My reflection to "the semiotic landscape"

This chapter talks about the relations between two significant elements in human communication--verbal language and visual language. Authors cited the classifications of Barthes as below:

Specifically, the relations of elaboration and illustration are more frequently reflected in “the era of science” (18) than two other relations. Within the relation of “illustration,” “verbal texts formed a source of authority in society,” while “images disseminated the dominant texts in a particular mode to particular groups within society, gradually changed to one in which nature, rather than discourse.”(18)

It explores the relation between verbal and visual language through consideration the competition between two modes of representation” and the invention of alphabetic writing from the perspective of “unconventional history of writing.” (21) Their relation development can be represented as follow:

However, in some cultures, the visual got along with the verbal instead of being taken over, such as “Australian Aboriginal cultures (drawings, sand-paintings and carvings)” as it says in this chapter. (22) However, I’m curious that why the authors didn’t use Chinese language as an illustration of cultures “having both modes of representation,” (23) since Chinese characters do convey textual message in the form of visual representation. I think there might be some differences, if “conventional” historicist took Chinese into consideration when they are distinguishing “illiterate culture” from “literate culture.” (23)