active involvement and manipulation of representational artifacts for purposes of thinking and communicating is discussed in relation to C.S. Peirce’s notion of diagrammatical reasoning. We propose to extend Peirce’s original ideas and sketch a conceptual framework that delineates different kinds of diagram manipulation: Sometimes diagrams are manipulated in order to profile known information in an optimal fashion. At other times diagrams are explored in order to gain new insights, solve problems or discover hidden meaning potentials. The latter cases often entail manipulations that either generate additional information or extract information by means of abstraction. Ideas are substantiated by reference to ethnographic, experimental and historical examples.

Keywords: diagrams, abstraction, extended cognition, C.S. Peirce, problem solving, distributed cognition, reasoning
Published online: 11 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22.2.06tyl
References
Alibali, M.W., Spencer, R.C., Knox, L., & Kita, S
(2011) Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychol Sci, 22(9), 1138–1144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atã, P., Bitarello, B., & Queiroz, J
(2014) Iconic semiosis and representational efficiency in the London Underground Diagram. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(2), 177–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A
(2012) Diagramming phenomena for mechanistic explanation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Bjørndahl, J., Fusaroli, R., Østergaard, S., & Tylén, K
(2014) Thinking together with material representations: Joint epistemic actions in creative problem solving. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(1), 103–123.Google Scholar
2015). When agreeing is not enough. Interaction Studies, 16(3).
Bjørndahl, J.S., Fusaroli, R., Østergaard, S., & Tylén, K
(2014) Thinking together with material representations: Joint epistemic actions in creative problem solving. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(1), 103–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boysen, S.T., Bernston, G.G., Hannan, M.B., & Cacioppo, J.T
(1996) Quantity-based interference and symbolic representations in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of experimental psychology . Animal behavior processes, 22(1), 76–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnston, D., Sheredos, B., Abrahamsen, A., & Bechtel, W
(2015) Scientists’ Use of Diagrams in Developing Mechanistic Explanations, Pragmatics and Cognition. Pragmatics and Cognition., 22(2), 224–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cairo, A
(2012) The Functional Art: An introduction to information graphics and visualization. New Riders.Google Scholar
Clark, A
(2006a) Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends Cogn Sci, 10(8), 370–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Material symbols. Philosophical psychology, 19(3), 291–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D
(1998) The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Krych, M.A
(2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. 62–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowley, S.J., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. d. r
(Eds.) (2014) Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice (Vol. 171). Springer.Google Scholar
Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N., & Richardson, D.C
(2013) The self-organization of human interaction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 591, 43–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, J.A., Stephen, D.G., Boncoddo, R., & Anastas, J
(2010) The self-organization of cognitive structure. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 521, 343–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncker, K
(1945) The Structure and Dynamics of Problem-Solving Processes. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fay, N., Garrod, S., Roberts, L., & Swoboda, N
(2010) The interactive evolution of human communication systems. Cogn Sci, 34(3), 351–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Rees, G., Frith, C.D., Roepstorff, A., & Tylén, K
(2012) Coming to terms: an experimental quantification of the coordinative benefits of linguistic interaction. Psychological Science, 231, 931–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Gangopadhyay, N., & Tylén, K
(2014) The dialogically extended mind: Making a case for language as skilful intersubjective engagement. Cognitive Systems Research, 29-301, 31–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K
(2014) Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 147–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K
(2012) Carving Language for Social Coordination: a dynamic approach. Interaction Studies, 131, 103–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
in press). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, Interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science.
Galantucci, B., & Garrod, S
(2010) A new approach for studying the emergence and the evolution of human communication. Interaction studies, 11(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Doherty, G
(1994) Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53(3), 181–215. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, E.R., & Spivey, M.J
(2003) Eye movements and problem solving guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14(5), 462–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healey, P.G., Swoboda, N., Umata, I., & King, J
(2007) Graphical language games: Interactional constraints on representational form. Cognitive Science, 31(2), 285–309.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J
(1983) The game of language: Studies in game-theoretical semantics and its applications. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Socratic Epistemology: Explorations of Knowledge-Seeking by Questioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E
(1995) Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Cognitive Ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A
(1995) Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P
(1994) On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D
(1999) Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köhler, W
(1925) Komplextheorie und Gestalttheorie. Psychological Research, 6(1), 358–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maglio, P.P., Matlock, T., Raphaely, D., Chernicky, B., & Kirsh, D
(1999) Interactive skill in scrabble. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ohlsson, S
(1992) Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. Advances in the psychology of thinking, chap. 11, 1–44.Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S
(1931) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Vols. 1-6 (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1976) The New Elements of Mathematics by C.S. Peirce, edited by Carolyn Eisele. Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1981) Writings of Charles S. Peirce : a chronological edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Charles S. Peirce : the essential writings. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D.L
(1995) The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheredos, B., Burnston, D., Abrahamsen, A., & Bechtel, W
(2013) Why do biologists use so many diagrams? Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 931–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, S.-J
(2010) Peirce’s two ways of abstraction. In M. Moore (Ed.), New Essays on Peirce’s Mathematical Philosophy. Chicago and La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F
(2000) Diagrams as centerpiece of a Peircean epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, XXXVI(3), 357–392.Google Scholar
(2007) Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Natural Propositions: The Actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns. Docent Press.Google Scholar
Tek, S., Mesite, L., Fein, D., & Naigles, L
(2014) Longitudinal analyses of expressive language development reveal two distinct language profiles among young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 44(1), 75–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Bundgaard, P., & Østergaard, S
(2013) Making sense together: A dynamical account of linguistic meaning making. Semiotica, 1941, 39–62.Google Scholar
Vallée-Tourangeau, F
(2013) Interactivity, efficiency, and individual differences in mental arithmetic. Experimental psychology, 60(4), 302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weller, A., Villejoubert, G., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F
(2011) Interactive insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(4), 424–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yau, N
(2011) Visualize this: the FlowingData guide to design, visualization, and statistics. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

Cerutti, Michele
2023. Diagrams as centerpiece for an enactivist epistemology. Semiotika 18 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Christensen, Peer, Riccardo Fusaroli & Kristian Tylén
2016. Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: Structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization. Cognition 146 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Fabry, Regina E. & Markus Pantsar
2021. A fresh look at research strategies in computational cognitive science: The case of enculturated mathematical problem solving. Synthese 198:4 ► pp. 3221 ff. DOI logo
Fontainha, Tharcisio Cotta, Adriana Leiras, Renata Albergaria de Mello Bandeira & Luiz Felipe Scavarda
2017. Public-Private-People Relationship Stakeholder Model for disaster and humanitarian operations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Hohol, Mateusz & Marcin Miłkowski
2019. Cognitive Artifacts for Geometric Reasoning. Foundations of Science 24:4 ► pp. 657 ff. DOI logo
Kerr, Clive
2023. Visualizing Portfolios: Prompt Discussions and Provoke Debates in Management Meetings. IEEE Engineering Management Review 51:4 ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Marshall, Guy Clarke & André Freitas
2021. Measuring diagram quality through semiotic morphisms. Semiotica 2021:239 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Marshall, Guy Clarke, Caroline Jay & André Freitas
2021. Structuralist Analysis for Neural Network System Diagrams. In Diagrammatic Representation and Inference [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12909], ► pp. 480 ff. DOI logo
Omoge, Michael
2021. Naturalised modal epistemology and quasi-realism. South African Journal of Philosophy 40:3 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Perissinotto, Henrique T. D. & João Queiroz
2023. Metacognition and diagrams in marking-for-self. Cognitive Semiotics 16:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Philipsen, Johanne S. & Sarah Bro Trasmundi
2019. Gesture reuse as distributed embodied cognition. Gesture 18:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Reid, Heleen A. J., Clare Hocking & Liz Smythe
2019. The making of occupation-based models and diagrams: History and semiotic analysis. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 86:4 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo
Stege Bjørndahl, Johanne, Riccardo Fusaroli, Svend østergaard & Kristian Tylén
2015. Agreeing is not enough. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 16:3 ► pp. 495 ff. DOI logo
Tylén, Kristian, Riccardo Fusaroli, Sergio Rojo, Katrin Heimann, Nicolas Fay, Niels N. Johannsen, Felix Riede & Marlize Lombard
2020.  The evolution of early symbolic behavior in Homo sapiens . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117:9 ► pp. 4578 ff. DOI logo
Tylén, Kristian, Riccardo Fusaroli, Sara Møller Østergaard, Pernille Smith & Jakob Arnoldi
2023. The Social Route to Abstraction: Interaction and Diversity Enhance Performance and Transfer in a Rule‐Based Categorization Task. Cognitive Science 47:9 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.