{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032467532467532464, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00937950937950938, 'mean_word_length': 4.952789699570816, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Image schemas in visual semiotics: Looking for an origin of plastic language

Abstract The aim of this article is to present a hypothesis explaining the origin of plastic meaning. In visual semiotics, plastic meaning is that produced by visual configurations per se, i.e. independently from what they represent. This meaning can be assimilated to the kind of effects studied by (Arnheim, R. 1954/1974. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye, 2nd edn. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press). In his book The Body In the Mind, (Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) is the first to propose that image schemas and their metaphorical projections could be used to explain some of these visual effects. Nevertheless, I think that his approach presents some shortcomings. Above all, Johnson’s examples always concern cases in which visual stimuli match an image schema, while Arnheim’s observations are mostly about effects of tension and dynamism generated by a conflict with our expectations. I will propose that, to complete Johnson’s proposal, we need an inferential theory of aesthetic experience, derived from Meyer’s and Eco’s works. This theory would explain how expectations and their verifications can produce different kinds of tension and arousal, the basic mechanisms of plastic meaning.