Edwina, Jon, List,
I too believe that
it is only because adjectives always come /before/ nouns in English
that the S-FI and S-DO terms precede the S term. In another language
(e.g., Spanish) where adjectives can come /after/ the nouns that they
modify, one would presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
Indeed, in French for instance, a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign is "un
sinsigne indiciaire rhématique".
If I understand you correctly, Edwina and Jon, you both think that in
semiosis the object is first, the representamen second, and the
interpretant third?
Edwina:
The reason I put the Representamen in the middle, is because its
function is to be 'in the middle', i.e., to accept input data from an
external source and then, mediate it, to result in an Interpretant.
Jon:
I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign /mediates
between/ the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead
/from /the Object /through /the Sign /to /the Interpretant.
I find it all the more difficult to understand your perspective as you
are both
aware of Peirce's outline in 2.242, with the "Representamen is the
First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being
termed its Object, and the possible third Correlate being termed its
Interpretant".
also 1.274, "A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in
such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to
be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume
the same triadic relation to its Object in which its stands itself to
the same Object".
Do you think there's any chance we might agree that this is a bit like
trying to decide who comes first, the chicken or the egg? Isn't the
continuity of semiosis summed up by R1-02-I3 and so on ad infinitum? So
we might say that an O initiates a semiosis through a R for an I, or
present that logical chain starting with any of its 3 elements since
what truly characterizes a semiosis is the synergy between the 3 correlates?
Best,
Cécile
Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Logo Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour <http://www.univ-pau.fr/>
Collège Sciences Sociales et Humanités
Avenue du Doyen Poplawski
BP 1160 - 64013 PAU
FRANCE
http://www.univ-pau.fr <http://www.univ-pau.fr/>
Le 8/29/2018 à 9:46 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit :
Edwina, Cecile, List:
I find it misleading to say that Peirce "put the Interpretant first"
in CP 2.254. The three trichotomies of his 1903 taxonomy correspond
to the Sign /itself /as Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign, the /relation/ of
the Sign to its (Dynamic) Object as Icon/Index/Symbol, and the
/relation /of the Sign to its (Final) Interpretant as
Rheme/Dicent/Argument. As such, the first trichotomy provides the
noun in each of the class names, while the other two trichotomies
supply the modifying adjectives; and it is only because adjectives
always come /before/ nouns in English that the S-FI and S-DO terms
precede the S term. In another language (e.g., Spanish) where
adjectives can come /after/ the nouns that they modify, one would
presumably refer to a Sinsign Indexical Rhematic.
I also find it misleading to suggest that the Sign/Representamen comes
first in semiosis. As I have noted recently, since the Sign /mediates
between/ the Object and Interpretant, the "directionality" is instead
/from /the Object /through /the Sign /to /the Interpretant. Moreover,
the order of (logical/semeiotic) determination per EP 2:481 is not
DO-IO-S-II-DI-FI, but DO-IO-S-FI-DI-II; the Destinate Interpretant is
the Final Interpretant and the Explicit Interpretant is the Immediate
Interpretant, not the other way around.
Finally, while Peirce's Categories do not directly apply to Sign
classification, they are reflected in the three Universes of
Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants by which Signs are divided in
each of the ten trichotomies of his 1908 taxonomy.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca
<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
Cecile, list
I refer to 2.254 - I don't know why his outline puts the
Interpretant, or, Conclusion, first in the 'name' eg a Rhematic
Indexical Sinsign.
After all, his semiosic format is actually quite syllogistic, with
the major premiss [Representamen] as 'first in line of
action/authority', followed by the input from the minor premiss or
Dynamic Object data....leading to the conclusion/Interpretant.
My point is that this outline of order, and any outline of order
such as his order-of-determination [DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI] should not
be confused with the modal categories of Firstness, Secondness,
Thirdness - which are not ordinal but categorical or descriptive.
Edwina
On Wed 29/08/18 9:27 AM , Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr
<mailto:cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> sent:
Edwina, Jeff, Stephen, List,
I appreciate your answers. Thank you. I'm now wondering why CP
2.254 could be interpreted as meaning that Peirce put the
interpretant first, as mentioned in Edwina's post that says:
In Peirce's ten classes of signs - see 2.254, he actually
puts the Interpretant first, followed by the Object, and last
- the Representamen!
CP 2.254 The three trichotomies of Signs result together in
dividing Signs into TEN CLASSES OF SIGNS, of which numerous
subdivisions have to be considered. The ten classes are as
follows: First: A Qualisign [e.g., a feeling of "red"] is any
quality in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality is whatever
it is positively in itself, a quality can only denote an
object by virtue of some common ingredient or similarity; so
that a Qualisign is necessarily an Icon. Further, since a
quality is a mere logical possibility, it can only be
interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a Rheme.
Also, it seems to me that the order of semiosic actions does
refer to the modal categories (if by "modal categories" we
mean the categories of the modes of being of firstness,
secondness, and thirdness) so I don't get the point you're
making here, Edwina:
note, that the terms of First, Second, Third do NOT refer to
the modal categories, but to the order of semiosic actions
Best regards to you all.
Cécile
Cécile Ménieu-Cosculluela, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Logo Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour
<http://www.univ-pau.fr/>
Collège Sciences Sociales et Humanités
Avenue du Doyen Poplawski
BP 1160 - 64013 PAU
FRANCE
http://www.univ-pau.fr <http://www.univ-pau.fr/>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
