SUO: Re: Semiotics Formalization
Semiotic SIG,
Here is a passage from Peirce that is decisive in clearing up
the relationship between the interpreter and the interpretant,
and, not by coincidence, has some bearing on the placement of
concepts as symbols, as their principal aspects are refracted
across the spectrum of sign modalities.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| I think we need to reflect upon the circumstance that every word
| implies some proposition or, what is the same thing, every word,
| concept, symbol has an equivalent term -- or one which has become
| identified with it, -- in short, has an 'interpretant'.
|
| Consider, what a word or symbol is; it is a sort of representation.
| Now a representation is something which stands for something. ...
| A thing cannot stand for something without standing 'to' something
| 'for' that something. Now, what is this that a word stands 'to'?
| Is it a person? We usually say that the word 'homme' stands to
| a Frenchman for 'man'. It would be a little more precise to say
| that it stands to the Frenchman's mind -- to his memory. It is
| still more accurate to say that it addresses a particular remembrance
| or image in that memory. And what 'image', what remembrance? Plainly,
| the one which is the mental equivalent of the word 'homme' -- in short,
| its interpretant. Whatever a word addresses then or 'stands to', is its
| interpretant or identified symbol. ...
|
| The interpretant of a term, then, and that which it stands to are identical.
| Hence, since it is of the very essence of a symbol that it should stand 'to'
| something, every symbol -- every word and every 'conception' -- must have an
| interpretant -- or what is the same thing, must have information or implication.
|
| (Peirce, CE 1, 466-467).
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
In other developments:
Michigan State 27
Notre Dame 21
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤