Puzzling out graphic codes

TL;DR: Puzzling out graphic codes is a discussion about the nature of graphic codes and their relationship to spoken language. The author argues that graphic codes are codes, not visual art or a byproduct of spoken language. They derive their expressive power from their relationship to spoken language rather than iconicity. The author proposes three solutions to the puzzle of ideography and argues that the "standardization account" is the most promising solution.

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.