Dan, List, This new project is great good news! I eagerly await the publication of “American Aristotle: The Life and Mind of C.S. Peirce,” or whatever it's eventually titled. 2022 does seem a long way off, while writing an intellectual biography on Peirce in a mere 2+ years sounds challenging. Still, I'm sure you're up to the challenge!
Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:41 PM Daniel L Everett <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Gary. > > I have also just signed a contract with Princeton University Press to > write a large intellectual biography of Peirce, with the working title > “American Aristotle: The Life and Mind of C.S. Peirce”, which I hope to > complete in 2022. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 29, 2019, at 14:28, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, List, > > It's nice to have you drop in to peirce-l as you occasionally have in > recent years and, of course, I'm especially delighted that you find some of > the discussions here useful and illuminating. Your current work sounds most > interesting, so please let us know when these and, of course, any > Peirce-related papers are available. > > The Wikipedia entry on you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett > also mentions that you are working on a book, "*Peircean Linguistics: A > Chapter in the History of Empiricist Thought.*" I'm reasonably certain > that I am hardly the only person in this forum who will be quite interested > in reading it when it's available. > > You wrote: > > DE: Peirce used the term Universal Grammar in 1865 and his version of UG > (like Chomsky’s nearly a century later) had recursion. The difference is > that Peirce’s recursion was semantic (interpretants of interpretants) > whereas Chomsky’s is syntactic. Peirce’s recursion works better for > understanding a number of modern languages, as well as language evolution. > . . > > > That is most intriguing given your views, as I very vaguely understand > them, on universal grammar (such as your opposing Chomsky's asserting the > universality of recursion). I haven't much read up on linguistics in recent > years with one exception: A friend, colleague, and occasional contributor > to the list, Michael Shapiro, also a Peircean linguist, has found Chomsky's > version of UG problematic, and we've occasionally discussed it, I've read > some of his papers, heard him lecture, etc. on his views. It would, > obviously, be great to get a discussion going here on Peircean linguistics, > your very different view of UG from Chomsky's, comparing notes with > Michael, etc. > > Whether or not that is feasible for you at present, you might take a look > at some of Michael's papers posted on the Arisbe site. See: > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ABOUTCSP.HTM#Shapiro.Michael > > Of course, we'd be delighted to post or link to any Peirce-related papers > you've written at Arisbe. > > Best, > > Gary (writing as list moderator and co-manager of Arisbe with Ben Udell) > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:15 AM Dan Everett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This has been a useful discussion (not that it should end of course). >> >> Larry Barham (University of Liverpool, Department of Archaeology) and I >> have finished a long paper (just submitted) on the evidence that lower >> Paleolithic tools manufactured by Homo Erectus were simultaneously icons, >> indexes, and symbols. We then argue that if that is correct they had >> language (since syntax is itself a combination of icon, index, and symbol + >> a varied range of computational properties). >> >> Peirce used the term Universal Grammar in 1865 and his version of UG >> (like Chomsky’s nearly a century later) had recursion. The difference is >> that Peirce’s recursion was semantic (interpretants of interpretants) >> whereas Chomsky’s is syntactic. Peirce’s recursion works better for >> understanding a number of modern languages, as well as language evolution >> (I and a co-author point this out in a review article to appear in >> Language). >> >> Understanding the various nuances of his work is therefore vital to >> grasping its contemporary significance (as readers here know) - in some >> ways especially for understanding language and its evolution - and I am >> grateful to this list for continuing to host such illuminating discussions. >> >> Dan >> >> > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
