Cover not available

In:Operationalizing Iconicity
Edited by Pamela Perniss, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 17] 2020
► pp. 213–230

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Show me how you feel

Iconicity and systematicity in visual morphology

 | University of British Columbia
 | University of Arizona
 | University of British Columbia
 | University of British Columbia
 | Tilburg University
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.17.13ken
Abstract
Visual representations are an ideal place to look at the balance of iconicity and systematicity, given that visual images often look like what they represent but also can be characterized along a scale from highly photorealistic to highly schematic or cartoony. Here we examine the contrast between different styles by presenting participants with “visual morphology” of upfixes – representations like hearts or lightbulbs that float above faces – where the face and/or upfix are either cartoony or photorealistic. Overall, we find that cartoony images, relative to photorealistic images, are easier to process, and therefore demand less attention and facilitate responding. We argue that these results support the view that drawings, and visual morphology, draw on schematic knowledge stored in long-term memory.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Stimuli
    • 2.2Participants
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Accuracy
    • 3.2Response times
    • 3.3Eye-tracking: Dwell times
    • 3.4Eye-tracking: Number of fixations
    • 3.5Eye-tracking: Entry time
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (30)
References
Bateman, John A., and Janina Wildfeuer. 2014. “Defining units of analysis for the systematic analysis of comics: A discourse-based approach.” Studies in Comics 5 (2): 373–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Churches, Owen, Mike Nicholls, Myra Thiessen, Mark Kohler, and Hannah Keage. 2014. “Emoticons in mind: An event-related potential study.” Social Neuroscience 9 (2): 196–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil. 2012. “Explaining “I can’t draw”: Parallels between the structure and development of language and drawing.” Human Development 55 (4): 167–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential images. London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. “Combinatorial morphology in visual languages.” In The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology, edited by Geert Booij, 175–199. London: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil, and Sean Ehly. 2016. “The vocabulary of manga: Visual morphology in dialects of Japanese Visual Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 92: 17–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil, and Stephen Maher. 2015. “The notion of the motion: The neurocognition of motion lines in visual narratives.” Brain Research 1601: 73–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil, Beena Murthy, and Tom Foulsham. 2016. “Meaning above the head: Combinatorial constraints on the visual vocabulary of comics.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology 28 (5): 559–574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faja, Susan, Sara Jane Webb, Kristen Merkle, Elizabeth Aylward, and Geraldine Dawson. 2009. “Brief Report: Face Configuration Accuracy and Processing Speed Among Adults with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 39 (3): 532–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folk, Charles L, Roger W Remington, and James C Johnston. 1992. “Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance 18 (4): 1030.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2011. “Pictorial runes in Tintin and the Picaros.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 875–890. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffaux, Valérie, and Bruno Rossion. 2006. “Faces are” spatial – “holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32 (4): 1023–1039.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, Katie LH, Wendy J Adams, Nicholas Hedger, Kristiana E Newton, and Matthew Garner. 2013. “Faces and awareness: Low-level, not emotional factors determine perceptual dominance.” Emotion 13 (3): 537–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoang Duc, Albert, Paul Bays, and Masud Husain. 2008. “Chapter 5.5–Eye movements as a probe of attention.” In Progress in Brain Research, edited by Christopher Kennard and R. John Leigh, 403–411. Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Jenny Audring. 2016. “Morphological schemas.” The Mental Lexicon 11 (3): 467–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1941/1962. “Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze.” In Selected writings I, 328–401. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joseph, Robert M., and James Tanaka. 2003. “Holistic and part-based face recognition in children with autism.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44 (4): 529–542. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendall, Lia N., Quentin Raffaelli, Alan Kingstone, and Rebecca M. Todd. 2016. “Iconic faces are not real faces: enhanced emotion detection and altered neural processing as faces become more iconic.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 1 (1): 1–14. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kowler, Eileen. 2011. “Eye movements: The past 25 years.” Vision Research 51 (13): 1457–1483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCloud, Scott. 1993. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newton, Douglas P. 1985. “Children’s Perception of Pictorial Metaphor.” Educational Psychology 5 (2): 179–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931. “Division of Signs.” In Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Vol. 2: Elements of Logic., edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, 134–173. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prazak, Emily R., and E. Darcy Burgund. 2014. “Keeping it real: Recognizing expressions in real compared to schematic faces.” Visual Cognition 22 (5): 737–750. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosset, Delphine B., Cécilie Rondan, David Da Fonseca, Andreia Santos, Brigitte Assouline, and Christine Deruelle. 2008. “Typical Emotion Processing for Cartoon but not for Real Faces in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38 (5): 919–925. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosset, Delphine B., Andreia Santos, David Da Fonseca, François Poinso, Kate O’Connor, and Christine Deruelle. 2010. “Do children perceive features of real and cartoon faces in the same way? Evidence from typical development and autism.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 32 (2): 212–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tasić, Miloš, and Dušan Stamenković. 2018. “Exploring pictorial runes in Luca Enoch’s comic book series Gea.” Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature 15 (2): 123–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willats, John. 1997. Art and representation: New principles in the analysis of pictures. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Brent. 1988. “The Artistic Tower of Babel: Inextricable Links Between Culture and Graphic Development.” In Discerning Art: Concepts and Issues, edited by George W. Hardiman and Theodore Zernich, 488–506. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Brent, and Marjorie Wilson. 1977. “An Iconoclastic View of the Imagery Sources in the Drawings of Young People.” Art Education 30 (1): 4–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yue, Xiaomin, Brittany S. Cassidy, Kathryn J. Devaney, Daphne J. Holt, and Roger B. H. Tootell. 2011. “Lower-Level Stimulus Features Strongly Influence Responses in the Fusiform Face Area.” Cerebral Cortex 21 (1): 35–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Lichtenberg, Lenneke Doris, Bien Klomberg, Joost Schilperoord & Neil Cohn
2025. Understanding lightbulb moments: Meaning-making in visual morphology from comics and emoji. Memory & Cognition DOI logo
Yaban, Nesli Tuğban
2025. Lo Spirito Folletto gazetesindeki Osmanlı karikatürlerinin ikonisite analizi. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi :13 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Cohn, Neil & Tom Foulsham
2022. Meaning above (and in) the head: Combinatorial visual morphology from comics and emoji. Memory & Cognition 50:7 ► pp. 1381 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue