Frances to listers... As posited by Peirce under speculative grammatics, it is clear enough to me that the classes of immediate object signs are qualisigns and sinsigns and legisigns, and that the classes of dynamic object signs are icons and indexes and symbols, and that the various interpretant signs of these signs are classed as immediate and dynamic and final. What is not clear to me however is what classes of signs Peirce may have posited to account for immediate representamen signs. These would presumably be determined by the immediate and dynamic objects they refer to, and would in turn presumably determine the various terns of interpretants they generate as an effect. Such representamens therefore would presumably constitute the sign vehicles or carriers that moderate between their objects and their interpretants.
The only tern of signs Peirce mentions that might be posited to fit this class called immediate representamen signs are potisigns and actisigns and famsigns. There is however some seeming resistance among semioticians and pragmatists to allocate this fundamental tern in such a way, but the reasons usually turn either on substitutions, whereby they are claimed to be mere synonyms stated earlier by Peirce for what is now correctly deemed to be immediate object signs, or on the fact that they are not mentioned in the familiar ten classes of signs. If these reasons justly warrant dismissing them from serious semiotic concern, then the problem persists for me as to just what exactly are immediate representamen signs within semiosis. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
