Frances to Jim... It might be useful here to differentiate between the progressive advance of a sign in its always being a combination of icons and indexes and symbols to some degree, and in its being mainly of one kind of sign in any given situation as dominantly an icon or index or symbol, and in its being intrinsically only one kind of sign. The proper personal name thus is intrinsically a lingual symbol but in some situations can be dominantly a nonlingual index, such as an identificative label or indicative pointer. If however the name refers abstractly or discretely to a person in their absence, then it seems to me that the name must then be mainly a singular symbol.
Calling a person by name in their presence and inciting an excited response is the responsive effect of a stimulative cause, and thus nothing more than a hyposemic situation of crude signaling. The issuing of and the reaction to the sign is simply the result of an engrained or conditioned habit. In fact, any nonlingual or lingual sign assigned as an indexic indicator or expressor would likely do. In regard to the personal name being intrinsic or dominant, it may go to the actual assigning of the name to an individual person, which is an overt action and thus indexic. Furthermore and from an anthropic stance, the mere vocal utterance or orthal letterance of a lingual name applied to a person who is in the absence or presence of the signer, can be caused by only one phanerism and that is a human organism, which makes all language in any form intrinsically a natural index, well before it is mainly any other kind of sign. From this position, the somatic act of speaking or writing or naming seems to be intrinsically a causal subindexic expressor. (Would the pretentious use of a "make-believe" name by an actor performing on a stage in a fictional play make the symbolic name mainly an icon? or does the use make it mainly an index?) (Would my use of the personal name "Hitler" to express or excite disgust make the symbolic name manly an icon? but then does the intent or effect make it mainly an index?) Jim partly wrote... Suppose I am the signer. So, it makes a difference if I use "Frances" in your presence or use "Frances" in your absence? It also makes a difference whether I use the sign at all. Let me first get one case straight. 1. I use "Frances" in your presence. Why would this be anything other than an index? The use is a singular occurence. I agree that the causal relation is suspect. But suppose I say "Frances" and you turn your head. Here there is efficient causality. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
