Logic as a Foundation for a Cognitive Theory of Modality Assignment

  • Keith Stenning
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 247)


Psychologists have tended to employ an anachronistically mechanistic view of logic in their theorising about human reasoning (see e.g., (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Rips, 1986)). Instead of regarding a logic as an abstract consequence relation which can be implemented in many mechanisms, they have tended to assume that a direct implementation of their favourite pencil-and-paper method of doing logic (often a natural deduction system) is the only mechanism of logical reasoning. Alternatively, some psychologists have claimed that psychological theories of reasoning correspond to model theory in logic, thus neglecting the fact that model theoretic reasoning generally takes place in some metalanguage.


Expressive Power Graphical System Graphical Algorithm Modality Assignment Topological Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker-Plummer, D. and Bailin, S.C.: 1992, “Graphical theorem proving: an approach to reasoning with the help of diagrams”, in: ECAI-92, pp. 55–59Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J.: 1990, “Visual information and valid reasoning”, in: W. Zimmerman (ed.), Visualization in Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkeley, G.: 1937, The Principles of Human Knowledge. London: A. Brown. Text of the first ed. (1710) inc. variants in the 2nd (1734) and in an auto¬graph ms. Ed. T. E. JessopGoogle Scholar
  4. Cleveland, W.S.: 1985, The Elements of Graphing Data. Monterey, Ca.: WadswortGoogle Scholar
  5. Coutaz, J.: 1992, “Multimedia and multimodal user interfaces: a taxonomy for software engineering research issues”, in: EWCHCI, pp. 229–240Google Scholar
  6. Erickson, J.R.: 1975, “A set analysis theory of behaviour in formal syllogistic reasoning tasks”, in: R.L. Solso (ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabbay, D.: to appear, “Labelled Deductive Systems”, Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
  8. Grossen, G. and Carnine, D.: 1990, “Diagramming a logic strategy: effects on difficult problem types and transfer”, Learning Disability Quarterly 13, pp. 168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartley, J.: 1987, “Designing electronic text: the role of print-based research”, Educational Research and Technology Journal 35(1), pp. 3–17Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, J. (ed.): 1992, Technology and Writing: Readings in the Psychology of Written Communication. London: Jessica KingsleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Hovy, E. and Arens, Y.: 1990, “When is a picture worth a thousand words? —allocation of modalities in multimedia communication”, in: AAAI Symposium on HCI Google Scholar
  12. Johnson-Laird, P.N.: 1983, Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Larkin, J.H. and Simon, H.A.: 1987, “Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words”, Cognitive Science 11, pp. 65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levesque, H.J. and Brachman, R.J.: 1985, “A fundamental tradeoff in knowledge representation and reasoning (revised version)”, in: R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque (eds), Readings in Knowledge Representation, pp. 41–70. Los Altos, Ca.: Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyers, B.A.: 1990, “Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization”, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 1(1), pp. 97–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Poythress, V.S. and Sun, H.S.: 1972, “A method to construct convex connected Venn diagrams for any finite number of sets”, Pentagon pp. 80–82Google Scholar
  17. Rips, L.J.: 1986, “Mental muddles”, in: M. Brand and R.M. Harnish (eds), Problems in the Representations of Knowledge and Belief. Tucson: University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  18. Salvendy, G.: 1987, Handbook of Human Factors. New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  19. Shin, S.-J.: 1991, “A situation-theoretic account of valid reasoning with Venn diagrams”, in: J. Barwise, J.M. Gawron, G. Plotkin and S. Tutiya (eds), Situation Theory and its Applications, Vol. 2, pp. 581–605. Stanford, Ca.: Center for the Study of Language and InformationGoogle Scholar
  20. Stenning, K., Neilson, I. and Inder, R.: 1993, Applying semantic concepts to the media-assignment problem in multi-media communication. Research Paper, Human Communication Research Centre, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  21. Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J.: 1991, A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Research Paper HCRC/RP-20, Human Communication Research Centre, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  22. Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J.: 1994, “Spatial containment and set membership: a case study of analogy at work”, in: J. Barnden and K. Holyoak (eds), Analogical Connections, pp. 446–486. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erl-baum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  23. Tufte, E.R.: 1983, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Twyman, M.: 1979, “A schema for the study of graphical language”, in: P.A. Kolers, M.E. Wrolstad and H. Bouma (eds), Processing Visible Language, Vol. 1, pp. 117–150. New York: Plenum PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yule, P. and Stenning, K.: 1992, “The figural effect and a graphical algorithm for syllogistic reasoning”, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1170–1175. Distributed by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Stenning
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Communication Research CentreUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations