"Now a sign is something, A, w As with the interpretant we ma "But it is necessary to distin "..from the Dynamical Object, What exactly an object is, is What exactly an object is, is As with the object we may look Something enters the interpret It entered as a single act and A sign gives rise to an effort A sign gives rise to an effort The sign after entering and se The immediate interpretant is The dynamical interpretant is "Finally there is what I provi In informal and quick style so "Now a sign is something, A, w

Contents

1 representamen

 "Now a sign is something, A, which denotes some fact or object, B, to some interpretant thought, C."
Peirce: CP 1.346
See object, interpretant

To distinguish
1. the sign that meets the requirements of denoting an object and calling an interpretant
from
2. the sign as the object that does the job
I use representamen to indicate the signobject.

To consider a sign in itself is strictly speaking impossible, for we have in that case no way of dealing with the relations between a sign and the object(s) it stands for or the relations between a sign and the interpretant thought(s). In which case we drop the essence of the sign and look at it as if it were an object.

Still, if, for the sake of analysis, we disregard the relations between on the one hand signs and on the other hand their objects and their interpretant thoughts and we look at all the signs we have met as if they stood aloof, what can we say about them?

1. They have an internal structure or, in other words, they consist of combinations of qualities.
2. They have a factual existence, exist as individual entities.
3. They represent general rules of understanding, that is to say, they exist as special instances of rules or conventions.
See qualisign, sinsign and legisign.


---------

2 object

 As with the interpretant we may look at the object from different perspectives. We can look at:
1 the kinds of objects possible
2 the ways a sign may stand for or is connected with its objects.

Since the concept of interpretant is derived from the concept of sign, I will start with 2.

2 relations between sign and object
There are three possible ways in which a sign may be connected to its objects.
1. The sign is connected with its object through a similarity between sign and object.
2. The sign may be physically connected with its object.
3. The sign may be connected to its objects by convention or a habit that grew.
See: iconic, indexical and symbolic.
1 the kinds of objects possible.
If we are confronted with a sign that states something about the world, then the sign itself presents an object that may be compared with the state of affairs in the world. This gives rise to a distinction between:
1. the object as presented by the sign
2. the object in the world that the sign aims at.
See immediate and dynamical object


------------

1 direct object

 "But it is necessary to distinguish the Immediate Object, or the Object as the Sign represents it, from the Dynamical Object, or really efficient but not immediately present Object."
Peirce: CP 8.343

-------

2 dynamical object

 "..from the Dynamical Object, which is the Reality which by some means contrives to determine the Sign to its Representation."
Peirce: CP 4.536
Since the status of knowledge is problematic we may further distinguish different kinds of knowledge, according to their status.
See 1. knowledge and 2. knowledge

--------

1 (knowledge)

 What exactly an object is, is hard to decide. The opinions differ widely. The distinction between knowledge 1 and knowledge 2 has been made here to distinguish at least tentative between:
1. our (individual or collective) knowledge of the realm of objects
2. the ultimate knowledge that proves to hold true

But this does not make the distinction less problematic.
For a rather difficult story about what may count as an object see my:

Objecten en contradicties
De jonge Peirce contra de jonge Wittgenstein.
See: http://www.semiotiek.nl/folder/theorie.html

Appeared in: Verslag van de vierde Toogdag Peirce. Broek in Waterland 31, May 1991


------

2 knowledge

 What exactly an object is, is hard to decide. The opinions differ widely. The distinction between knowledge 1 and knowledge 2 has been made here to distinguish at least tentative between:
1. our (individual or collective) knowledge of the realm of objects
2. the ultimate knowledge that proves to hold true

But this does not make the distinction less problematic.
For a rather difficult story about what may count as an object see my:

Objecten en contradicties
De jonge Peirce contra de jonge Wittgenstein.
See: http://www.semiotiek.nl/folder/theorie.html

Appeared in: Verslag van de vierde Toogdag Peirce. Broek in Waterland 31, May 1991


--------

3 interpretant

 As with the object we may look at the interpretant from different perspectives. We can look at:
1 the kinds of interpretants possible
2 the ways a sign may address its interpretants.
3 [Probably: the codes that rule the ways in which the interpreting mind:
a. reads composed signs,
b. sees the way in which the sign represents the object,
c. feels itself addressed by the sign.]

Since the concept of interpretant is derived from the concept of sign I will start with 2.

2 Relations sign - interpretant
What are the ways in which a sign may address an interpretant?

A sign may:
1. call into the mind an idea
2. state a relation between an idea and an object
3. raise an interpreting thought that acts like a conclusion out of premises.
See: Rhematic, propositional, argumentative.

1 the kinds of interpretants possible
1. a feeling produced by the sign
2. an effort of the body, of the mind or both
3. a mental sign; this sign even may be a habit (change)
See also emotional, energetic and logical interpretant.


------------

1 emotional interpretant

 Something enters the interpreting mind, there is a mental, emotional unrest. This can be a very limited effect as when we try in vain to catch the attention of somebody working very concentrated, but also quite extensive like when we experience a piece of music or an action painting.


-------

2 energetic interpretant

 It entered as a single act and settles as something potentially meaningful.

1. In our body as an impulse
2. In our mind
See mental and physical interpretant


-------

1 mental

 A sign gives rise to an effort. This may be a physical effort like when we follow a command: sit!
But more often this will be an exertion upon our internal world. But at this stage it is never the meaning of a concept, for the meaning is general while this effort is a single act.


-------

2 physical

 A sign gives rise to an effort. This may be a physical effort like when we follow a command: sit!


------

3 logical interpretant

 The sign after entering and settling itself in the interpreting mind may undergo some subsequent treatment:
1. the sign is evaluated, begins to have its signifying effects.
2. The sign results in action or not depending on the results of the valuation
3. The results of the above treatment are evaluated. This may or may not result in a change of habit or expectations.
See: immediate, dynamic and normal interpretant


-------

1 immediate

 The immediate interpretant is the interpretant that arises when the ordinary meaning of the sign is being grasped.

-----

2 dynamical

 The dynamical interpretant is the actual effect that the sign brings forth. It is the mental or physical reaction.

-----

3 normal

 "Finally there is what I provisionally term the Final Interpretant, which refers to the manner in which the Sign tends to represent itself to be related to its Object. I confess that my own conception of this third interpretant is not yet quite free from mist."
Peirce: CP 4.536

------

conceptual scheme Peirce

 In informal and quick style some remarks
This scheme gives Peirces:
1. 'ontological' distinctions
2. relational distinctions

If Pierce is right in his insistence on the triadic character of signs. A monadic, dyadic and triadic treatment must be possible. This scheme only gives the first two treatments. So a third treatment must be possible. The hypothesis is that this third treatment consists in a scheme that gives the conventions that rules the ways in which the interpretant follows:
1. conventions that rule the composition of signs and signscombinations
2. conventions that rule the ways in which the sign connects to the object, how does the sign communicate the reality it is connected to? See for instance Kress on modality markers.
3. conventions that rule signinterpretation

Proposed methods:
1 trying to incorporate the Kress/Leeuwen work. But also Eco has some good remarks.
2 investigation of professional designprocesses, i.e. processes in which signs are being generated (graphical work, new media).

sign

 "Now a sign is something, A, which denotes some fact or object, B, to some interpretant thought, C."
Peirce: CP 1.346
See (A) representamen, (B) object, (C) interpretant

To distinguish
1. the sign that meets the requirements of denoting an object and calling an interpretant
from
2. the sign as the object that does the job
I use representamen to indicate the signobject.

Axon File: c:\mijn documenten\semiosite\www\theorie\tijdelijkaxon\overzichthtml.xon
Last modified: 2000-10-02 15:55:26