Michael, Jon, Edwina, Gary, List,
First, I apologize to everybody about my use of "RIP" about anything Peirce
wrote. I agree with Edwina that the three-way distinction is important, but I
must emphasize that the amount of research in the cognitive sciences during the
past century is immense.
Michael, List:
I honestly do not know much about linguistics, but I wonder if this online
chapter from your 1983 book, *The Sense of Grammar: Language as Semiotic*,
is still a good summary of your relevant views.
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/oa_monograph/chapter/3056317
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt
Edwina, List,
I too hope that Michael might summarize at least some relevant aspects of
his work in 'markedness' for the List, or at least offer a few excerpts
from his several books and papers which take up the topic. Having read some
of Michael's work on markedness, its connection to meaning in
Michael - Why not instead provide us with a brief discussion of your discussion?
Edwina
> On Feb 3, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Michael Shapiro wrote:
>
> To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to
> recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or mo
To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to
recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or more
of my books, the latest being The Logic of Lasnguage (New York: Springer,
2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship betwee
Again, if I might continue with the importance of the hexadic semiosic process,
in that it enables complex adaptation…within interaction
That is - the reality of two Object relations, the Dynamic and the Immediate
acknowledges that not all off the input data from the external interaction will
