Joe, Gary, list,
Gary's very busy right now but he sent me some interesting Peirce quotes on
connotation, reminding me that this was not his favored word for intension or
depth. It appears that the original meaning of "connote" was actually less far
from the present-day literary meaning (and also from "evoke") than from the
present-day philosophical meaning. I do seem to remember Peirce's equating
connotation with significance at some point, but, if he did so,
then probably it was a concession to some audience, and probably was
accompanied by note as to its not really being the right word.
In one interesting passage Peirce characterizes four aspects of
signification
(1) the indispensable signification -- the essentials, amounting to the
definition or acceptation
(2) the banal signification -- further data but not newsworthy or
informative but instead redundant to the given interpreter
(3) the informational signification -- which IS news to the given
interpreter
(4) the complete signification -- all valid predicates of the term
My putative two-way distinction made using the words "evoke" and "connote"
didn't do justice to that. My "connote" would go with the indispensable
signification and my "evoke" with the informational signification, but the banal
signification seems falls between the cracks that I left. Well, I'll have to do
some more serious terminological exploration if I want to pursue choosing verbs
for these various aspects of signifying.
Anyway, while I'm at it, I've made a few syntatically & stylistically
desperately needed corrections, between astrisks in blue, to my own previous
post, after Gary's quotes from Peirce.
Best, Ben Udell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Richmond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: SIGNIFICATION AND APPLICATION
"In a nutshell"
Peirce: CP 2.317 Fn P1 p 182 Cross-Ref:††
†P1 Mill's term connote is not very accurate. Connote properly means to
denote along with in a secondary way. Thus "killer" connotes a living thing
killed. When the scholastics said that an adjective connoted, they meant it
connoted the abstraction named by the corresponding abstract noun. But the
ordinary use of an adjective involves no reference to any abstraction. The word
signify has been the regular technical term since the twelfth century, when John
of Salisbury (Metalogicus, II, xx) spoke of "quod fere in omnium ore celebre
est, aliud scilicet esse quod appellativa (i.e., adjectives) significant, et
aliud esse quod nominant. Nominantur singularia (i.e., existent individual
things and facts), sed universalia (i.e., Firstnesses) significantur." See my
paper of Nov. 13, 1867 [next chapter], to which I might now [1902] add a
multitude of instances in support of what is here said concerning connote and
signify.
Peirce: CP 2.431 Cross-Ref:††
SIGNIFICATION AND APPLICATION †1
431. These are substitute terms for what are called by Mill and others
connotation and denotation; for (1) the previously well-established use of
connote was somewhat warped by Mill and his followers, and (2) these words may
be applied to the corresponding properties of propositions as well as terms. The
application of a term is the collection of objects which it refers to; of a
proposition it is the instances of its holding good. The signification of a term
is all the qualities which are indicated by it; of a proposition it is all its
different implications.
Peirce: CP 2.432 Cross-Ref:††
432. Great confusion has arisen in logic from failing to distinguish
between the different sorts of signification, or connotation, of a term: thus to
the question, Are proper names connotative? "contradictory answers are given by
ordinarily clear thinkers as being obviously correct," for the reason that they
have not the same thing in mind under the term connotation. It is necessary to
distinguish between; (1) the indispensable signification; (2) the banal
signification; (3) the informational signification; and (4) the complete
signification. (1) is so much as is contained in whatever may be fixed upon as
the definition of the term--all those elements of the meaning in the absence of
any one of which the name would not be applied; (2) is what "goes without
saying," what is known to every one, and (3) is what there is occasion to give
utterance to: these, of course, vary with the different individuals to whom the
proposition is given out--that oxygen is exhilarating is informational to the
student of chemistry, and banal to the teacher of chemistry (but false to those
who are familiar with the latest results of the science); (4) consists of all
the valid predicates of the term in question. When I say, "The one I saw
yesterday was John Peter," the indispensable signification of John Peter is
simply an individual object of consciousness (usually a man, though it may be a
dog, or a doll) whom it has been agreed to designate by that name; but the banal
signification, to one who knows John Peter well, is very extensive.
Peirce: CP 2.433 Cross-Ref:††
433. The same characteristics apply to propositions as well as to terms:
thus the complete signification (or implication) of All x is y is all its valid
consequences, and its complete application (or range) is all those descriptions
of circumstances under which it holds good--that is to say, all its sufficient
antecedents.
Peirce: CP 2.434 Cross-Ref:††
434. A general term denotes whatever there may be which possesses the
characters which it signifies; J. S. Mill uses, in place of signifies, the term
connotes, a word which he or his father picked up in Ockham. But signify has
been in uninterrupted use in this sense since the twelfth century, when John of
Salisbury spoke of "quod fere in omnium ore celebre est aliud scilicet esse
appellativa significant, et aliud esse quod, nominant. Nominantur singularia;
sed universalia significantur."†1 Nothing can be clearer. There is no known
occurrence of connote as early as this. Alexander of Hales (Summa Theol., I.
liii) makes nomen connotans the equivalent of appellatio relativa, and takes the
relation itself as the accusative object of connotare, speaking of "creator" as
connoting the relation of creator to creature. So Aquinas, In sentent., I. dist.
viii. q. 1, Art. 1. Subsequently, because adjectives were looked upon as
relative terms, white being defined as "having whiteness," etc., the adjective
was looked upon as connoting the abstraction, but never unless its supposed
relative character was under consideration. Tataretus, for example, who wrote
when the usage was fully established, will be found using such phraseology as
the following: "Nulla relativa secundum se habent contrarium, cum non sint
qualitates primae, sed solum relativa secundum dici, et hoc secundum esse
absolutum et significatum principale eorum et non secundum esse respectivum et
connotativum." Chauvin †2 (1st ed.) says: "Connotativum illud est cuius
significatum non sistit in se, sed necessario ad aliud refertur, vel aliud
connotat. V. g. Rex, magister, primus."
Peirce: CP 2.434 Cross-Ref:††
It unfortunately happened, as the above quotations show, that the precise
meaning recognized as proper to the word "signify" at the time of John of
Salisbury (a younger contemporary of Abelard) was never strictly observed,
either before or since; and, on the contrary, the meaning tended to slip towards
that of "denote." Yet even now the propriety of John's remark must be
recognized.
Peirce: CP 2.434 Cross-Ref:††
A number of works were written in the middle ages, De modis significandi,
based upon Priscian (a contemporary of Boëthius), who in turn followed
Apollonius the bad-tempered, "grammaticorum princeps," who lived in the time of
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Cf. also Thurot, Notices et Extraits des MSS. xxii.
Pt. II, and Duns Scotus, Works, Lyons edit. 1.
Ben wrote,
Joe, list,
I had a thought about an topic from February 2006.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Ransdell" To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
I had a thought about an topic from February 2006.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Ransdell" To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:32 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW
ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
>>[Ben] Yet attributions, ascriptions, copulations, distributions,
etc., etc., of predicates to subjects, or of accidents to substances, or of
qualities to reactions, all have a certain similarity and parallelism. Then when
we associate connotation in one way with firstness, quality, & iconicity
and, in another way, with thirdness, meaning/implication/entailment, we get
confused. Or at least I get confused.
>[Joe] That is exactly the confusion that I was trying to express, Ben.
....
I've come to think that the mistake here is to associate connotation
generally with firstness, quality, & iconicity on account possibly mainly of
the prominence of the case of a descriptive predicate term, the case which has
been the focus of the "connotation x denotation = information" discussions. If
the connotation is, as Peirce says elsewhere, the meaning or significance which
gets formed into the interpretant, then we should recognize -- as equally valid
modes of connotation along with the connoting of a quality -- symbolic
designation of an object, and the symbolizing of a representational relation. In
a way, the real "odd man out" is _denotation._ Not that the conception
of denotation isn't valid.
sign ------------ icon ------ resembling, portraying
|> interpretant - |> symbol - |> evoking, connoting
object ---------- index ----- pointing at, pointing to
The main difference between Peirce's account of connotation & the
"everyday" logical account, is that he at least sometimes equates connotation
with significance, significance presumably including implication, while the
everyday account, I think, tends to equate connotation with meaning in the sense
of _acceptation_ (and perhaps with a meaning arising in an "obvious"
way through a compounding of acceptations). For what it's worth, it also seems
to me that, if an evocation/connotation distinction is to be made, it might be
better made between that which is evoked *as*
information *(evocation)* and that which is evoked
(soever informatively) as subject matter or as a given *(connotation)*. Under this account, icons and indices would
generally not _connote_, though they easily _evoke_.
Best, Ben
---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
