Edwina, List,
I am not denying the fact that interpretants, as defined by Peirce, exist, and
I am not denying that Peirce's 3-way distinction is good.
But you said that you had not studied the kinds of details that the linguists
observe and specify.
My claim is that any theory that does not
John, list
I continue to either misunderstand or object - I don’t know which term I
should use - to your rejection of the role of the Interpretants. I simply don’t
see how the semiosic process can function - and it IS a function - without the
necessary role of the Interpretants. How can you
Edwina, List,
As a logician and mathematician, Peirce understood the methods of precise
reasoning in lengthy deductions. But as a linguist and engineer, he also
understood the issues of continuity or synechism.
In ordinary language, every word has a broad range of meanings. The senses
John
I don't see what linguistic understanding of words has to do with the
interpretants.
The utterer’s Object [his words] can only carry his reality [phaneron] within
the words he knows. - and as Peirce said - [can’t recall the reference] if the
Object is unknown, then, the words used to
Edwina,
I was just copying what Short said. If you don't have it, I'll send you the
PDF of his entire book.
All Peirce scholars agree that Peirce had settled on three kinds of
interpretants. I don't deny that. But there is no information about how
anybody can determine how the utterer can
