Jon, List, See the recent notes about the ZOOM talk on Friday. It is essential for Peirce scholars to bring his philosophy and its applications to the attention of philosopher, scientists, and engineers in the 21st century -- Peirce worked in all three professions.
The word 'tone' is a special case that Peirce himself forgot when he coined the new term 'potisign'. He later recalled his definition for 'mark' in Baldwin's dictionary (consciously or not) when he suggested it as a replacement for 'tone'. I have lectured and adopted Peirce's logic and semeiotic for a broad modern audience, and I realize that 'mark' is far more natural, more understandable, and more memorable than 'tone' for any purpose other than a detailed textual criticism of the MS. As Peirce himself said, if nobody else adopted a word he coined, he was under no obligation to keep it. JFS: Every tone is a mark, which may also be a token of some type. JAS: A tone of voice is merely the example that Peirce gives in CP 4.537 (1906) to illustrate what he has in mind. His definition of a tone in that passage is "an indefinite significant character," as opposed to a token as a "Single event which happens once and whose identity is limited to that one happening or a Single object or thing which is in some single place at any one instant of time, such event or thing being significant only as occurring just when and where it does," and a type as "a definitely significant Form." No. A tone or mark is not "opposed to a token". It is that part of an image that determines it as a token of some type. The image, the mark, and the token are the same physical "thing". They are not three separable things.. Bur the word 'tone' is an poor choice, which caused the misunderstanding. Lady Welby assumed that the word 'tone' was an actisign that referred to an existing thing -- some feeling of the speaker. But Peirce explicitly defined 'mark' or 'tone' as a 'potisign' -- a sign of a possibility. As another example, consider the images on Mayan temples. For years, they were considered decorations or images of some significant things. But linguists discovered that they could be interpreted as a notation for Mayan words. By assuming that ancient Mayan was an earlier stage of modern spoken Mayan, linguists learned to read those "decorations" as a notation for the words of the Mayan language. The same images from one point of view are marks of tokens of decorations. From another point of view, they are marks of tokens of morphemes of the Mayan language. In textual criticism, Peirce's exact words in any MS must be recorded exactly. But in publications about Peirce's intentions, the terminology must be adapted to the way modern readers would interpret the words. Max Fisch, for example, realized that Peirce's decision to use the word 'logic' as an abbreviation for 'logic as semeiotic'. In his 1986 book, Fisch stated that he was using the word 'semeiotic' as the abbreviation for 'logic as semeiotic". Fisch is certainly a respectable authority on the subject, and I believe that we should follow his example in choosing which of Peirce's options to consider as a standard for the 21st C.. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> John, List: Anyone is welcome to make a case for the opinion that "mark" is a better choice than "tone" for the first member of the trichotomy for sign classification whose other two members are "token" and "type," but no one can accurately claim that "mark" was Peirce's final and definitive choice. He used "tone" in the last known manuscript where he presented that trichotomy, and he heard from Lady Welby a few weeks later--in response to his specific request for her advice on the matter--that she preferred "tone." Again, I agree with her. JFS: The word 'tone' in that example is a very special case that is limited to the sound of a voice that is speaking something. A tone of voice is merely the example that Peirce gives in CP 4.537 (1906) to illustrate what he has in mind. His definition of a tone in that passage is "an indefinite significant character," as opposed to a token as a "Single event which happens once and whose identity is limited to that one happening or a Single object or thing which is in some single place at any one instant of time, such event or thing being significant only as occurring just when and where it does," and a type as "a definitely significant Form." Accordingly, a tone is a quality of a token that affects its dynamical interpretant. JFS: Every tone is a mark, which may also be a token of some type. In that case, "mark" is a terrible choice--a sign must be classified as either a mark/tone, a token, or a type; unlike icon/index/symbol, this trichotomy is not a matter of degree. Consider its terminological predecessor--a qualisign cannot also be a replica (sinsign) of some legisign. Instead, a qualisign must be embodied in a sinsign, and likewise, a mark/tone must be embodied in a token. Regards, Jon On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:55 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: On this issue, the evidence for the trichotomy (Mark Token Type) is overwhelming. Just look at the first instance in the Prolegomena, or the copy in CP 4.537 where Peirce adopts 'Tone' as the name of the first item in the trichotomy: "An indefinite significant character such as a tone of voice can neither be called a Type nor a Token." The word 'tone' in that example is a very special case that is limited to the sound of a voice that is speaking something. I have a high regard for Peirce's choices, but the word 'tone' applies to a tiny subset of marks. Just look at Peirce's definition of mark in Baldwin's dictionary. Every tone is a mark, which may also be a token of some type. But only a tiny subset of marks are tones. I have a high regard for Peirce's decisions, but when he himself has doubts about his previous choice, that is not a solid endorsement. There is no ethical reason for keeping it. Now go to the letter to Welby (also CP 8.363): "From the summer of 1905 to the same time in 1906, I devoted much study to my ten trichotomies of signs. It is time I reverted to the subject, as I know I could now make it much clearer. But I dare say some of my former names are better than those I now use. I formerly called a Potisign a Tinge or Tone, an Actisign a Token, a Famisign a Type;... CP 367. "an Abstractive must be a Mark, while a Type must be a Collective, which shows how I conceived Abstractives and Collectives... Note Peirce's choice of Mark. That is consistent with his definition of 'mark' in Baldwin's dictionary. That was written before 1903, when the only trichotomy was "Icon Index Symbol". Every tone of voice is a mark, but most marks are not tones of voice or tones of anything else. Note that Peirce had also considered the word 'tinge' instead of 'tone'. Every tinge is also a mark. JAS: his final choice of "tone" (R 339, 27 Dec 1908, https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i). I admit that he slipped back to an old (bad) habit in that example two days later. But that example does not negate (1) the fact that a tone of voice is a limited special case of a mark, as in his own definition in Balwin's dictionary; (2) the fact that he had coined the word 'potisign' as a general technical term for the first item in the trichotomy; (3) the fact that he selected 'mark', not 'tone', as the replacement for potisign; and finally (4) the modern world has adopted Peirce's terms 'token' and 'type', but not 'tone'. But I have found from my lectures and writings that modern logicians, philosophers, and computer scientists very readily accept the trichotomy (mark token type), but not (tone token type). Since Peirce was always writing for the future, that makes 'mark' the choice for the future. A tone is a limited and confusing special case of mark. On this point, Tony made the correct choice. The word 'tone' should be used ONLY in exact quotations of Peirce's MSS. In all discussions of Peirce's system in the 21st C, (Mark Token Type) is the recommended choice. John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
