Michael, List: On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Michael Shapiro wrote:
> > "Attenuation of Arbitrariness in the Semantics of Quantification > > The overall drift in language development is toward greater > diagrammaticity (iconicity) between sound and meaning, which thereby > necessarily results in the attenuation of the arbitrariness characterizing > the fundamental relation of all language structure. > This can be illustrated in the history of English by the gradual > gain in scope of the quantifier of mass nouns less at the expense of its > counterpart fewer, which according to the traditional norm is reserved for > count nouns. Many speakers of American English (but not only) regularly > substitute less for fewer where the norm specifies the latter to the > exclusion of the former. > The iconic motivation of this usage is twofold. First, less is > shorter than fewer, thereby fitting it more adequately than its counterpart > to its meaning, namely ‘lesser quantity’. Second, individuation as a semantic > category is marked (more restricted in conceptual scope) than > non-individuation, so that a drift toward non-individuation is a movement > toward the unmarked member of the opposition, instantiating the general > iconic (semeiotic) principle according to which language change favors > replacement of marked units, categories, and contexts by unmarked ones." > While it is possible that I catch the drift of your logic in this paragraph, my uncertainty index is rather high. Can you expand your views in such a way that they are more user-friendly. In particular, > The overall drift in language development is toward greater diagrammaticity > (iconicity) between sound and meaning, is particularly dense. With respect to the sentence as a whole, > The overall drift in language development is toward greater diagrammaticity > (iconicity) between sound and meaning, which thereby necessarily results in > the attenuation of the arbitrariness characterizing the fundamental relation > of all language structure. Would you restrict this modal statement to utterances or would you also apply it to any human communication? And, could you clarify the historical origins of using "diagrammaticity" as a synonym for "iconicity"? If you can relate your usage to CSP 3.420-3.421, it would be helpful. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
