Verbal Concept Maps

Verbal Concept Maps

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2184-6.ch003
OnDemand PDF Download:


Conceptual maps have become so advanced, and specific to narrow fields that today only specialized experts such as mathematicians and computer scientists are able to understand them. The esoteric logical and mathematical diagrams such as Euler's and Venn's specialized maps were nearly invisible because they were never very visible in the first place. Concurrently, general verbal and logical conceptual diagrams became nearly invisible because they were internalized as structures as verbal maps as figure receded into the ground as the accepted paradigm of logical thinking and exegesis among the educated. This chapter covers the retrieval of Verbal Concept mapping traceable to the works of Peter Ramus, focusing on the works of Albert Upton, David Ausubel, and J.D. Novak.
Chapter Preview


The following classification chart summarizes where this book has been and where it is going.

Figure 1.

A classification chart of the persons and their conceptual models covered so far and to be covered

Figure 1 is a working hypothesis in map form of concept maps according to their creator covered in this book so far and to be covered in this chapter. According to this hypothesis, conceptual models can be divided into two kinds, visual models of the world and models of the internal operations of the mind. In the classification chart as hypothesis we have divided models of the world into spiritual and scientific with Ramon Lull constructing spiritual maps that were more spiritual while Johann Kepler constructed conceptual models that mere more scientific. At the same time, while we attributed concept mapping to both figures, it would be more accurate to call Ramon Lull’s maps, “spiritual diagrams” and Kepler’s conceptual maps “geometric models.” This is because, the term “concept maps” was coined by J.D. Novak, the educator to be discussed later in the chapter.

Under the family of “conceptual models of the mind” the classification chart separates logical maps from semantic maps, with “concept maps” in the narrow sense of the term as defined by Novak, evolving out of this category of conceptual models. Petrus/Peter Ramus’s maps, in the chart, have been defined, according to the chart, as both logical and semantic maps, as they were considered to be both in his day. However, if we were to take a strictly linear approach to the evolution of concept mapping, it is argued that concept maps, will be defined by Novak, evolve strictly out of Ramus’s maps as semantic maps. Moreover, the logic maps of Euler, Venn and Carroll, will evolve in other direction that is not only more logical but also more mathematical ending in their most recent and significant manifestation as concepts maps in computing, a development that is not covered in this book, but a most valuable area of research that needs further investigation. However, to summarize, the development of Upton’s, Ausubel’s and Novak’s semantic maps can be directed traced back to the semantic aspects of Ramean maps in the 16th century discussed in an earlier chapter.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: