Re: [PEIRCE-L] by way of answering your questions

[Michael Shapiro]

Jerry, List,

All languages change by making the relationship between sets of sounds (signs) and sets of meanings (immediate objects) more and more diagrammatic (iconic). This is the processwhereby the fundamental arbitrariness between sounds and meanings is attenuated.

A diagram is an icon of relation, and that's why I prefer to use "diagram" and "diagrammatize" rather than "icon" and "iconic" because in language we're always dealing between sets of relations (with the possible exception of onomatopoeia).

No, I wouldn't restrict this to utterances, but remember that to a significant extent all human communication is parasitic on the linguistic kind.

Sorry, but I can't relate any of the above to Peirce's use of the terms involved. As far as I know, he never used the words "diagrammatize" or "diagrammaticity." Nor was he particularly acute when it came to language structure, since he didn't really deal with in the contemporary sense.

Hope this makes things less "dense.".

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry LR Chandler
Sent: Nov 29, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Michael Shapiro
Cc: CSP
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] by way of answering your questions

Michael, List:

On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Michael Shapiro wrote:

"Attenuation of Arbitrariness in the Semantics of Quantification

 

            The overall drift in language development is toward greater diagrammaticity (iconicity) between sound and meaning, which thereby necessarily results in the attenuation of the arbitrariness characterizing the fundamental relation of all language structure.

            This can be illustrated in the history of English by the gradual gain in scope of the quantifier of mass nouns less at the expense of its counterpart fewer, which according to the traditional norm is reserved for count nouns. Many speakers of American English (but not only) regularly substitute less for fewer where the norm specifies the latter to the exclusion of the former.

            The iconic motivation of this usage is twofold. First, less is shorter than fewer, thereby fitting it more adequately than its counterpart to its meaning, namely ‘lesser quantity’. Second, individuation as a semantic category is marked (more restricted in conceptual scope) than non-individuation, so that a drift toward non-individuation is a movement toward the unmarked member of the opposition, instantiating the general iconic (semeiotic) principle according to which language change favors replacement of marked units, categories, and contexts by unmarked ones."

While it is possible that I catch the drift of your logic in this paragraph, my uncertainty index is rather high. 

Can you expand your views in such a way that they are more user-friendly.

In particular,

The overall drift in language development is toward greater diagrammaticity (iconicity) between sound and meaning,

is particularly dense. 

With respect to the sentence as a whole, 

The overall drift in language development is toward greater diagrammaticity (iconicity) between sound and meaning, which thereby necessarily results in the attenuation of the arbitrariness characterizing the fundamental relation of all language structure.

Would you restrict this modal statement to utterances or would you also apply it to any human communication?

And, could you clarify the historical origins of using "diagrammaticity" as a synonym for "iconicity"?

If you can relate your usage to CSP 3.420-3.421, it would be helpful.

Cheers

Jerry

-----------------------------
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .