Frances to Edwina and Listers--- You partly stated in effect recently that a sign "is" meaning, and that if a sign "has" no meaning then it is not a sign, but is say mere noise. This seems wrong to me from a Peircean stance, but perhaps others here can clarify the jargon and with some references. My grasp of the matter is that in semiosis a "sign vehicle" (like say even just noise) is an ordinary object that at least represents some other referred object and to some interpreted effect, and to any kind of signer. In other words, the "sign vehicle" must informatively "bear" some "sign object" for some "sign effect" to be a sign overall, but that the "sign vehicle" need not "yield" or "endure" any meaning at all to be such a sign, even if it may or can or will "yield" some meaning to an able signer. Any meaningless sign might therefore be a crude sign or not much of a sign, but it will in any event be a sign to some degree.
----------------------------- 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 .
