About the seminar
“Iconic” representation includes representation by pictures, maps, diagrams, audio recordings, and 3D models; “symbolic” representation includes representation by linguistic expressions, numerals, and data structures in digital computers. Many have held that iconic representation essentially involves some kind of resemblance or isomorphism, while symbolic representation is essentially arbitrary. But this facile analysis turns out to be beset by problems. While the distinction between these two classes of representation seems fundamental, what the distinction actually comes to, and how it should be extended to the domain of mental representation, remain difficult and open questions. This course will explore these issues with readings drawn from philosophy, computer science, linguistics, and psychology.
Schedule
↗ opens an outside site
| Date | Topic | Reading | Recommended |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wed4/1 | Session 1Background Reading notes: Read with an eye towards the central questions of the course (outlined above). Pages 110-138 make up the “etymology” section. Read a couple pages of this to get the gist, but feel free to skip the rest. The discussion picks up again on 138 about 3/4 down the page. |
| — |
| Wed4/8 | Session 2Symbols Reading notes: Focus on the Peirce and Saussure—especially Saussure's view of the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign. For now, treat the G+G piece as background, but it will become more relevant next week. We will spend most of the class period talking about symbols and in what sense they are arbitrary, if any. |
| — |
| Wed4/15 | Session 3Diagrams Reading notes: Ch 2 covers basics of Venn and Euler diagrams, which we will spend the first half of class comparing. In Ch 6, Shin discusses the distinction between diagrammatic and linguistic representation, and we'll talk about that in the second half of class. |
| — |
| Wed4/22 | Session 4Maps Reading notes: We'll spend the first 1/3 of class discussing Casati + Varzi's semantics for maps; even if you don't have the formal background, do your best to understand the details here. We'll spend the second 2/3 of class discussing Camp's article, both on its own terms, and in relation to C+V's account. |
|
|
| Wed4/29 | Session 5Neutral Iconicity Reading notes: Focus on Beck 2012—we'll spend most of the class discussing the Generality Constraint, and Beck's argument that AMR's are not conceptual. As you read, also think of Camp 2007; would his argument apply to maps? Beck 2014 is for background, but important. | — | |
| Wed5/6 | Session 6Linguistic Iconicity Reading notes: Our primary focus will be Clark and Gerrig 1990: the role of iconicity in language as they describe it, and their analysis of “demonstrations”. However, be sure to read the indicated sections from Davidson 2014 as well: we'll look at her analysis of “classifiers” from sign language, with an eye towards both the phenomena and the theory which puts classifiers into relation with demonstration and quotation. |
| — |
| Wed5/13 | Session 7I/S 1: Goodman + Haugeland Reading notes: In seminar we'll focus on Goodman and Haugeland (especially Haugeland). Kulvicki provides some nice background and framework (couched in terms of the theory of pictures, but easily generalizable). Goodman is the chief representative of what Kulvicki calls a “structural account”—an account that aims to analyze the iconic/symbolic distinction in terms of structural features of the representations. Haugeland is the chief representative of what Kulvicki calls a “content account”—an account that aims to analyze the iconic/symbolic distinction in terms of the nature of the contents representations express. |
| — |
| Wed5/20 | Session 8I/S 2: Fodor, Fodor, Fodor |
| — |
| Wed6/3 | Session 9I/S 3: Shimojima + Larkin and Simon |
| — |
| Wed6/10 | Session 10In-class presentations |
| — |