List, Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in my opinion a great deal of semiotic confusion *has* been generated by confusing and conflating (1) sign types with sign classes. No doubt Peirce himself contributed to this confusion, although in *some *cases and *in context* it seems quite logical (and Peirce offers legitimate reasons) to refer to one of the classes by less than its full triadic name, for example, 'Qualisign' to refer to the 1st of the 10 classes, the* rhematic iconic qualisign. *But, again, even this sort of abbreviation has wreaked a kind of semiotic havoc. (Btw, this is not the only way Peirce contributes to this confusion.)
Following a suggestion made by Ben Udell many years ago when I was writing a paper which, in part, meant to distinguish between these sign types and classes, I sometimes refer to sign 'types' as 'parameters' as being closer to Peirce's meaning. This is also why I reject Sung's 'quark model' of semiotics, because the 9 classes are *not* analogous to elementary particles in being 'thing-like' and quasi-individual, but, again, are the *mere *parameters of the 10 possible signs which *might *be embodied, that is, the 10 classes. There remain a number of scholars who still treat the table of 9 as if they represented embodied sign classes. They simply do not. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Clark, Jeff, Gary F, lists, > > You wrote: > > " . . . On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign > types defined in NDTR, (120815-1) > including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a possible > ambiguity in the concepts of > genuine and degenerate; . . . " > > (*1*) Shouldn't we distinguish between "sign types" and "sign classes"? > Peirce defines > > (A) 9 sign types (analogous to quarks in particle physics) > > 1. qualisign, > 2. sinsign, > 3. legisign, > 4. icon, > 5. index, > 6. symbol, > 7. rheme, > 8. dicisign, and > 9. arguement) , and > > > (B) 10 sign classes (analogous to baryons composed of 3 quarks) > > 1. rhematic iconic qualisign, > 2. rhematic iconic sinsign, > 3. rhematic iconic legisign, > 4. rhematic indexical sinsign, > 5. rhematic indexical legisign, > 6. rhematic symbolic legisign, > 7 decent indexical sinsign, > 8. decent indexical legisign, > 9. decent symbolic legisign > 10. argument symbolic legisign. > > > Not distinguishing between the 9 types of signs and the 10 classes of > signs may be akin to physicists not distinguishing between quarks (u, d, c, > s, t and b quarks) and baryons (protons and neutrons). > > (*2*) According to the quark model of the Peircean sign discussed in > earlier posts, the 9 types of signs (referred to as the "elementary signs") > cannot exist without being parts of the 10 classes of signs (referred to as > the "composite signs"), just as quarks cannot exist outside of baryons. > > (*3*) What holds quarks together within a baryon (e.g., u, u and d quarks > in a proton, or u, d and d quarks in a neutron) is the "strong force", so > perhaps there exists a 'force' that holds three elementary signs together > within a composite sign, and such a postulated 'force' in semiotics may be > referred to as the "*semantic force*" or "*semiotic force*", in analogy > to the "strong force". > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: >> > >> > On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types >> defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a >> possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and possibly >> this problem is related to the concepts of embodiment, just introduced, and >> of involvement, which is introduced in the next paragraph >> >> I think this gets at exactly the ambiguity that is confusing me in many >> of these discussions of late. It’s also why I ask people to define their >> terms since I think we’re often using Peirce’s terminology or terminology >> that seems obvious but which obscure these subtle ambiguities. While I may >> be wrong, my sense is that it’s precisely upon these subtle issues that our >> various disagreements are located. >> >> All too often I find myself suspicious that we disagree in these more >> fundamental considerations but unsure due to the way the discussions >> proceed. >> >> I’ve been unable to read the list for about a week and am just catching >> up. I see that the discussion of the above, or at least the terminology of >> sign, continues. I just wanted to point out that in addition to these >> subtle points it seems much of the debate is largely a semantic one over >> the applicability of certain terms. It’s not clear to me yet that we have a >> substantial difference in content. >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
