Ben:
I don't know that it helps much in clarification of the
"significance"/"signification" distinction, but you'll find below the
definitions of "sign", "significance", and "signification" in the Century
Dictionary. I've included only the statements of definition in the
entries
since it is simply too time-consuming to present the entire entries here,
given all of the problems of transliteration, etc.; but I've made a few
comments in brackets that might help.
What I find remarkable is that Peirce amde no attempt whatever to convey
even so much as a hint as to how he would define any of these terms for
technical philosophical purposes. One could not possibly infer his own
view
even hypothetically from the definitions he provides.
Do the definitions he provides correspond to his own colloquail rather
than
technical understanding of these terms? Presumably yes, so we can perhaps
learn something from them if we bear in mind that they do not purport to
be
anything more than a report of what orinary or common usage is. And even
there we should also bear in mind that the entries in the Century are
often
based largely upon the entries in a still older dictionary, the Imperial,
as
I believe it is called. So what we find here is apparently provided by
Peirce but perhaps -- to some extent at least -- only approved of by him
rather than created by him. I am not well acquainted with the Century as
a
whole. I had simply neglected its importance until quite recently. But
my
understanding is that he does in some cases do some fairly extensive
creative work, going beyond mere approval of pre-existing accounts of
popular usage; yet there is no trace of that sort of thing in his
definitions of "sign". I assume his refusal to take advantage of the
opportunity to grind his own axe in these definitions is due to and
indicative of his commitment to an ethics of terminology,
Joe Ransdell
SIGN [used as a noun]
1. A visible mark or impress, whether natural or artificial, accidental or
purposed, serving to convey information, suggest an idea, or assist
inference; a distinctive guiding indication to the eye. [NOTE BY JR: It
seems odd that the first sense listed would be restricted to visual
signs.]
2. An arbitrary or conventional mark used as an abbreviation for a known
meaning; a figure written technically instead of the word or words which
it
represents, according to prescription or usage: (as, mathematical,
astronomical, medical, botanical, or musical signs; occult signs; an
artist's sign. [NOTE BY JR: The examples he gives suggest that this would
also include as a special case what we we now think of as being acronyms.
At
any rate, what he has in mind seem all to be special cases of symbols.]
3. Something displayed to announce the presence of any one; a cognizance;
a
standard; a banner. [NOTE BY JR: again, a remarkably narrow sense.]
4. An inscribed board, plate, or space, or a symbolical representation or
figure, serving for guidance or information, as on or before a place of
business or of public resort, or along a road: as, a merchant's or
shopman's
sign; a Swinging Sign, style of 18th century. tavern-sign; a swinging
sign;
a tin sign; a sign-board.
5. A symbolical representation; a symbol; hence, in absolute use,
symbolical
significance; allusive representation: [NOTE BY JR: as sometimes used with
"in", e.g. "And on her head a crowne of purest gold Is set, in sign of
highest soveraignty"]
6. A representative or indicative thing; a tangible, audible, or
historical
token, symbol, or memento; an exponent or indicator: as, words are the
signs
of thought; the ruin is a sign of past grandeur. [NOTE BY JR: His first
example of philosophical usage occurs here. It is a quotation from John
Locke: "This would be to make them [words] signs of his own conceptions,
and
yet apply them to other ideas. (Locke, Human Understanding III, ii, 2.)"
All
of the examples seem to suggest that he means things that are construed as
symbols in their occurrence, even when they are natural occurences
construed
theologically, functioning evidentially, hence indexically.]
7. In general, anything which serves to manifest, stand for, or call up
the
idea of another thing to the mind of the person perceiving it; evidence of
something past, present, or future; a symptom. [NOTE BY JR: This seems to
be
the most general sense of the word he provides, but note that it seems to
be
emphasizing the evidential value of it as an actually occurring entity.]
8. In Biblical use: (a) That by which a person or thing is known,
especially
as divinely distinguished .. Hence--(b) Especially, an appearance or
occurrence indicative of the divine presence or power, and authenticating
a
message or messenger a miraculous manifestation or warning; a portent; an
omen.
9. A motion or gesture intended to express thought or convey an idea; a
movement of the hand or some other part of the body having a natural or
conventional significance: as, the instinctive, artificial, or
alphabetical
signs of the deaf and dumb; pantomimic signs; to manifest assent by a
sign.
10. A spoken symbol; a signal-cry; a watchword: a use still seen in
"countersign".
11. One of the twelve divisions of the zodiac, each comprising 30 degrees
of
the ecliptic, and marked as to position by a constellation or group of
stars, the name of which is represented by a symbolical figure or sign of
ancient origin.
SIGNIFICANCE
1. That which is signified; purport; covert rsense; real or implied
meaning;
that which may be inferred in regard to any state of things from any
circumstance: as, the significance of a metaphor, of a chance remark, of a
look, of behavior.
2. Importance; more strictly, importance as significative of something
interesting, but also, frequently, importance as affecting considerable
interests: as, the great significance of many small things.
3. The character of being significant; force of meaning; distinct
signification; expressiveness. =Syn. Significance, Signification, Meaning.
Meaning is the most general; it may apply to persons, but not the other
words: as, what was his meaning? Signification is closer than
significance;
significance is especially the quality of signifying something, while
signification is generally that which is signified: as, he attached a
great
deal of significance to this fact; what is the signification of D. C. L.?
[NOTE BY JR: i.e. what does "D.C.L." abbreviate?]
SIGNIFICATION
1. The act of signifying or making known; expression or indication of
meaning in any manner. [Rare.]
2. A fact as signified; an established or intended meaning; the import of
anything by which thought is or may be communicated; connotation, or
logical
comprehension; implication; sense: as, the signification of a word or a
gesture; the significations of mathematical and other conventional signs.
[NOTE BY JR: Here he again cites a philosophical example: "Words in their
primary . . . signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of
him that uses them. Locke, Human Understanding, III. ii. 2."]
3. Significance; occult meaning; a fact as inferable from a phenomenon of
which it is said to be the signification.
4. Importance; consequence; significant import. Halliwell. [Obsolete or
prov. Eng.]
5. In French-Canadiam law, the act of giving notice; notification.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: LSE Conference abstracts on representation in art
and science
Joe, Gary R., Mats, list
Once again I've tripped up over the difference between "signification" &
"significance." In addition to tripping up often simply because of trying
to
think through ideas of comprehension, denotation, etc., in regard to
qualities, representational relations, etc., I have located one case in
"The
New Elements" where Peirce used the word "signification" to mean "meaning"
(what's formed into the interpretant) instead of "comprehension" (a ground
as referenced), and it probably worked its way into my mind in past
readings.
". every sign is intended to determine a sign of the same object with the
same signification or meaning. Any sign, B, which a sign, A, is fitted so
to
determine, without violation of its, A's, purpose, that is, in accordance
with the 'Truth,' even though it, B, denotes but a part of the objects of
the sign, A, and signifies but a part of its, A's, characters, I call an
_interpretant_ of A." ('New Elements', EP 2:304, 1904?)
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/interpretant.html
Anyway, if one can, unlike me, keep straight the more usual terminology
(ground, comprehension, connotation, signification versus interpretant,
meaning, significance), Mats' assertion that mental icons are _the_
carriers
of connotative meaning in communication makes a lot more sense.
As an icon refers to a ground (the ground of the quality which the icon
presents), it could be said to have comprehension a.k.a. connotation, at
least by some of Peirce's characterizations (unless those
characterizations
involved implicit and unstated qualifications limiting comprehension to
being a property of symbols). And as the function of an asserted icon is
to
evoke a mental icon, the mental icons can be said to be -- well, here, I
still part with Mats -- not the "carriers" but the decodings, or just say
it
plain, the interpretants, of connotative meaning in communication. As
decodings, interpretants, they are also encodings, signs, carriers; it's a
difference of emphasis, yet an important one, I think, relating to the
fact,
in which Joe Ransdell has been particularly interested in the past, that a
symbol is supposed to lead to a mental icon, and that a particular
semiosis
or inquiry process finds an ending (but not a resting -- there I part with
Peirce) in an icon, not a symbol. A symbol is also a carrier of
comprehensional meaning such that it doensn't seem clear or obvious that
mental icons are _the_ principal carriers of comprehensional meaning in
communication.
Also, this does leave open the question of representational relations like
"not" and "if & only if" etc. Are they defined by qualities/grounds,
whether
a sign's own or as will be evoked in the interpretant? That is to say, by
representational relations cast as qualities (just as qualities can be
hypostatized, cast as objects denotable & designable)? I really don't
think
so. Terms like "not" and "if & only if" are not predicates; they don't
pretend to stand for qualities. Grammatically they are adverbs (but not
adverbs of manner) and conjunctions. In logical syntactical terms, they
are
functors which produce predicates (including zero-place predicates =
propositions). If comprehension is always comprehension of a quality, and
denotation always denotation of an object, then there's no corresponding
mode of standing for a representational relation, yet terms such as "not"
and "and" do not stand for logical relations cast or "disguised" as either
objects or qualities.
Best, Ben
[From Mats' abstract] This, in turn, suggests that the iconic function in
representation (understood as a standing-for relation) is actually
subordinated to the role of iconicity in mediation. More concretely, the
question that should be raised is what special role - if any - iconic
signs
play in mediating or communicative sign processes. In this paper, I will
not attempt to present a full answer to this intricate problem. Instead, I
shall discuss two purportedly distinctive communicative features of icons,
as they are presented by Peirce. In particular, I will explicate his
notion
that the mental icon may be viewed as a composite photograph of past
experiences, and scrutinise his claim that the principal communicative
function of an asserted icon is to evoke such mental icons that in fact
are
experiential generalisations. As such, they can be said to the carriers of
connotative meaning in communication. ....
COMMENT: It seems fair to say that every sign, in having an interpretant,
has connotation a.k.a. significance. However-- mental icons as "THE"
carriers of connotative meaning in communication? I wonder whether Matt
intended the exclusiveness suggested by the definite article there. It
would
imply that mental indices & mental symbols lack interpretants in the
semiosis in which they occur.
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 5/31/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 5/31/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
