Michael, List: Thanks for the confirmation. Unfortunately, although I acknowledge again my relative ignorance about linguistics as a *special *science, unless I am badly misunderstanding what that online chapter outlines, there are some major discrepancies with Peirce's semeiotic as a *normative *science.
MS: Corresponding to Peirce’s fundamental tripartition into Sign, Object, and interpretant, all linguistic entities are *signa *(signs) comprised by (1) a material or perceptible *signans*, (2) an intelligible or translatable *signatum*, and (3) an *interpretant *(rule) governing the relation between signans and signatum. ... The interpretant has no material or perceptible shape of its own apart from the signans to which it stands as its evaluative correlate vis-à-vis the conjugate signatum. The absence of corporality in an interpretant of a linguistic sign is totally expected, since *all *interpretants, qua values, inhere totally in the conceptual side of phenomena ... In exactly the same way that signification results from the patterned conjunction of signata and signantia via the mediation of the all-important Third, the interpretant, so all of linguistic content is rendered manifest in the structure of language by series of interpretants that have the form ‘If content A, then expression B.’ These excerpts seem to be saying that (1) a linguistic sign is *comprised *of a sign token (signans), its object (signatum), and its interpretant; (2) an interpretant of a linguistic sign is *never *a physical manifestation, *always* a strictly conceptual phenomenon; and (3) the *interpretant *mediates between the sign token and its object. By contrast, Peirce explicitly and consistently maintains instead that (1) a sign, whether linguistic or otherwise, is one *correlate *of a genuine triadic relation, whose other two correlates are the sign's object and interpretant; (2) an interpretant can be *either* another sign, a physical event, or a qualitative feeling; and (3) the *sign *mediates between its object and its interpretant. For example ... CSP: A *Representamen *is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its *Object*, and the possible Third Correlate being termed its *Interpretant*, by which triadic relation the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. (CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903) CSP: I have already noted that a Sign has an Object and an Interpretant, the latter being that which the Sign produces in the Quasi-mind that is the Interpreter by determining the latter to a feeling, to an exertion, or to a Sign, which determination is the Interpretant. (CP 4.536, 1906) CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined by the object *relatively to the interpretant*, and determines the interpretant *in reference to the object*, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this "sign." The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign.(EP 2:410, 1907) Accordingly, if it is true that "Markedness in language is the epitome of the relationship between sign and object" (post quoted below), then it is false that "markedness and interpretant are synonymous where the structure of the linguistic sign is concerned" (linked online chapter). Instead, I suggest that markedness corresponds to the fact that every linguistic sign is a *symbol *(vs. index or icon) and thus "refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object" (CP 2.249, EP 2:292, 1903). This rule or law *itself *is not the symbol's interpretant--it describes the habit by means of which the symbol *determines *its interpretant, which is its *effect *on an interpreter. Regards, Jon On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:49 PM Michael Shapiro <poo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Yes, it does, Jon. > > M. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > Sent: Feb 3, 2024 2:04 PM > To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants > > > 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 - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 12:43 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 Peirce's >> sense seems to me patent as this excerpt from the Wikipedia article, >> "Markedness," suggests. >> >> >> The work of Cornelius van Schooneveld, Edna Andrews >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edna_Andrews>, Rodney Sangster, Yishai >> Tobin and others on 'semantic invariance' (different general meanings >> reflected in the contextual specific meanings of features) has further >> developed the semantic analysis >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_analysis_(linguistics)> of >> grammatical items in terms of marked and unmarked features. Other >> semiotically-oriented work has investigated the isomorphism of form and >> meaning with less emphasis on invariance, including the efforts of Henning >> Andersen, Michael Shapiro, and Edwin Battistella. Shapiro and Andrews have >> especially made connections between the semiotic of C. S. Peirce >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Peirce> and markedness, treating it >> "as species of interpretant" in Peirce's sign–object–interpretant triad. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness >> >> >> I do not know Edna Andrew's work in this area. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary Richmond >> >> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:25 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Michael - Why not instead provide us with a brief discussion of your >>> discussion? >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Feb 3, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Michael Shapiro <poo...@earthlink.net> >>> 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 >>> more of my books, the latest being *The Logic of Lasnguage* (New York: >>> Springer, 2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship >>> between sign and object. >>> >>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
