List, For those who may not be familiar with the trichotomic terminology of Peirce's last classification of signs or who wish to refresh their memories, I've copied a portion of Albert Atkins 2010 article, "Peirce's Theory of Signs" in the *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* as perhaps an aid to better following several of the threaded discussions which employ that late terminology.
Yet even Atkins brief comments are themselves not uncontroversial. For example, take trichotomy 1. Atkins writes: In respect of the Sign itself (what we have been calling the Sign-Vehicle), a sign may be either a (i) Potisign (ii) Actisign or (iii) a Famisign. (By the time of the final accounts, Peirce was experimenting with terminology so these types are perhaps more familiar as Qualisigns, Sinsigns and Legisigns). I'm rather certain that not all semioticians would agree that "Sign-Vehicle" is an accurate expression for "the Sign itself" in the context of Peirce's semeiotics. But more to the point of current list discussions, it remains a question whether the trichotomy Poti-/Acti-/Famisign is equivalent to Quali-/Sin-/Legisign, that the former is just a terminological experiment. Is there a subtle change suggested by the new terminology, or is it just Peirce's suggestion for an improved terminology? Here are Atkins remarks and the 10 trichotomies of the Final Classification. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ The Final Classification Just as the Early and Interim Accounts include a corresponding classification of sign types, Peirce's final account holds similar typological ambitions. Peirce states explicitly that there are sixty-six classes of sign in his final typology. (See EP2. 481). Strictly speaking, the six elements that we have detailed yield only twenty eight sign types, but we are interested in Peirce's very final typology. He believes that we can obtain these sixty-six classes, rather in the manner of the 1903 typology, by identifying ten elements of signs and signification, each of which has three qualifying classes, and then working out their permissible combinations. These ten elements include the six sign elements identified above, plus four other elements that focus on the relation between signs, objects and interpretants. The ten elements and their respective sign types, taken from Peirce's 1908 letters to Lady Welby (EP2 483–491), then, are as follows: 1. In respect of the Sign itself (what we have been calling the Sign-Vehicle), a sign may be either a (i) Potisign (ii) Actisign or (iii) a Famisign. (By the time of the final accounts, Peirce was experimenting with terminology so these types are perhaps more familiar as Qualisigns, Sinsigns and Legisigns). 2. In respect of the Immediate Object, a sign may be either i) Descriptive (ii) Designative or (iii) a Copulant. 3. In respect of the Dynamic Object, a sign may be either (i) Abstractive (ii) Concretive or (iii) Collective. 4. In respect of relation between the Sign and the Dynamic Object, a sign may be either, (i) an Icon (ii) an Index or (iii) a Symbol. 5. In respect of the Immediate Interpretant, a sign may be either (i) Ejaculative, (ii) Imperative or (iii) Significative. 6. In respect of the Dynamic Interpretant, a sign may be either (i) Sympathetic (ii) Shocking or (iii) Usual. 7. In respect of the relationship between the Sign and Dynamic Interpretant, a sign may be either (i) Suggestive (ii) Imperative or (iii) Indicative. 8. In respect of the Final Interpretant, a sign may be either, (i) Gratiffic (ii) Action Producing or iii) Self-Control Producing. 9. In respect of the relation between the Sign and the Final Interpretant, a sign may be either a (i) Seme (ii) Pheme or (iii) a Delome. [earlier, rheme, dicisign, argument GR] 10. In respect of the relation between the Sign, Dynamic Object and Final Interpretant, a sign may be either (i) an Assurance of Instinct (ii) an Assurance of Experienceor (iii) an Assurance of Form. The reason that Peirce believes these ten elements will yield sixty-six classes is clear enough, the same combinatorial considerations given for the interim typology (outlined above in 3.4) apply here. However, the precise manner and order in which these elements interact will determine what the sixty-six classes of signs will look like in the final typology. Unfortunately, these ten divisions and their classes represent a baffling array of under-explained terminology, and there is little to indicate precisely how we should set about the task of combining them. Even though we may be confident on the number of signs in the final typology, other details are sketchy and underdeveloped, and there still exists no fully satisfactory account of the sixty-six classes. *As Nathan Houser points out, “a sound and detailed extension of Peirce's analysis of signs to his full set of ten divisions and sixty-six classes is perhaps the most pressing problem for Peircian semiotics”. *. . [Emphasis added, GR] There is, of course, good work on the final typology (see (Burks and Weiss 1949), (Sanders 1970), (Savan 1988), (Jappy 1989), (Muller 1994), and (Farias and Queiroz 2003) for the best of this work) [this is now a quite incomplete list GR], but ultimately, it is not clear that any account will overcome the problems posed by the incomplete and cursory nature of the final account. Indeed, it is not clear that Peirce himself was fully at ease with his final typology and how its elements should hang together. As he himself said: The ten divisions appear to me to be all Trichotomies; but it is possible that none of them are properly so. Of these ten Trichotomies, I have a clear apprehension of some, an unsatisfactory and doubtful notion of others, and a tolerable but not thoroughly tried conception of others. (EP2. 483) Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690*
----------------------------- 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 .
