(For undistorted Table 1, see the attached.)
Jon,
It seems to me that many confusions in semiotic discussions arise because
the two kinds of signs that Peirce defined are often conflated. Peirce
defined two kinds of signs --
(i) 9 TYPES OF signs (qualisign, icon, rheme, sinsign, index, dicisign,
legisign, symbol and argument), and
(ii) 10 CLASSES of signs (1=rhematic iconic qualisign, 2=rhematic iconic
sinsign, 3=rhematic iconic legisign, 4 = rhematic indexical sinsign, 5 =
rhematic indexical legisign, 6 = rhematic symbolic legisign, 7=dicent
indexical sinsign, 8 = decent indexical legisign, 9 = dicent symbolic
legisign, and 10 = argument symbolic legisign, etc.).
The SIGNS belonging to the first kind (types) are the names give to the
various dyadic sign RELATIONS, e.g., the three sign-object relations
called icon, index, and symbol, whereas the signs belonging to the second
kind (classes) are strings of three signs of the first kind, e.g., dicent
indexical legisign, etc.
As I pointed out on these lists and elsewhere [1], I found it convenient
to refer to the signs belonging to the 9 types as "elementary signs" and
those belonging to the 10 classes as "composite signs", since each of the
latter is composed of three of the former, just as a baryon (e.g.,
protons, neutrons) in particle physics is composed of three quarks that
cannot be physically separated:
elementary signs quarks
___________________ = ________ (092114-1)
composite signs Baryons
Another reason for semiotic confusions may be attributed to the naming
of the three sign-interpretant relations as rheme, dicisign and
argument. I have some reason (see below) to believe that a better
choice may be letters, words, and sentences, or their Latinized
equivalents, if you are one of those glottophobiacs who seem to abound in
the semiotic community.
One major reason for the above recommendation is my recent finding that
two mathematical equations apply to glottometrics (the quantitative study
of words and texts, a branch of the semiometrics defined as the
quantitative study of signs ?) the Planckian distribution and the
Mezerath-Altmann law:
Planck distribution (PD): y = (a/(Ax + B)^5)/(Exp(b/(Ax + B)) - 1)
(092114-2)
Mezerath-Altmann law (MAL): y = Ax^b Exp(-c/x) (0921154-3)
The reason why both PD and MAL fit glottometric data equally well (as
shown in the figures attached) is most likely because both are composed of
a power function of the form x^a and an exponential function of the form
Exp(f(x)).
MAL [2] is a function mapping the size of a linguistic (or otherwise)
construct (e.g., a sentence or a word) to the size of its components
(i.e., words or letters). The size of the construct is x and that of the
component is y in Eq. (092114-3). MAL states that
The larger a given whole, the smaller its parts. (092114-4)
The Planckian distribution law also deals with the parts-whole relation,
because the first component of PD is related to the size of the system
involved (e.g., size of the atom, enzymes, cells, brains, the Universe)
and the second component is related to that of its constituents (e.g.,
size of electrons, protein domains, metabolic pathways, functional domains
of brain tissues, photons). More specifically, the first component
determines the number of modes of the standing waves per volume of the
system (a system property) and the second component determines the average
energy of the modes (component property).
Just as the wave-particle duality is a fundamental principle in physics,
perhaps the double articulation found in almost all languages studied may
be a fundamental principle in linguistics. The double articulation in
linguistics is defined thus:
First articulation = words => sentences (092114-5)
Second articulation = letters => words (092114-6)
MAL applies to both articulations as shown in the attached figure. The
first figure deals with the second articulation, and the remaining three
figures all deal with the first articulation.
Hence, if the Peircean theory of signs is to be a universal theory, it
must accommodate the phenomenon of double articulation and its relation to
MAL and PD. This can be easily accomplished if we can re-name the three
names of the sign-interpretant relation as I suggested above:
Rheme = LETTER (or an equivalent) (092114-7)
Dicisign = WORD (or an equivalent) (092114-8)
Argument = SENTENCE (or equivalent) (092114-9)
Several advantages seem to follow from this re-naming:
(1) Linguists inform us that the difference between words and sentences
is that the former INDICATEs (index; Secondness) and the latter DECIDEs (
Thirdness, i.e., perform decision-making following the conventional rules
of communication).
(2) Argument is too restrictive; Sentences are more general, accommodating
both rational thoughts and irretionl or non-rational decisions.
(3) Changing the name of the sign-interpreatnt relation to Sentence
entails a corresponding change in the name legisign, which I recommend
to be changed to Patterns, since, just as sentences can be rational, or
non-rational, so can Patterns be regular or irregular, ordered or
disordered, organized or disorganized, thus conforming to the Yin-Yang
doctrine of the Taois philosophy.
(4) I almost recommended proposition instead of sentence but decided
against it because proposition is too rational and too organized and
mind-centered. Sentences, in contrast avoid such a bias, as pointed out
above.
(5) So, I think the following table is much more consistent with the
recent fidnings in glottometrics and physical sciences:
______________________________________________________________
Table 1. A recommended revision of the naming of the 9 types
of Peircean signs tio be compatible with recent glottometric
discoveries.
______________________________________________________________
Firstness Secondness Thirdness
_____________________________________________________________
Representamen qualisign sinsign pattern
______________________________________________________________
Object icon index symbol
______________________________________________________________
Interpretant letter word sentence
______________________________________________________________
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
[1] Ji, S. (2012). The Quark Model of Peircean Signs. In: Semiotics of
Life: A Unified Theory of Molecular Machines, Cells, the Mind, Peircean
Signs, and the Universe based on the Principle of Information-Energy
Complementarity. In: Reports, Research Group on Mathematical Iinguistics,
XVII Tarragona Seminar on Formal Syntax and Semantics, Rovira i Virgili
University, Tarragona, 23-27 April 2003. Available online at conformon.net
under Publicaitons > Proceedings and Abstracts.
[2] Altmann, G.: Prolegomena to Menzeraths law. Glottometrika 2 (1980).
P. 110.
> Thread:
> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
> SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14194
> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14196
> SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14197
> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14198
> SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14200
>
> Sung & All,
>
> My sermon du jour, "Signers in the Hands of an Angly Hermenet", pays
> homage to
> that preacher of manifestly more iconic sermons who admonished
> congregations
> down through the ages about the very Razor's Edge of which you speak, but
> the
> distance between Perice-diction and Perdition is all the Elbow Grace we
> need
> between â° and â·, so let us say "amen" and go in peace.
>
> We presented an earlier version of Awbrey & Awbrey (1995) at a conference
> on
> "Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences" in 1992. It was "well-received" and
> the
> the reception grazed me with the impression, or illusion, that our
> audience was
> hip to all the connections, distinctions, and nuances that we sought to
> convey.
> More and more lately, however, I begin to suspect that I haven't a clue,
> haven't the foggiest what is passing through a random receiver's mind when
> I
> transmit these bits of diagrams and discursions by way of conveying what I
> have
> in mine. Of course, the responsibility for communicating rests with me
> and
> not my inert devices, but the longer we have the sorts of discussions
> we've been
> having here the less inclined I am to believe that there are any sorts of
> signs
> that "force" the mind along the intended tracks of connotation or
> denotation.
>
> At any rate, I hope you see the larger problem that is looming here.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
>
> Sungchul Ji wrote:
>> Jon wrote:
>>
>> "For another thing, the technical use of the term "network" tends to
>> lead
>> techies and others to read the line between O and R as referring to a
>> dyadic
>> relation, and similarly for the other two lines, and to think that the
>> triadic relation denoted by "R" is somehow composed of or reducible to a
>> compound of those three dyadic relations. Down that road of dyadic
>> intentions the triadic sign relation goes all to hell."
>>
>> Jon, the difference between hell and heaven seems only paper-thin. You
>> can
>> go to hell by interpreting the diagram as a system of THREE DYADIC
>> RELATIONS
>> or to heaven by interpreting the same as ONE TRIADIC RELATION, which I
>> am
>> sure you are favoring. Of course, you can avoid going to hell if you
>> only
>> PRESCIND the three dyadic relations without asserting that they are
>> synonymous with the triadic relation.
>>
>> With all the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>
> --
>
> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
