Continuing our study of NDTR:

 

Having narrowed his topic from triadic relations in general to those of the 
type R-O-I, and then further to the Representamen as First Correlate of that 
relation, and finally to the Sign as the best-known type of Representamen, 
Peirce introduces the three trichotomies into which Signs can be divided:

 

CP 2.243. Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according as the 
sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law; 
secondly, according as the relation of the sign to its object consists in the 
sign's having some character in itself, or in some existential relation to that 
object, or in its relation to an interpretant; thirdly, according as its 
Interpretant represents it as a sign of possibility or as a sign of fact or a 
sign of reason.

[Clearly the order here — both the order of the trichotomies, and the order 
within each trichotomy — is from simple to complex. When Peirce later defines 
each of the ten sign types, his numbering of them follows the same pattern. If 
we arrange them into a three-level outline format, it looks like this (with 
Peirce’s numbering of the ten sign types in parentheses):

 

1.      Qualisign (1)
2.      Sinsign

1.      Iconic (2)
2.      Indexical

1.      Rhematic (3)
2.      Dicent (4)

3.      Legisign

1.      Iconic (5)
2.      Indexical

1.      Rhematic (6)
2.      Dicent (7)

3.      Symbolic

1.      Rhematic (8)
2.      Dicent (Proposition) (9)
3.      Argument (10)

 

A more purely iconic representation of this same structure occurs on EP2:162, 
in the context of the third Harvard lecture. Reading from left to right, the 
number of subdivisions increases with each trichotomy, giving us ten items at 
the bottom level.



There are a couple of surprising (perhaps) features to notice here. First, in 
its original context, Peirce uses this diagram to show the relationship between 
subdivision and relative degeneracy in the category of Thirdness. How this 
relates to NDTR, which does not deal with degeneracy at all (or at least does 
not use that word), is an interesting question.

The other surprising feature showed up when I began wondering what the outline 
of sign types would look like if you reversed the order, i.e. put the most 
complex trichotomy at the top level and the simplest at the bottom level of the 
outline. So we begin with the Sign whose Interpretant represents it as a sign 
of reason:

 

1.      Argument (10)
2.      Dicisign

1.      Symbolic (Proposition) (9)
2.      Indexical

1.      Legisign (7)
2.      Sinsign (4)

3.      Rheme

1.      Symbolic (8) (general term)
2.      Indexical

1.      Legisign (6)
2.      Sinsign (3)

3.      Iconic

1.      Legisign (5)
2.      Sinsign (2)
3.      Qualisign (1)

 

The pattern of subdivision is the same as in the outline and the diagram above. 
(Is that surprising?)

Taken together, the two outlines above show (somewhat more clearly than the 
familiar triangle diagram) why the ten sign types have to include 6 Legisigns 
and 6 Rhemes, 3 Sinsigns and 3 Indexes, and only one Qualisign and one 
Argument. But then this counts only the “normal” sign types and not the 
“peculiar” types which are “involved” in more complex signs or “replicate” 
them, etc. I’ll leave those for another day …

 

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 .




Reply via email to