No Action Peirce: CP 2.229 Cross-Ref:
th The question as you see it The question as it appears her In nature no two things are th No Action No Action See CP 8.314 for Peirces analy Peirce: CP 2.229 Cross-Ref:
th It is a question. The sentence Be aware! With interrogative s Peirce writes in CP 2.262:
	"N No Action Peirce: CP 2.229 Cross-Ref:
th By far the most signs have a r The word today anchors the sen No Action The picture element of the mar No Action No Action The question is doing its job. The complete understanding of The answer on the question bei The aim of the interrogator or No Action No Action The internal reproduction of t The urge to answer makes itsel The object as represented by t The object as it is in itself. The weatherconditions as they The weather as it would impres No Action No Action

Contents

1 representamen

1

Peirce: CP 2.229 Cross-Ref:
the science of semiotic has three branches. The first is called by Duns Scotus grammatica speculativa. We may term it pure grammar. It has for its task to ascertain what must be true of the representamen used by every scientific intelligence in order that they may embody any meaning.

3 legisign

The question as you see it 'here and now' on your screen is unique. I for example see of necessity another sentence on my screen.

Still something can be said in favour of us seeing the same sentence. Also if the sentences are cast in a different type we are prepared to say that we see the same sentence. Still stronger, Peirce analysed the sentence after his wife uttered it. In order to communicate the analysis he wrote the sentence down in English. I read the sentence, translated it in Dutch and retranslated it in English. In spite of all these differences we are prepared to say that the same sentence is at stake in all these occurrences. Even though the use made of the sentence differs. (Wanting to know the state of the weather, analysing the sentence, trying to explain something.)

The difference between sinsign and legisign is ment to cope with this difficulty.

The sentence is a legisign insofar we are dealing with the same sentence.
The sentence is a replica sinsign insofar every occurence of the sentence is unique.

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

replica sinsign

The question as it appears here and now on the screen is a replica sinsign while it is an instantiation (unique occurrence) of a legisign.
See also legisign and sinsign

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


2 sinsign

In nature no two things are the same, as Nietzsche already wrote. This unique character of signs is expressed by the term sinsign (singular sign). If some really unique sign confronts us, then we call it a real sinsign. If a sign is reproducible, like the question that is analysed here, then we call it a replica sinsign.

Not reproducible works of art are probably closest to real sinsigns. Take for example a Kiefer.


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

1 qualisign

3 argumentative

sentence

See CP 8.314 for Peirces analysis of this question asked by his wife on a stormy day.

3

Peirce: CP 2.229 Cross-Ref:
the science of semiotic has three branches....
The third, in imitation of Kant's fashion of preserving old associations of words in finding nomenclature for new conceptions, I call pure rhetoric. Its task is to ascertain the laws by which in every scientific intelligence one sign gives birth to another, and especially one thought brings forth another.

2 propositional

It is a question. The sentence asks for a response, not for agreement or denial.
Just as with the relation between sign and object were different kinds of symbols were subdivided, different subtypes of sentences may be distinguished. Take for example:
Interrogative sentences
Declarative Sentence
Imperative Sentence

But also different subtypes of images may be distinguished according to the way in which they address the interpretant.
The way in which Mieke Bal analysis images, I would place in this corner. This generalisation from sentence to all kinds of signs calls for a more general approach of sub-dividing ways in which interpretants are addressed.

interrogative sentence

Be aware! With interrogative sentences the dynamical object is equivoke. An interrogator is satisfied with a mediated relation with reality. (interrogator - the one that is going to answer the question - reality as information source) This makes the impression of the one that is going to give the answer the dynamical object of the question. The reality as information source being the dynamical object of the answer.


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

9 Propositional Symbolic Legisign

Peirce writes in CP 2.262:
"Ninth: A Dicent Symbol, or ordinary Proposition, is a sign connected with its object by an association of general ideas, and acting like a Rhematic Symbol, except that its intended interpretant represents the Dicent Symbol as being, in respect to what it signifies, really affected by its Object, so that the existence or law which it calls to mind must be actually connected with the indicated Object. Thus, the intended Interpretant looks upon the Dicent Symbol as a Dicent Indexical Legisign; and if it be true, it does partake of this nature, although this does not represent its whole nature. Like the Rhematic Symbol, it is necessarily a Legisign. Like the Dicent Sinsign it is composite inasmuch as it necessarily involves a Rhematic Symbol (and thus is for its Interpretant an Iconic Legisign) to express its information and a Rhematic Indexical Legisign to indicate the subject of that information. But its Syntax of these is significant. The Replica of the Dicent Symbol is a Dicent Sinsign of a peculiar kind. This is easily seen to be true when the information the Dicent Symbol conveys is of actual fact. When that information is of a real law, it is not true in the same fullness. For a Dicent Sinsign cannot convey information of law. It is, therefore, true of the Replica of such a Dicent Symbol only in so far as the law has its being in instances."


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

2 indexical

2

Peirce: CP 2.229 Cross-Ref:
the science of semiotic has three branches...
The second is logic proper. It is the science of what is quasi-necessarily true of the representamina of any scientific intelligence in order that they may hold good of any object, that is, may be true. Or say, logic proper is the formal science of the conditions of the truth of representations.

3 symbolic

By far the most signs have a relation with there object mediated by a general rule, convention or general law. Because we are acquainted with the rules we see the relation.

This certainly applies to language. If we learn a language we do not only learn to construct sentences, but also how to use them in daily practice and where they stand for.

Every sentence must at least satisfy two functions:
1 call forth an idea
2 connect that idea with reality

The idea is iconic, states something
The connection is indexical, relates the idea to the world

If you look at the NedTrain mark, you will see that the mark also contains an icon and an index. The name being indexical (pinning the idea to the world), the image iconic (stating something about the object).

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

replica index

The word today anchors the sentence in the world. Not founded in a real connection between sign and object (like smoke is connected to the fire), but founded on the agreement that 'today' indicates the current day.

While there is no real connection but a conventional one we call it a replica index.


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

today

The picture element of the mark is not a pure icon it is abstracted from reality. It is a symbol.
The best approximation of a pure icon is probably a photograph without tricks. Although even with a photograph there are projection rules.

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

replica icon

'What is the weather…' raises the notion of 'weather condition'. Nothing more is realised without a context or complementairy words.

It is not a real icon but a replica icon.


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

what is the weather

It is a stormy day

3 logical interpretant

The question is doing its job.
After the sign is internalised it may be subject to subsequent treatment and give rise to subsequent sign production. Not all steps being necessary.

1. immediate interpretant
The meaning settles itself, is valued (understanding the question)
2. dynamical interpretant
The understanding gives rise to action or refrainment from action. Looking outside, comparing this day with other days, giving the answer, etc. Making the plan, acting in accordance with the plan or deviating from the plan, etc
3. normal interpretant
In the end the interrogator may evaluate the whole process in order to estimate the usefulness of the original act of putting forth the question. The results from this may strengthen the question habit or weaken it. In other words: this result enters as additional experience in the next occurrence of the situation that originated the question.


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

1 immediate

The complete understanding of the interrogative sentence.


----

2 dynamic

The answer on the question being put forward.
Properly speaking, from going to look outside until the uttered sign ' It is a stormy day'.

------

3 normal

The aim of the interrogator or the effects of an answer on the plan that the interrogator is going to make for the coming day.
At this stage of analysis the normal interpretant is still not saturated. The plan being the conclusion out of:
1. Question: What is the weather today?
2. Answer: It is a stormy day

Conclusion: I will act in the following way…

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

1 emotional interpretant

2 energetic interpretant

1 mental

The internal reproduction of the sign as a combination of qualisigns or as a sinsign.

---


2 physical

The urge to answer makes itself felt.


-----

1 direct object

The object as represented by the sign. The notion 'weather condition at this moment', not the specific condition of the weather at this moment.


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

2 dynamical object

The object as it is in itself. In this case, while a question is being asked, the impression (sic) of the one that is going to answer the question, for example after looking out of the window.


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

1 (knowledge)

The weatherconditions as they may occur that day.

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

2 knowledge

The weather as it would impress itself that day and that place on anybody interested in the weather condition. Distinguishing this aspect creates room for mistakes and corrections.


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

back

next

Axon File: c:\mijn documenten\semiosite\www\theorie\tijdelijkaxon\zin.xon
Last modified: 2000-10-02 16:13:51