Cécile, List: CC: Would it be appropriate to consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings, referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the representamen to the object for the interpretant?
Not if we want to be consistent with *Peirce's *usage of the term "sign" after a single instance in 1868. For the remaining 56 years of his life, he *never *used "sign" for the triadic relation, *only *for its first correlate. Again, the term for the triadic relation is "representing" or (more generally) "mediating." For a while, Peirce treated a sign as a certain kind of representamen--one "with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903). However, he ultimately decided that the two terms are synonymous--"there was no need of this horrid long word" [representamen] because "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905). Regards, Jon On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:23 PM Cécile Cosculluela < cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > Jon, Edwina, List, > > Thank you for your time and interesting answers. Would it be appropriate > to consider that the term 'sign' may actually have two different meanings, > referring either to the representamen, or to the triadic relation of the > representamen to the object for the interpretant? > > Best regards, > > Cécile > > ------------------------------ > *Cécile Cosculluela* > MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA > Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones > *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language* > *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation* > ------------------------------ > *De: *"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *À: *"Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Envoyé: *Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 19:09:55 > *Objet: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce > > Cécile, List: > > CC: And the sign is a triadic relation. ... Nevertheless, since the sign > is a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the sign with the > symbol "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced). > > > No, again, the sign is *not *a triadic relation--it is the first > (simplest) *correlate *of the triadic relation of representing or (more > generally) mediating, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and > interpretant. As Winfred Noeth correctly summarizes in a 2011 paper ( > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965612_From_Representation_to_Thirdness_and_Representamen_to_Medium_Evolution_of_Peircean_Key_Terms_and_Topics), > "Peirce did consider the sign to be a triadic relation, but only in 1868. > However, from 1873 onwards, sign, representamen, or representation were > synonymously used as the names referring to the first correlate of the > triadic relation of semiosis" (p. 455). > > This relation can be represented in Existential Graphs by placing the name > "representing" or "mediating" where CP 1.347 shows an individual lowercase > letter, with three lines of identity attached to it--one with the name > "sign" at the other end, one with the name "object" at the other end, and > one with the name "interpretant" at the other end. Equal spacing of the > branches is not essential, there just needs to be some convention for where > the names of the first/second/third correlates are shown around the > perimeter of the name of the relation itself. Hence, these two examples are > equivalent. > > [image: image.png] > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:38 AM Cécile Cosculluela < > cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote: > >> Edwina, Jon, John, & fellow Listers, >> >> Thank you for your much appreciated clarifications. It is clear that the >> oft-shown graph of the sign as a triangle is not appropriate because it >> represents three dyadic relations, not one triadic one. And the sign is a >> triadic relation. Peirce used the "Y" symbol" to represent the triad (in CP >> 1.346 for instance), but he did not explicitly use the "Y" symbol" to >> represent the sign. (That's what I mean by the phrase "a diagram of the >> sign". I don't mean a diagram of Peirce's method of defining a sign, or >> examples of actual instances of marks, tokens, and types. I simply mean a >> representation / symbol of the triadic concept of sign.) There are actually >> no graphical representations of the sign in Peirce's texts. Nevertheless, >> since the sign is a triadic relation, it is acceptable to represent the >> sign with the symbol "Y" (preferably with three branches equally spaced). >> Would you agree that this sums up the general consensus among Peircean >> scholars on the question of the graphical representation of the sign by >> Peirce? >> >> Thanks for continuing the semiosis of enquiry ... >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Cécile >> >> ------------------------------ >> *Cécile Cosculluela* >> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA >> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones >> *Associate Professor of English as a Second Language* >> *Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation* >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
