Michael, I've been following your recent comments with interest precisely because Peirce does explicate iconicity in terms of the triad of images, diagrams, and metaphors; but I'm more curious about your basis for saying there's the "overall drift in language development is toward greater diagrammaticity (iconicity) between sound and meaning." Do you have a reference(s) for that assertion?
Thanks, Tom On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry, List, > > All languages change by making the relationship between sets of sounds > (signs) and sets of meanings (immediate objects) more and more diagrammatic > (iconic). This is the processwhereby the fundamental arbitrariness between > sounds and meanings is attenuated. > > A diagram is an icon of relation, and that's why I prefer to use "diagram" > and "diagrammatize" rather than "icon" and "iconic" because in language > we're always dealing between sets of relations (with the possible exception > of onomatopoeia). > > No, I wouldn't restrict this to utterances, but remember that to a > significant extent all human communication is parasitic on the linguistic > kind. > > Sorry, but I can't relate any of the above to Peirce's use of the terms > involved. As far as I know, he never used the words "diagrammatize" or > "diagrammaticity." Nor was he particularly acute when it came to language > structure, since he didn't really deal with in the contemporary sense. > > Hope this makes things less "dense.". > > Michael >
----------------------------- 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 .
