In Section 12 of Chapter 3, the discussion moves to the three types of Dicisigns listed in Peirce's "Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations", EP2:289-99.
The main difficulty here, as Frederik points out, is that Peirce's examples of the Dicent Indexical Legisign given on EP2:297 "seem strangely wanting and peripheral" (NP, p. 95) - especially the "street-cry", a very vague designation. Here's the passage in question, where Peirce is enumerating varieties of Dicent Sinsign. After giving the usual weathercock as an example of the first variety, he says: "A second variety is a Replica of a Dicent Indexical Legisign. Thus any given street cry, since its tone and theme identifies the individual, is not a symbol, but an Indexical Legisign; and any individual instance of it is a Replica of it which is a Dicent Sinsign. A third variety is a Replica of a Proposition. A fourth variety is a Replica of an Argument. Beside the normal variety of the Dicent Indexical Legisign, of which a street cry is an example, there is a second variety, which is that sort of proposition which has the name of a well-known individual as its predicate; as if one is asked, "Whose statue is this?" the answer may be, "It is Farragut." The meaning of this answer is a Dicent Indexical Legisign." Notice that it's the meaning of this answer, and not the sentence expressing it, which is the Dicent Indexical Legisign. As for the "street cry", this makes sense to me if I apply it to the cry of a vendor in the street, such as the newsboy shouting "Extra! Extra!" (back when newspapers used to print "extra" editions), or the vendor in a stadium yelling "Peanuts! Popcorn!" or whatever. Here the object of the sign is clearly not the individual vendor but the individual item he's selling. The generic "cry" is a Legisign, but any instance of it is an index (involving an icon) of the item, and thus can be true or false, depending on whether it corresponds with the stylized description of it embedded in the "cry". Anyway, when we get down to such a fine-grained level of analysis, the bottom line is given by Peirce at the end of that same paragraph, thus: "It is a nice problem to say to what class a given sign belongs; since all the circumstances of the case have to be considered. But it is seldom requisite to be very accurate; for if one does not locate the sign precisely, one will easily come near enough to its character for any ordinary purpose of logic." So I'm content to leave it there. Though as always, questions on this section are welcome. gary f.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
