Hubbry Logo
SymbolSymbolMain
Open search
Symbol
Community hub
Symbol
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Symbol
Symbol
Symbol
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Silhouette of a red octagon
A red octagon symbolizes "stop" even without the word.
Wearing variously colored ribbons is a symbolic action that shows support for certain campaigns.

A symbol is a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, relationship, or mathematical formula. Symbols allow people to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between otherwise different concepts and experiences. All communication is achieved through the use of symbols: for example, a red octagon is a common symbol for "STOP"; on maps, blue lines often represent rivers; and a red rose often symbolizes love and compassion. Numerals are symbols for numbers; letters of an alphabet may be symbols for certain phonemes; and personal names are symbols representing individuals. The academic study of symbols is called semiotics.

In the arts, symbolism is the use of a concrete element to represent a more abstract idea. In cartography, an organized collection of symbols forms a legend for a map.

Etymology

[edit]

The word symbol derives from the late Middle French masculine noun symbole, which appeared around 1380 in a theological sense signifying a formula used in the Roman Catholic Church as a sort of synonym for 'the credo'; by extension in the early Renaissance it came to mean 'a maxim' or 'the external sign of a sacrament'; these meanings were lost in secular contexts. It was during the Renaissance in the mid-16th century that the word took on the meaning that is dominant today, that of 'a natural fact or object evoking by its form or its nature an association of ideas with something abstract or absent'; this appears, for example, in François Rabelais, Le Quart Livre, in 1552.[1] This French word derives from Latin, where both the masculine noun symbolus and the neuter noun symbolum refer to "a mark or sign as a means of recognition."[2] The Latin word derives from Ancient Greek: σύμβολον symbolon, from a verb meaning 'put together', 'compare', alluding to the Classical practice of breaking a piece of ceramic in two and giving one half to the person who would receive a future message, and one half to the person who would send it: when the two fit perfectly together, the receiver could be sure that the messenger bearing it did indeed also carry a genuine message from the intended person.[1] A literary or artistic symbol as an "outward sign" of something else is a metaphorical extension of this notion of a message from a sender to a recipient. In English, the meaning "something which stands for something else" was first recorded in 1590, in Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene.

Concepts and definitions

[edit]

Symbols are a means of complex communication that often can have multiple levels of meaning.[3] Symbols are the basis of all human understanding and serve as vehicles of conception for all human knowledge.[4] Symbols facilitate understanding of the world in which we live, thus serving as the grounds upon which we make judgments.[5] In this way, people use symbols not only to make sense of the world around them but also to identify and cooperate in society through constitutive rhetoric.

Human cultures use symbols to express specific ideologies and social structures and to represent aspects of their specific culture. Thus, symbols carry meanings that depend upon one's cultural background. As a result, the meaning of a symbol is not inherent in the symbol itself but is culturally learned.[3]

Heinrich Zimmer gives a concise overview of the nature, and perennial relevance, of symbols.

Concepts and words are symbols, just as visions, rituals, and images are; so too are the manners and customs of daily life. Through all of these, a transcendent reality is mirrored. There are so many metaphors reflecting and implying something which, though thus variously expressed, is ineffable, though thus rendered multiform, remains inscrutable. Symbols hold the mind to truth but are not themselves the truth, hence it is delusory to borrow them. Each civilisation, every age, must bring forth its own."[6]

In the book Signs and Symbols, it is stated that

A symbol ... is a visual image or sign representing an idea – a deeper indicator of universal truth.[7]

Symbols and semiotics

[edit]

Semiotics is the study of signs, symbols, and signification as communicative behavior. Semiotics studies focus on the relationship of the signifier and the signified, also taking into account the interpretation of visual cues, body language, sound, and other contextual clues. Semiotics is linked with linguistics and psychology. Semioticians not only study what a symbol implies but also how it got its meaning and how it functions to make meaning in society. For example, symbols can cause confusion in translation when the same symbol means different things in the source and target languages. A potential error documented in survey translation is the symbol of "x" used to denote "yes" when marking a response in the English language surveys, but "x" usually means "no" in the Chinese convention.[8] Symbols allow the human brain continuously to create meaning using sensory input and decode symbols through both denotation and connotation.

Psychoanalysis, rhetoric, and archetypes

[edit]

An alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term sign was proposed by Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung. In his studies on what is now called Jungian archetypes, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted a sign with a symbol: something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise. An example of a symbol in this sense is Christ as a symbol of the archetype called self.[9]

Kenneth Burke described Homo sapiens as a "symbol-using, symbol making, and symbol misusing animal" to suggest that a person creates symbols as well as misuses them. One example he uses to indicate what he means by the misuse of the symbol is the story of a man who, when told that a particular food item was whale blubber, could barely keep from throwing it up. Later, his friend discovered it was actually just a dumpling. But the man's reaction was a direct consequence of the symbol of "blubber" representing something inedible in his mind. In addition, the symbol of "blubber" was created by the man through various kinds of learning.

Burke goes on to describe symbols as also being derived from Sigmund Freud's work on condensation and displacement, further stating that symbols are not just relevant to the theory of dreams but also to "normal symbol systems". He says they are related through "substitution", where one word, phrase, or symbol is substituted for another in order to change the meaning.[clarification needed] In other words, if one person does not understand a certain word or phrase, another person may substitute a synonym or symbol in order to get the meaning across. However, upon learning the new way of interpreting a specific symbol, the person may change his or her already-formed ideas to incorporate the new information.

Jean Dalby Clift says that people not only add their own interpretations to symbols, but they also create personal symbols that represent their own understanding of their lives: what she calls "core images" of the person. Clift argues that symbolic work with these personal symbols or core images can be as useful as working with dream symbols in psychoanalysis or counseling.[10]

William Indick suggests that the symbols that are commonly found in myth, legend, and fantasy fulfill psychological functions and hence are why archetypes such as "the hero", "the princess" and "the witch" have remained popular for centuries.[11]

Symbolic value

[edit]

Symbols can carry symbolic value in three primary forms: Ideological, comparative, and isomorphic.[12] Ideological symbols such as religious and state symbols convey complex sets of beliefs and ideas that indicate "the right thing to do". Comparative symbols such as prestigious office addresses, fine art, and prominent awards indicate answers to questions of "better or worse" and "superior or inferior". Isomorphic symbols blend in with the surrounding cultural environment such that they enable individuals and organizations to conform to their surroundings and evade social and political scrutiny. Examples of symbols with isomorphic value include wearing a professional dress during business meetings, shaking hands to greet others in the West, or bowing to greet others in the East. A single symbol can carry multiple distinct meanings such that it provides multiple types of symbolic value.[12]

Paul Tillich

[edit]

Paul Tillich argued that, while signs are invented and forgotten, symbols are born and die. There are, therefore, dead and living symbols. A living symbol can reveal to an individual hidden levels of meaning and transcendent or religious realities. For Tillich a symbol always "points beyond itself" to something that is unquantifiable and mysterious; symbols open up the "depth dimension of reality itself".[13] Symbols are complex, and their meanings can evolve as the individual or culture evolves. When a symbol loses its meaning and power for an individual or culture, it becomes a dead symbol. When a symbol becomes identified with the deeper reality to which it refers, it becomes idolatrous as the "symbol is taken for reality." The symbol itself is substituted for the deeper meaning it intends to convey. The unique nature of a symbol is that it gives access to deeper layers of reality that are otherwise inaccessible.[14]

Role of context in symbolism

[edit]

A symbol's meaning may be modified by various factors including popular usage, history, and contextual intent.

Historical meaning

[edit]

The history of a symbol is one of many factors in determining a particular symbol's apparent meaning. Consequently, symbols with emotive power carry problems analogous to false etymologies.[15]

Context

[edit]

The context of a symbol may change its meaning. Similar five-pointed stars might signify a law enforcement officer or a member of the armed services, depending upon the uniform.

Symbols in cartography

[edit]
Main article: Map symbol
The three categories of cartographic symbol shapes

Symbols are used in cartography to communicate geographical information (generally as point, line, or area features).[16] As with other symbols, visual variables such as size, shape, orientation, texture, and pattern provide meaning to the symbol.[17] According to semiotics, map symbols are "read" by map users when they make a connection between the graphic mark on the map (the sign), a general concept (the interpretant), and a particular feature of the real world (the referent). Map symbols can thus be categorized by how they suggest this connection:

  • Pictorial symbols (also "image", "iconic", or "replicative") appears as the real-world feature, although it is often in a generalized manner; e.g. a tree icon to represents a forest or green denoting vegetation.
  • Functional symbols (also "representational") directly represent the activity that takes place at the represented feature; e.g. a picture of a skier to represent a ski resort or a tent to represent a campground.
  • Conceptual symbols directly represent a concept related to the represented feature; e.g. a dollar sign to represent an ATM, or a Star of David to represent a Jewish synagogue.
  • Conventional symbols (also "associative") do not have any intuitive relationship but are so commonly used that map readers eventually learn to recognize them; e.g. a red line to represent a highway or a cross to represent a hospital.
  • Abstract/geometric symbols (also "ad hoc") are arbitrary shapes chosen by the cartographer to represent a certain feature.
[edit]

A symbolic action is an action that symbolizes or signals what the actor wants or believes. The action conveys meaning to the viewers. Symbolic action may overlap with symbolic speech, such as the use of flag burning to express hostility or saluting the flag to express patriotism.[18] In response to intense public criticism, businesses, organizations, and governments may take symbolic actions rather than, or in addition to, directly addressing the identified problems.[19]

Computer encoding

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Unicode.[edit]
Logo of the Unicode Consortium

This article contains uncommon Unicode characters. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols.

Unicode (also known as The Unicode Standard and TUS[20][21]) is a character encoding standard maintained by the Unicode Consortium designed to support the use of text in all of the world's writing systems that can be digitized. Version 17.0[A] defines 159,801 characters and 172 scripts[22] used in various ordinary, literary, academic, and technical contexts.

Unicode has largely supplanted the previous environment of myriad incompatible character sets used within different locales and on different computer architectures. The entire repertoire of these sets, plus many additional characters, were merged into the single Unicode set. Unicode is used to encode the vast majority of text on the Internet, including most web pages, and relevant Unicode support has become a common consideration in contemporary software development. Unicode is ultimately capable of encoding more than 1.1 million characters.

The Unicode character repertoire is synchronized with ISO/IEC 10646, each being code-for-code identical with one another. However, The Unicode Standard is more than just a repertoire within which characters are assigned. To aid developers and designers, the standard also provides charts and reference data, as well as annexes explaining concepts germane to various scripts, providing guidance for their implementation. Topics covered by these annexes include character normalization, character composition and decomposition, collation, and directionality.[23]

Unicode encodes 3,790 emoji, with the continued development thereof conducted by the Consortium as a part of the standard.[24] The widespread adoption of Unicode was in large part responsible for the initial popularization of emoji outside of Japan.[citation needed]

Unicode text is processed and stored as binary data using one of several encodings, which define how to translate the standard's abstracted codes for characters into sequences of bytes. The Unicode Standard itself defines three encodings: UTF-8, UTF-16,[a] and UTF-32, though several others exist. UTF-8 is the most widely used by a large margin, in part due to its backwards-compatibility with ASCII.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Symbol

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A symbol is a mark, sign, character, or object that represents or stands for something else, often an abstract idea, , or , through convention or association rather than direct resemblance. In everyday usage, symbols can include material items like the dove representing or the heart shape denoting , as well as abstract notations such as the chemical symbol "H" for or the mathematical symbol "∞" for . The word "symbol" originates from the Late Latin symbolum, meaning "creed, token, or mark," which derives from the Ancient Greek symbolon, referring to a "token" or "watchword" used for identification by matching with its counterpart. Etymologically, symbolon combines sun- ("together") and ballein ("to throw"), implying something "thrown together" to signify unity or agreement, such as in early religious creeds like the Apostles' Creed around the 3rd century CE. By the 15th century, its meaning had evolved in English to encompass a "formal summary of religious belief," and by the 16th century, it broadened to denote anything standing for a sacred, moral, or intellectual idea. In , the study of and their meanings, a is distinguished as a type of whose relationship to its is arbitrary and conventional, requiring rather than inherent similarity or physical connection. Pioneered by thinkers like Charles Peirce, symbols—such as words in or flags in —function through learned conventions, enabling complex systems like , where symbols like "+" denote , or rituals, where objects like a symbolize commitment. Unlike icons (based on resemblance) or indices (based on ), symbols derive their power from social agreement, making them foundational to and . Symbols play crucial roles across disciplines: in , they form the basis of and ; in and , they standardize notation for precision; and in and , they convey deeper themes, as seen in allegories where a might symbolize or transience. Culturally, symbols foster identity and , such as national emblems or religious icons, but they can also evolve or spark when interpretations shift, underscoring their dynamic, context-dependent nature.

Etymology and Origins

Etymology

The word "symbol" originates from the symbolon (σύμβολον), which denoted a token, watchword, or used for identification or . In its earliest concrete sense, a symbolon referred to half of a broken object, such as a shard, seal, or , where the matching halves served as proof of identity or agreement between parties, like hosts and guests or associates. This practical usage stemmed from the verb symballein (συμβάλλειν), meaning "to throw together" or "to compare," from syn- ("together") and ballein ("to throw"). The term entered Latin as symbolum, retaining the sense of a token or mark while extending to religious contexts, such as a creed or summary of faith; by around 250 CE, Cyprian of Carthage applied it to the Apostles' Creed as a distinguishing "mark" of Christian belief. From Late Latin, it passed into Old French as simbole (c. 12th century), signifying a sign or emblem, and then into Middle English around the mid-15th century, initially as "simbol" or "symbol," primarily denoting a creed or article of faith in religious texts. Philosophically, the concept of the symbol as a conventional sign appears in Plato's Cratylus (c. 360 BCE), where the dialogue explores names and language as arbitrary yet functional representations of reality, influencing later semiotic thought. By the 19th century, the term expanded in aesthetic theory, particularly with the emergence of Symbolism as a literary and artistic movement in France, emphasizing indirect representation of ideas through evocative signs rather than literal depiction.

Historical Evolution

The concept of symbols emerged in ancient civilizations as integral to communication, representation, and ritual. In , hieroglyphs developed around 3100 BCE from proto-literate pictographs, serving as a symbolic that combined pictorial representations of objects, ideas, and sounds to convey religious, administrative, and monumental narratives. Similarly, in , cuneiform script, originating around 3200 BCE, employed wedge-shaped symbols not only for record-keeping but also to represent divine entities and omens, reflecting a where signs mediated human interaction with gods through practices. During the classical period, Greek philosophers formalized distinctions in symbolic usage. , in his work (c. 350 BCE), differentiated symbols from natural signs, describing spoken and written words as conventional symbols of mental affections or experiences, which vary across languages but point to universal underlying thoughts. This philosophical framing elevated symbols as arbitrary yet meaningful tokens, drawing briefly from earlier Greek practices where symbolon denoted physical tokens used for or identification. In the medieval and eras, symbols proliferated in esoteric and artistic contexts. Alchemical traditions, spanning from the 12th to 17th centuries, utilized intricate symbols to denote elements, processes, and philosophical principles, such as the for cyclical transformation, blending mystical and proto-scientific inquiry while concealing knowledge from outsiders. The saw the rise of books, exemplified by Andrea Alciato's Emblematum Liber (1531), which paired moral mottos, symbolic images, and epigrams to encode ethical and humanistic lessons, influencing visual and literary arts across . The 19th and 20th centuries marked shifts toward subjective and psychological interpretations amid broader cultural changes. Romantic literature, particularly through Charles Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du Mal (1857), employed symbols to evoke the interplay of beauty, decay, and the supernatural, bridging personal emotion with universal correspondences and paving the way for the Symbolist movement. , in the early , reconceptualized symbols as manifestations of archetypes from the , emphasizing their role in psychological integration and processes. Earlier, the Enlightenment's emphasis on from the 17th to 18th centuries diminished symbolic reliance in scientific discourse, favoring empirical observation and mathematical precision over allegorical or interpretive representations to establish objective knowledge.

Core Concepts

Definitions

A symbol is defined as anything that stands for or represents something else beyond itself, typically an idea conventionally associated with it, through association, convention, or resemblance. This foundational notion encompasses objects, actions, marks, or gestures that convey meaning indirectly rather than literally. Symbols are often distinguished by their basis of representation: natural symbols emerge from inherent or observable connections, such as smoke serving as a of due to its causal link, whereas conventional symbols depend on social agreement or arbitrary convention, exemplified by national flags denoting or identity. In Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotic framework, this distinction aligns with a triad of types—icons grounded in resemblance (e.g., a resembling its subject), indices based on direct connection (e.g., a indicating a person's passage), and symbols relying on learned convention (e.g., words in ). Across disciplines, the concept of a symbol varies in emphasis. In logic, as articulated by , symbols function as arbitrary signs with a dual structure of (the cognitive mode of presentation) and (the actual object or truth-value denoted), enabling precise formal representation without inherent ties to the signified. In aesthetics, symbols operate as evocative images or forms that extend beyond literal to suggest emotional, conceptual, or universal ideas, blending the particular with the infinite. A key underlying principle is , as highlighted by , where the link between a symbol's form (signifier) and its meaning (signified) lacks natural necessity, relying instead on communal acceptance within a .

Types of Symbols

In semiotics, particularly in Sanders Peirce's theory, signs—which include symbols—are classified into three primary types based on the relationship between the , its object (what it represents), and its interpretant (the effect it produces in the mind). This triad—, index, and symbol—provides a foundational framework for understanding representation, with the term "symbol" specifically denoting the conventional type but often used more broadly. Iconic signs resemble their objects through qualities of similarity, such as , color, or , allowing representation without relying on convention. For instance, a of a heart evokes due to its visual to the human heart or emotional warmth, making it an intuitive icon in . Photographs and diagrams also exemplify icons, as they mimic their subjects through direct likeness. Indexical signs indicate their objects through a direct, causal, or existential connection, often pointing to evidence or occurrence rather than resemblance. Footprints in the sand, for example, serve as indices of a person's recent passage, linking the mark to the event that produced it. Other common indices include signaling or a showing wind direction, where the sign physically results from or reacts to the object. Symbols (in the strict Peircean sense), bear no inherent resemblance or causal link to their objects; instead, their meaning arises from social agreement, habit, or established rules. Words in natural languages, such as "bird" denoting an avian creature, exemplify this type, as their significance depends on cultural consensus rather than likeness. Similarly, the plus sign (+) represents in through widespread convention, not because of any visual similarity to summation. Religious emblems like the function as conventional symbols, signifying faith and sacrifice via historical and communal adoption, independent of resemblance to the events they commemorate. Traffic signs, such as a red octagon for "stop," rely on standardized rules for interpretation. Many symbols in practice are hybrids, combining elements of iconic, indexical, and conventional qualities to convey complex meanings. Coats of arms, for instance, integrate iconic imagery (like a lion for strength), indexical references (such as colors tied to family lineage), and conventional heraldic rules to represent identity and heritage. This blending enhances their communicative power in contexts like heraldry or branding.

Theoretical Foundations

Semiotics

Semiotics is the study of signs and the processes by which they create and convey meaning, often described as the general science of signification. Pioneered by , it posits a dyadic model of the , comprising the signifier—the material or perceptual form, such as a sound or image—and the signified—the mental concept or idea it evokes. Independently, formulated a triadic model, in which a , termed the representamen, refers to an object (the in reality) and generates an interpretant (the effect or meaning produced in the interpreter's mind). These foundational frameworks highlight semiotics' focus on how signs function within systems to produce interpretable content. Central to is the process of signification, the dynamic linkage between sign components that enables meaning to emerge through interpretation. Saussure emphasized the arbitrariness of the , asserting that the connection between signifier and signified lacks any natural or intrinsic necessity, relying instead on arbitrary social conventions within linguistic communities. Peirce's model extends this by viewing signification as an ongoing, interpretive process influenced by context and prior knowledge. Complementing these are paradigmatic relations, which involve selections from sets of mutually exclusive signs (e.g., choosing "cat" over "dog" in a sentence), and syntagmatic relations, which govern how signs combine linearly to form coherent sequences (e.g., the arrangement of words in a ). Saussure's ideas were systematically presented in his posthumously published (1916), where he advocated for semiology as a discipline broader than , encompassing all systems. Peirce, writing across decades in essays and letters, developed his of signs—distinguishing icons (resembling their objects), indices (causally connected), and symbols (arbitrarily linked)—as part of a comprehensive logic of inquiry, influencing later semiotic theory. Semiotics applies these principles to examine symbols in as rule-governed codes for expression, in media as vehicles for ideological and construction, and in as frameworks that shape collective identities and values.

Symbolism in Communication

Symbols play a central role in communication by serving as the foundational elements that encode and transmit meaning between individuals or groups. In linguistic theory, symbols function as the basic units that bridge and concept, as articulated in Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotic dyad, where the signifier (the form, such as a sound or word) links to the signified (the mental concept it evokes). This dyadic structure underpins how symbols facilitate the exchange of ideas, extending from verbal exchanges to broader interactive contexts. In , symbols form the building blocks of and semantics, enabling the construction of coherent messages. Phonemes, the smallest units of that distinguish meaning in , exemplify minimal symbolic units; for instance, the phonemes /p/ and /b/ in English differentiate "pat" from "bat," illustrating how these symbols contribute to semantic precision and syntactic rules for sentence formation. further enhances this role, where specific phonemes evoke sensory or perceptual associations, such as rounded vowels suggesting largeness, thereby enriching linguistic expression beyond arbitrary conventions. Non-verbal communication relies heavily on symbols like gestures, emojis, and visual cues to convey intent and emotion, often complementing or substituting for words. Gestures, such as the thumbs-up sign, universally signal approval in many Western cultures but can imply different meanings elsewhere, underscoring their symbolic potency in clarifying unspoken intentions. In digital contexts, emojis function as visual symbols that express tone and feelings, acting as non-verbal cues to resolve in text-based interactions; for example, a smiling face emoji can soften a sarcastic remark, enhancing emotional conveyance in online exchanges. Symbols are instrumental in media and , where they shape perceptions and ideologies through targeted messaging. In , brand logos serve as potent visual symbols that foster consumer associations and loyalty; the Nike swoosh, for instance, evokes athleticism and motivation, communicating identity instantaneously without words. In political contexts, symbols can undergo dramatic shifts in to advance agendas, as seen with the : originally an ancient emblem of good fortune and prosperity in Hindu and Buddhist traditions for over 5,000 years, it was appropriated by the Nazis in the as a symbol of supremacy and , transforming its meaning through relentless to evoke hatred and . Roland Barthes' theory in Mythologies elucidates how symbols naturalize cultural ideologies, presenting socially constructed norms as inevitable truths. Barthes argues that myths operate as a second-order semiotic system, where everyday symbols—like the image of a French wrestler or a wine advertisement—depoliticize bourgeois values, making them appear eternal and universal rather than ideological constructs. This process allows symbols to subtly reinforce dominant cultural narratives in , blurring the line between representation and . Despite their efficacy, symbols pose challenges in communication due to cultural differences in interpretation, often leading to miscommunication. Studies on pictograms reveal that symbols like a hand gesture for "stop" may be interpreted variably across cultures, with Western users seeing it as authoritative while others perceive it as rude. Similarly, emojis can cause misunderstandings in cross-cultural exchanges; the "OK" hand emoji, innocuous in the U.S., has been co-opted as a white supremacist symbol in some contexts, highlighting how divergent cultural lenses distort intent and foster unintended offense.

Psychological and Cultural Dimensions

Psychoanalysis and Archetypes

In , symbols play a central role in accessing the , particularly through . , in his seminal work (1899), posited that dreams serve as disguised representations of repressed desires, with symbols acting as a form of to protect the dreamer from confronting forbidden wishes directly. For instance, Freud identified phallic symbols—such as elongated objects like sticks or snakes—as common substitutes for sexual impulses, allowing latent content to manifest in a manifest form that evades conscious repression. This symbolic substitution, rooted in the psyche's defensive mechanisms, underscores Freud's view of symbols as indirect pathways to uncovering neurotic conflicts and infantile experiences. Carl Gustav Jung expanded this framework by introducing the concept of archetypes, which he described as primordial, universal symbols emerging from the —a shared reservoir of human experience inherited across generations. In Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1934–1954), Jung argued that these archetypes, such as the representing the quest for or the embodying the contrasexual aspects of the psyche, appear spontaneously in dreams, fantasies, and visions. Unlike Freud's emphasis on personal repression, Jung viewed archetypes as patterns that structure the psyche and facilitate psychological growth, often manifesting as transformative symbols that bridge the conscious and unconscious realms. A key distinction in Jungian theory lies between symbols and signs within the psyche: signs are conventional indicators pointing to known realities, whereas symbols evoke the and unknown, carrying dynamic energy that points toward emerging psychological contents. To interpret these symbols, Jung developed the amplification technique, which involves associating the image with mythological, historical, and cultural parallels to enrich its personal meaning without reducing it to a fixed interpretation. This method, applied in analysis, amplifies the symbol's archetypal resonance, promoting integration of unconscious material into conscious awareness. Jungian archetypes hold profound cultural implications, recurring across myths, , and as expressions of the collective psyche's universal motifs. For example, the appears in global mythologies—from the Greek to the Norse [Odin](/page/O Odin)—symbolizing the journey toward , while in , figures like the embody the nurturing Great Mother . These manifestations not only reflect shared human experiences but also serve as cultural symbols that guide societal values and individual spiritual development.

Rhetoric and Persuasion

In classical , symbols play a pivotal role in through 's framework of , , and , where figurative devices like metaphors serve as symbolic tools to enhance credibility, evoke emotions, and support logical arguments. , in his treatise , describes metaphors as a form of symbolic transfer that illuminates ideas by likening one thing to another, thereby strengthening by stirring audience emotions and bolstering through vivid analogies that make abstract concepts concrete. For instance, in Book III, he emphasizes how such symbolic language aids in ethical by aligning the speaker's character with culturally resonant images, fostering trust and . This integration of symbols across the rhetorical appeals underscores their function as bridges between speaker, audience, and message, enabling more compelling . Building on these foundations, modern rhetorical theory expands the role of symbols in persuasion, particularly through Kenneth Burke's , which views as symbolic action. In works like The Philosophy of Literary Form, Burke posits symbols as "equipment for living," providing interpretive frames that help individuals navigate social situations and motivate behavior through dramatistic pentads of act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. Under , symbols facilitate identification between rhetor and audience, transforming persuasive into a performative where shared symbols resolve conflicts and inspire . Burke's approach highlights how symbols in oratory, such as recurring motifs in political narratives, equip listeners with strategies for interpreting and responding to real-world exigencies. Illustrative examples abound in political , where symbols amplify persuasive impact; the , emblematic of American freedom and strength, frequently appears in presidential speeches to invoke national pride and unity. For example, in addresses invoking the of the , the eagle symbolizes vigilance and resolve, as seen in its depiction clutching branches and arrows to balance peace and power. Similarly, , a figurative trope using a part to represent the whole, enhances by compressing complex ideas into relatable symbols, such as referring to "the crown" to denote in revolutionary oratory, thereby heightening emotional and logical appeals. Symbols' persuasive mechanisms often center on emotional , drawing audiences into affective responses that bypass rational and foster alignment with the rhetor's goals. By leveraging culturally embedded symbols, speakers can stir sentiments like or , as in rhetorical strategies that employ vivid to create shared emotional experiences. However, this potency carries risks of manipulation, particularly in , where symbols are distorted to deceive and control . Scholarly analyses note that propagandists exploit symbols—such as flags or icons—to manufacture , as evidenced in historical campaigns where altered emblems incited division or justified , underscoring the ethical imperatives in rhetorical practice.

Philosophical Interpretations

Symbolic Value

In , symbolic value refers to the significance that symbols acquire beyond their material or functional properties, often serving as markers of deeper primary values or as independent bearers of worth through cultural and social conventions. Philosophers distinguish between the "symbolic mode of valuing," where symbols express attitudes toward primary goods, and "symbolism as a ground of value," where the symbol itself holds intrinsic importance. For instance, a may symbolize (symbolic mode) while also embodying communal identity in its own right (ground of value). This dual nature underscores how symbols influence ethical and aesthetic judgments, as explored in contemporary value theory. Symbols derive their value from a complex interplay of economic, cultural, and social factors, where their worth extends beyond material utility to encompass intangible significances that influence and societal structures. This value is both intrinsic, rooted in the inherent meanings symbols convey, and extrinsic, shaped by external attributions in various contexts. In economic realms, symbols such as corporate logos function as , generating substantial commercial benefits through recognition and market differentiation. The Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in 1883, established the first international framework for safeguarding trademarks, allowing symbols to be protected across member states and thereby preserving their economic exclusivity and value. In cultural contexts, symbols play a vital role in preserving by encapsulating shared histories, values, and emotions that bind communities. National anthems, for example, act as enduring symbols that evoke profound emotional responses, fostering a sense of unity and national pride during communal events. This emotional capital invested in such symbols contributes to cultural resilience, helping societies maintain their distinct identities amid and change. Scholars have noted that these symbols' affective power strengthens social cohesion by reinforcing narratives of belonging and continuity. Socially, the value of symbols manifests in exchange practices that underscore reciprocity and relational dynamics, as seen in gift-giving rituals across diverse societies. , in his 1925 essay The Gift, analyzed how gifts transcend their material form to become symbols laden with obligations—to give, receive, and reciprocate—thus embedding social bonds and moral imperatives within everyday interactions. This reciprocal symbolism sustains networks of trust and obligation, highlighting symbols' capacity to mediate human relationships beyond economic transactions. Critiques of symbolic value in contemporary society often center on , where transform culturally rich symbols into consumable goods, eroding their authentic depth. Jean Baudrillard's The Consumer Society (1970) posits that under , symbols devolve into hyperreal sign-values, detached from original meanings and driven by and desire, which diminishes their role in genuine social or cultural exchange. This , evident in the of traditional icons like indigenous motifs in , risks trivializing symbols and alienating communities from their heritage. Such critiques underscore the tension between symbols' preservative potential and their exploitation in consumer-driven economies.

Ernst Cassirer's Philosophy

Ernst (1874–1945), a German philosopher in the neo-Kantian tradition, developed a comprehensive philosophy of symbols in his multi-volume work The Philosophy of (1923–1929). argued that humans are fundamentally "symbolic animals" (animal symbolicum), distinguishing themselves from other species through the creation and use of symbols to mediate reality. Rather than perceiving the world directly, humans construct it through diverse symbolic forms, including , , , , and , each providing a unique mode of expression and understanding. For Cassirer, symbols are not mere representations but active processes that shape human consciousness and . In the first volume on , he explores how symbolic expression evolves from intuitive gestures to abstract systems; the second on mythical thought examines how symbols generate a "mythical " of animated forces; and the third on phenomenology of addresses scientific symbols that abstract and universalize experience. This framework posits as a dynamic web of symbolic energies, where no single form dominates, but all contribute to the totality of human spirit. Cassirer's ideas influenced later thinkers in , , and , emphasizing symbols' role in freedom and creativity, though critics noted the system's abstractness and limited engagement with social power dynamics.

Paul Tillich's Philosophy

Paul Tillich, a 20th-century existential theologian, conceptualized symbols as integral to the expression of faith, viewing them not as arbitrary representations but as dynamic participants in the realities they signify. In Dynamics of Faith (), he argues that symbols open up new dimensions of the and reality, differing fundamentally from signs, which merely point to something through convention and can be substituted without loss. Symbols, by contrast, embody and partake in the power of what they represent, growing organically within cultures or fading as societal conditions change. This participatory nature makes symbols irreplaceable for conveying ultimate concerns, as no direct, nonsymbolic language can adequately capture the infinite. A prime example is the , which Tillich describes as more than a historical marker; it actively symbolizes the on human estrangement and the power of , participating in the it reveals. This distinction underscores Tillich's emphasis on symbolic language in religion, where finite objects or images—such as flags for nations or divine figures—evoke the holy by transcending their material form. Without symbols, would remain inexpressible, reduced to idolatrous literalism or empty . In his magnum opus (1951–1963), Tillich extends this framework theologically, positing that symbols serve as bridges between the finite realm of human experience and the infinite ground of being. Religious symbols, like the or the divine spirit, do not describe literally but manifest the sacred through earthly media, enabling and participation in the divine life. This correlation method integrates existential questions of human anxiety and estrangement with answers drawn from symbolic traditions, affirming that true interprets these symbols without reducing them to myths or empirical facts. Tillich's philosophy has profoundly shaped theological , challenging literalist interpretations of scripture and while advocating for symbolic depth in religious expression. His ideas influenced mid-20th-century debates on and , promoting a nuanced view of that resists and fosters between and . Critics, however, have noted potential ambiguities in distinguishing valid symbols from subjective projections, yet Tillich's framework remains a for understanding religious symbolism's role in addressing ultimate human concerns.

Contextual Influences

Role of Context

The interpretation of symbols is inherently shaped by their definitional , referring to the immediate surroundings and situational elements that modify their core and . In , a sign's meaning emerges not in isolation but through its relation to the interpretive environment, where contextual cues determine whether a symbol functions as an index, , or pure symbol. For example, the color universally signals danger in systems, prompting immediate cessation, yet within Chinese cultural practices, it denotes and , as evidenced in festive decorations and bridal garments. This variability illustrates how definitional overrides fixed attributes, ensuring symbols adapt to practical demands while retaining potential for . Cultural context further introduces into symbol interpretation, emphasizing how societal norms and structures influence symbolic cognition. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, advanced by linguists and , argues that the grammatical categories of a shape its speakers' , thereby affecting how symbols are perceived and employed. In this framework, cultural fosters divergent symbolic associations; for instance, what one society symbolizes through direct lexical ties may require elaborate metaphorical constructs in another, highlighting the embeddedness of symbols in collective interpretive traditions. Such underscores that symbols lack universal essence, deriving efficacy from culturally mediated consensus. Temporal context reveals the dynamic of symbol meanings, where a fixed form accrues layered significations over time due to shifting cognitive and social paradigms. Semiotic models posit that symbols from rudimentary stimulus-response links and denotative to sophisticated paradigmatic and syntagmatic connotations, eventually yielding explicit definitions, aligned with advancements in human syntax and conceptualization. This occurs within stable symbolic artifacts, as historical pressures—such as technological or ideological changes—recontextualize their interpretive horizons without altering their physical structure. Consequently, a symbol's temporal transforms it from a simple to a multifaceted , perpetually renegotiated across eras. To systematically unpack these contextual layers, provide essential tools, particularly through Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophical , which centers on the "" as a process. In this approach, understanding a symbol involves the interplay between the interpreter's contemporary horizon—shaped by personal and cultural prejudices—and the symbol's originating horizon, yielding a transformative synthesis rather than mere projection. Gadamer's framework, articulated in , posits that contextual analysis in is not reconstructive but participatory, where effective historical consciousness bridges temporal and cultural gaps to reveal symbols' living relevance. This method prioritizes the ongoing event of interpretation, ensuring that symbols are grasped within their full contextual flux.

Historical Meanings

The , an ancient geometric symbol consisting of an equilateral cross with arms bent at right angles, originated as an auspicious in the Indus Valley Civilization around 2500 BCE, where it appeared on seals and pottery signifying prosperity and good fortune. Archaeological evidence from sites like and demonstrates its use in religious and decorative contexts across early South Asian cultures, including , , where it represented divinity, eternity, and well-being. This positive connotation persisted for millennia until the , when the symbol underwent a drastic transformation through its appropriation by the in Germany during the 1920s. selected the swastika (tilted at 45 degrees on a red-white-black ) as the of the National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1920, imbuing it with connotations of supremacy, racial purity, and anti-Semitism, which became synonymous with the horrors of and . Colonial encounters, particularly British rule in from the 18th to 20th centuries, facilitated the symbol's transmission to , where it initially retained benign associations in art and scholarship before being weaponized by nationalist ideologies. In religious traditions, the dove exemplifies a shift from a narrative symbol of hope and renewal to a profound emblem of divine presence. In the biblical account of Genesis 8:8-11, Noah releases a dove from the ark after the flood, and it returns with an olive leaf, signaling the receding waters and the restoration of life on earth, thus establishing the bird as a harbinger of peace and survival. This imagery, rooted in ancient Near Eastern flood myths, evolved within early Christianity to represent the Holy Spirit, particularly following the Gospel description in Matthew 3:16, where a dove descends upon Jesus at his baptism, symbolizing purity, grace, and the third person of the Trinity. By the early centuries of the Common Era, patristic writers like Tertullian and Origen interpreted the Noahic dove typologically as prefiguring the Spirit's role in salvation, solidifying its theological significance in Christian iconography and liturgy. The symbol's meaning was further globalized through missionary expansions during European colonialism from the 15th to 19th centuries, adapting local avian motifs while overlaying Christian interpretations in diverse cultures from Europe to the Americas. Secular symbols like the illustrate how maritime defiance transitioned into universal hazard warnings. Emerging in the early among and Atlantic pirates, the motif on black "" flags—first documented in the 1710s under captains like —served as a psychological terror device, evoking death and surrender to intimidate merchant vessels during the . By the mid-, amid the Industrial Revolution's chemical booms, the image was repurposed in apothecaries and as a cautionary for poisons, appearing on labels for substances like by the 1850s in and the to denote lethal danger. This evolution reflects broader societal needs for standardized warnings, accelerated by and trade networks that disseminated industrial hazards worldwide from the onward. During the colonial era, British and French maritime activities contributed to the spread of pirate lore and related symbols through global trade routes.

Applications and Representations

Symbols in Cartography

Symbols in serve as standardized visual representations that abstract complex geographical features into interpretable elements on maps, enabling effective and . These symbols include lines, colors, and icons that denote , water bodies, settlements, and other phenomena, often governed by conventions to ensure consistency across maps. The use of such symbols dates back to ancient practices but evolved significantly with advancements in projection techniques and efforts. The historical development of map symbols traces to the 2nd century AD with Claudius Ptolemy's Geographia, which introduced symbolic notations through a grid of lines to plot approximately 10,000 geographic locations across known regions. These lines functioned as abstract symbols for positioning places, marking a shift from pictorial depictions to coordinate-based representations that facilitated more precise cartographic abstraction. Over centuries, this evolved through medieval iconographic maps, such as the 12th-century , which used illustrative symbols like drawings of biblical figures and mythical creatures to convey cultural and religious narratives alongside geography. By the , navigational charts like portolan maps employed crisscrossing rhumb lines as symbols for sea routes, further refining symbolic abstraction for practical use. In the , the transition to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the late introduced digital icons and layered symbols, allowing interactive and dynamic representations that build on historical foundations while incorporating satellite data for enhanced accuracy. Conventional map symbols emerged as a key type in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through international standardization initiatives, exemplified by Albrecht Penck's 1891 proposal for the (IMW). This framework, formalized in , specified uniform symbols such as blue lines and areas to represent water bodies like rivers and lakes, alongside hachures for shading and standardized colors for vegetation and settlements, aiming for global consistency at a 1:1,000,000 scale. These conventions, including the use of Roman alphabets for place names and specific linework for roads and boundaries, influenced subsequent national mapping standards. In terms of functions, cartographic symbols abstract real-world features for clarity and utility; for instance, contour lines, first systematically developed by in 1778, symbolize elevation changes by connecting points of equal height, allowing users to visualize terrain relief without three-dimensional models. Legends, integral to map design since the , provide decoding systems that explain symbol meanings, ensuring accessibility for diverse users from navigators to planners. Such abstractions enable functions like route planning and resource assessment, with symbols prioritizing essential information over exhaustive detail. Despite these advancements, challenges persist in the form of cultural biases embedded in cartographic symbols and projections. Eurocentric projections, such as Gerardus Mercator's 1569 , distort landmasses by enlarging polar regions—including and —while shrinking equatorial areas like , perpetuating colonial-era views of global hierarchy and influencing perceptions of spatial importance. These biases, rooted in historical power dynamics, highlight the need for inclusive symbol standards that account for diverse cultural interpretations of .

Digital and Computational Encoding

In digital systems, symbols are represented through character encoding standards that map human-readable characters, including letters, numerals, punctuation, and specialized symbols, to binary values for storage and processing. The American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII), first published in by the American Standards Association (now ANSI), was the foundational encoding scheme, using 7 bits to represent 128 characters primarily focused on English-language text and basic control codes, such as the equals sign (=) for equality or assignment in early contexts. This limitation restricted ASCII to Latin-based alphabets, excluding non-Latin scripts, mathematical symbols, and international characters, which prompted the need for more expansive standards as globalized. The evolution from ASCII to Unicode addressed these shortcomings by providing a universal framework for encoding over 159,000 characters across scripts, symbols, and emojis (as of version 17.0, 2025). Unicode, developed by the Unicode Consortium and first released in October 1991 with version 1.0, assigns unique code points (numerical identifiers) to characters, enabling representation of diverse symbols like mathematical operators (e.g., ∫ for integration) and non-Latin glyphs (e.g., Cyrillic or Hanzi characters). UTF-8, a variable-length encoding compatible with ASCII for its first 128 characters, became the dominant implementation of Unicode in 1993, supporting emojis (allocated in Unicode blocks since version 6.0 in 2010) and mathematical symbols through 1- to 4-byte sequences, ensuring backward compatibility while handling global content. This shift facilitated internationalization, as UTF-8's self-synchronizing nature allows efficient parsing of mixed-language text without byte-order issues common in fixed-width encodings. In programming languages, symbols serve as operators and delimiters essential for code structure and logic; for instance, the equals sign (=) denotes assignment in languages like C and JavaScript, while symbols like + and * perform arithmetic operations, all encoded via Unicode subsets to support extended characters in modern source code. In data visualization and user interface (UI) design, symbols manifest as icons—graphical representations such as arrows for navigation or bar charts for metrics—that enhance readability and convey abstract concepts quickly, often rendered using vector formats like SVG that leverage Unicode for text labels within visuals. These applications underscore symbols' role in making digital interfaces intuitive across cultures. At the core of computational encoding lies binary representation, where each symbol's is translated into binary strings (sequences of 0s and 1s) for machine processing; for example, the ASCII character 'A' ( 65) becomes 01000001 in 8-bit binary, stored in or transmitted over . However, legacy systems built on ASCII or proprietary encodings pose challenges for , including when non-ASCII symbols are misinterpreted (e.g., accented characters rendering as question marks) and compatibility issues in migrating to , requiring careful conversion tools to preserve symbol integrity without loss. These hurdles persist in sectors like and healthcare, where outdated must integrate global symbols for compliance and usability.

References

  1. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/symbol
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/symbol
  3. https://anthropology.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/symbol_concept.pdf
  4. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=508
  5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-cratylus/
  6. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/symbolism
  7. https://www.worldhistory.org/Egyptian_Writing/
  8. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/ois6.pdf
  9. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/interpretation.1.1.html
  10. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/alchemy/what-is-alchemy
  11. https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/renaissance-in-print/emblembooks/alciato
  12. https://literariness.org/2017/11/13/symbolism-aestheticism-and-charles-baudelaire/
  13. https://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-jung.html
  14. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history-art/the-enlightenment/content-section-3
  15. https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199208272.001.0001/acref-9780199208272-e-1109
  16. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/courses/BIB/semio2.htm
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
  18. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-logic/
  19. https://literariness.org/2020/12/12/symbolism/
  20. http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Arbitrariness_of_the_sign
  21. https://mediatheory.net/semiotics/
  22. https://vanseodesign.com/web-design/icon-index-symbol/
  23. https://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/symbolindexicon.htm
  24. https://haydencoombs.com/2016/01/25/semiotics/
  25. https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/blog/genes-reunited-blog/archive/2013/11/7/what-the-symbols-on-coats-of-arms%2C-family-crests-and-seals-mean
  26. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lnc3.70006
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388690089_The_Linguistic_Sign_and_the_Subsystems_of_Language
  28. https://recruit.foreignaffairs.gov.fj/Download_PDFS/E0G3J1/313714/Language%2520Is%2520A%2520System%2520Of%2520Symbols.pdf
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6803511/
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1452633/full
  31. https://arxiv.org/html/2409.17322v1
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296312002068
  33. https://msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/choong/intellcont/The%2520role%2520of%2520brand%2520logos%2520in%2520firm%2520performance-1.pdf
  34. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/history-of-the-swastika
  35. https://soundenvironments.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/roland-barthes-mythologies.pdf
  36. https://criticallegalthinking.com/2020/06/12/roland-barthes-myth/
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227110299_Exploring_Cultural_Differences_in_Pictogram_Interpretations
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12239927/
  39. https://media.journoportfolio.com/users/425741/uploads/06d8034f-ad6d-4f64-9b79-ccf63f3259fc.pdf
  40. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Freud/Dreams/dreams.pdf
  41. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691097619/the-collected-works-of-c-g-jung-volume-9-part-1
  42. https://iaap.org/jung-analytical-psychology/short-articles-on-analytical-psychology/amplification-2/
  43. https://pacifica.libguides.com/Jung/amplification
  44. https://www.pacifica.edu/pacifica-news/archetypes-universal-principles-in-myth-and-popular-culture/
  45. https://jungiancenter.org/jung-on-myths-and-mythologems/
  46. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/symbolic-values/85CDBC73180BCFF78D36B0D67CFE3572
  47. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2011.00480.x
  49. https://monoskop.org/images/d/de/Baudrillard_Jean_The_consumer_society_myths_and_structures_1970.pdf
  50. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cassirer/
  51. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300074338/the-philosophy-of-symbolic-forms/
  52. https://processandfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/TillichP-Dynamics_of_Faith.pdf
  53. https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/extract-6-paul-tillich-on-symbol/
  54. https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/v-the-truth-of-faith/
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/symbolic-theology-of-paul-tillich/8232CDBAC52953F584158F722AF109B2
  56. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/tillich/stguide/stguide3.htm
  57. https://www.academia.edu/38880499/Paul_Tillichs_Theory_of_Religious_Symbolism_Meaning_Significance_Potential
  58. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/485880
  59. https://www.rd.com/article/traffic-lights/
  60. https://www.hpu.edu/research-publications/tesol-working-papers/2010/BaiRed.pdf
  61. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/whorfianism.html
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X12000190
  63. https://iep.utm.edu/gadamer/
  64. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1953&context=honorstheses1990-2015
  65. https://digitalcollections.wesleyan.edu/_flysystem/fedora/2023-07/1229_373345.pdf
  66. https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/doves-hawks-and-ravens/
  67. https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/JBH/article/download/3047/2843/11130
  68. https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=hist_studentresearch
  69. https://nyamcenterforhistory.org/2016/09/19/pirates-poison-and-professors-a-look-at-the-skull-and-crossbones-symbol/
  70. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/brief-history-maps-180963685/
  71. https://mapdesign.icaci.org/2014/08/mapcarte-241365-the-international-map-of-the-world-by-albrecht-penck-1891/
  72. https://mapreading.co.uk/history-of-contour-lines/
  73. https://www.maplibrary.org/11478/6-examples-of-bias-in-map-representations/
  74. https://ethw.org/Milestones:American_Standard_Code_for_Information_Interchange_ASCII%2C_1963
  75. https://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/1963/
  76. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ASCII
  77. https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode17.0.0/
  78. https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode1.0.0/
  79. https://www.unicode.org/history/
  80. https://www.unicode.org/history/publicationdates.html
  81. https://lokalise.com/blog/what-is-character-encoding-exploring-unicode-utf-8-ascii-and-more/
  82. https://m2.material.io/design/communication/data-visualization.html
  83. https://www.ibm.com/design/language/iconography/ui-icons/library/
  84. https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computers-and-internet/xcae6f4a7ff015e7d:digital-information/xcae6f4a7ff015e7d:storing-text-in-binary/a/storing-text-in-binary
  85. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/globalization/encoding/unicode-standard
  86. https://poeditor.com/blog/challenges-of-software-internationalization/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.