Frances to Wilfred Berendsen... These signs are of recurring interest to me also, and several past messages dealing with them by experts are in the list archive. Any replies to you will hence be followed with enthusiasm. My present access to the writings of Peirce is limited, but other writers who refer to these signs might indeed be found in further sources. My thought here turns for example to books by Alfred Ayer, James Feiblemen, Thomas Goudge, Benjamin Lee, Winfried Noth, David Savan, and Thomas Sebeok who all mention and discuss these Peircean signs to varying degrees, if this is what you are after.
One initial point is that in a strict categorization the correct ordering of these signs is as qualisigns and sinsigns and legisigns. They are also seemingly not only subjective notions stirred in mind, but are deemed objective logical constructs that are found or discovered to exist in the ontic arena of the world, which can then of course be used to evoke mental notions. My understanding is that these signs are of immediate objects, and might further be best called iconic subsigns. To be categorically consistent, these signs in my opinion might be held to have subordinate subclasses that fall under them, so that qualisigns would perhaps have tones, while sinsigns would perhaps have tokens and replicas, yet legisigns would perhaps have types and something like codes and semes. There is a tendency however for some interpreters of Peirce to claim that tones and tokens and types are either mere alternate synonyms for qualisigns and sinsigns and legisigns, or are a broader class of signs in semiosis that goes to making the ideal seem real to sense. The subsequent dynamic objects of signs or the main "proper" signs of semiosis as generated by immediate interpretants would then be called icons and indexes and symbols. My tentative reading of the Peircean literature also leads me to understand that the signs or iconic subsigns of preceding immediate representamen are perhaps called potisigns and actisigns and famsigns. The allocation of this fundamental trident or class of signs in such a way is however not fully clear to me, as they are often suggested by many scholars to be mere early substitutes for qualisigns and sinsigns and famsigns. This explanation would seem to be unlikely though, since they are after all listed by Peirce as a separate class of signs. The issue of determinate objects and degenerate signs might also be of some importance in regard to the subsigns or subclasses of semiotic immediacy. Wilfred wrote... Currently I am very interested in the notions of sinsign, legisign and qualisign. I know there have been discussions about this before, with phrases out of texts from CS Peirce defining these terms. What I however would like to know, is in what texts (preferably from the essential peirce 1&2 since I have these) from Peirce and also in what texts of other scientists explaining his notions, it is best explained what these notions are all about. I am looking for texts or combinations of texts where these notions are explained as complete as possible. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber firstname.lastname@example.org