Jon: Yes! Absolutely! Your explanation of the quasi-sign makes much more sense! Thank you!
Cécile Cosculluela MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones Associate Professor of English as a Second Language Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation De: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> À: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Janvier 2024 22:28:13 Objet: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce Cécile: CC: Yet, Peirce mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of a Sign' (1906, CP 4.531, p. 415) ... Indeed, a sign is "triadic" in the specific sense that something can only serve as a sign within the genuine triadic relation of representing/mediating between its object and interpretant; and whatever serves as a sign within one such relation might also serve as the interpretant of a previous sign in another such relation, or as the object of a subsequent sign in yet another such relation. In my view, all these designations are artifacts of analysis, entia rationis that we prescind from the real and continuous process of semiosis--the entire universe as one immense sign, a vast argument that is constantly "working out its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). BQ_BEGIN CC: Does this excerpt from CP 5.473 mean that the term 'sign' refers to the representamen, and the term "quasi-sign“ refer to the triadic relation of the representamen to the object for the interpretant? BQ_END On the contrary, in that passage, Peirce is actually contrasting a "sign" that triadically produces an interpretant with a "quasi-sign" that dyadically produces an effect of some kind. In other words, he is suggesting that "sign" be reserved for the first correlate of a genuine triadic relation and "quasi-sign" be employed instead for the first correlate of a degenerate triadic relation, i.e., one that is reducible to its dyadic input and output relations. His example of the latter is a Jacquard loom, "which used punched cards to control the weaving of the cloth so that intricate patterns could be obtained automatically" (EP 2:547n15). As he says elsewhere ... BQ_BEGIN CSP: Speculative Grammar ought not to confine its studies to those conventional signs of which language is composed, but ... will do well to widen its field of view so as to take into consideration also kinds of signs which, not being conventional, are not of the nature of language. In fact, as a point of theory, I am of opinion that we ought not to limit ourselves to signs but ought to take account of certain objects more or less analogous to signs. In practice, however, I have paid little attention to these quasi-signs. (EP 2:257, 1903) BQ_END Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian [ http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt | www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt ] / [ http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt | twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt ] On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:56 PM Cécile Cosculluela < [ mailto:cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr | cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Jon, Edwina, John, List, Thanks again. Indeed, I do want to be consistent with Peirce's usage of the term "sign". I think it's interesting to note that "The collocation “triadic sign” isn’t to be found in the CP" (Jappy, 2023, p. 145, note 1). Yet, Peirce mentions, for instance, 'the essentially triadic nature of a Sign' (1906, CP 4.531, p. 415) or points to what might be regarded as the arbitrary character of terminology when stating (in CP 5.473, 1905) that "Whether the interpretant be necessarily a triadic result is a question of words, that is, of how we limit the extension of the term "sign"; but it seems to me [Peirce] convenient to make the triadic production of the interpretant essential to a "sign," calling the wider concept like a Jacquard loom, for example, a "quasi-sign.“ " Does this excerpt from CP 5.473 mean that the term 'sign' refers to the representamen, and the term "quasi-sign“ refer to the triadic relation of the representamen to the object for the interpretant? Best regards, Cécile Cécile Cosculluela MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones Associate Professor of English as a Second Language Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation BQ_END _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
