TEN
CLASSES OF SIGNS : UNDER THE PEIRCE'S TEXT, THE LATTICE….
Robert
Marty Red
italic are words of
Peirce highlighted by me ; when are underlined
it is because this words denote a necessity. Blue
Italic are added by me and point out the classes of signs
formalized. Diagrams repeat
the classes of signs mentioned inside every paragraph with the relations
proceeding from the lattice of the classes of signs : 254. The three
trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing Signs into TEN CLASSES OF
SIGNS, of which numerous subdivisions have to be considered. The ten classes
are as follows: First: A Qualisign [e.g., a feeling of "red"] is any quality [ 1 ] in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality [ 1 ] is whatever it is positively in itself, a
quality can only denote an object by virtue of some common ingredient or
similarity; so that a Qualisign is necessarily an Icon. Further, since a
quality is a mere logical possibility, it can only be interpreted as a sign of
essence, that is, as a Rheme [ 1 ] . 255. Second: An Iconic Sinsign
[e.g., an individual diagram] is any object of experience [ 2 ] in so far as some quality [ 1 ] of it makes it determine the idea of an
object. Being an Icon, and thus a sign by likeness purely, of whatever it may
be like, it can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, or Rheme [ 1 ]. It will embody a Qualisign . 256. Third: A Rhematic [ 1 ]
Indexical Sinsign
[e.g., a spontaneous cry] is any object of direct experience [ 2 ] so far as it directs attention to an Object
[ 2 ]
by which its presence is caused. It necessarily
involves an Iconic Sinsign of a peculiar kind, yet is quite different since it
brings the attention of the interpreter to the very Object denoted. 257. Fourth: A Dicent Sinsign [e.g., a
weathercock] is any object of direct experience [ 2 ] , in so far as it is
a sign, and, as such, affords information concerning its Object. This it can
only do by being really affected by its Object [ 2
] ; so that it is necessarily an Index. The only information it can
afford is of actual fact [ 2 ]. Such a
Sign must involve an Iconic Sinsign to
embody the information and a Rhematic Indexical
Sinsign to indicate
the Object to which the information refers. But the
mode of combination, or Syntax, of these two must also be
significant. According
to me the mode of combination or Syntax evocated by Peirce is represented by
the above diagram. 258. Fifth: An Iconic Legisign [e.g., a diagram, apart from its factual
individuality] is any general law or type [ 3 ] , in so far as it requires each instance of it to
embody a definite quality [ 1 ] which renders
it fit to call up in the mind the idea of a like object. Being an Icon, it must
be a Rheme [ 1 ]
. Being a Legisign, its mode of
being is that of governing
single Replicas, each of which will be an Iconic
Sinsign of a peculiar kind. Remember
that by 2-255 this Iconic Sinsign embody a Qualisign. 259. Sixth: A Rhematic [ 1 ] Indexical Legisign [e.g., a demonstrative pronoun] is any general type
or law [ 3 ] , however established, which requires each
instance of it [ 2 ] to be really
affected by its Object in such a manner as merely to draw attention to that
Object. Each Replica of
it will be a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign of a peculiar
kind. The Interpretant of a Rhematic Indexical Legisign represents it as an Iconic Legisign ; and so it is, in a
measure--but in a very small measure. 260. Seventh: A Dicent Indexical[
2 ]Legisign [e.g., a
street cry] is any general type or law [ 3 ] , however
established, which requires each instance of it [ 2
] to be really affected by its Object in such a manner as to
furnish definite information [ 2 ] concerning
that Object. It must involve an Iconic Legisign to
signify the information and a Rhematic Indexical
Legisign to denote the subject of that information. Each Replica of
it will be a Dicent Sinsign of a peculiar
kind. 261. Eighth: A Rhematic Symbol or Symbolic Rheme [e.g., a
common noun] is a sign connected with its Object by an association of general
ideas in such a way that its Replica [ 2 ]calls
up an image in the mind which image, owing to certain habits or dispositions of
that mind, tends to produce a general concept, and the Replica is interpreted
as a Sign of an Object that is an instance of that concept [ 3 ] . Thus, the Rhematic Symbol either is, or is
very like, what the logicians call a General Term. The Rhematic Symbol, like
any Symbol, is necessarily itself of the nature of a general type [ 3 ] ,
and is thus a Legisign. Its Replica, however, is a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign
of a peculiar kind, in that the image [ 1 ] it
suggests to the mind acts upon a Symbol already in that mind to give rise to a
General Concept [ 3 ] . In this it
differs from other Rhematic Indexical Sinsigns,
including those which are Replicas of Rhematic Indexical Legisign . Thus, the demonstrative pronoun "that" is
a Legisign, being a general type [ 3 ] ; but it is not a Symbol, since it does not
signify a general concept [ 3 ] . Its
Replica draws attention to a single Object [ 3 ],
and is a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign . A Replica of
the word "camel" is likewise a Rhematic
Indexical Sinsign ,
being really affected [ 2 ] , through
the knowledge of camels, common to the speaker and auditor, by the real camel [ 2 ] it
denotes, even if this one is not individually known to the auditor; and it is
through such real connection [ 2 ] that
the word "camel" calls up the idea [ 3 ]
of a camel. The same thing is true of the word "phoenix." For
although no phoenix really exists, real descriptions [ 2 ]of the phoenix are well known to the speaker and his
auditor; and thus the word is really affected[ 2 ] by the Object denoted. But not only are the
Replicas of Rhematic Symbol very different from ordinary Rhematic Indexical Sinsigns , but so likewise are Replicas of Rhematic Indexical Legisigns
. For the thing denoted by "that" has not
affected the replica of the word in any such direct and simple manner as that
in which, for example, the ring of a telephone-bell is affected by the person
at the other end who wants to make a communication. The Interpretant
of the Rhematic Symbol often represents it as a Rhematic Indexical Legisign
; at other times as an Iconic Legisign ; and it does
in a small measure partake of the nature of both. 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 [ 2 ] by
its Object, so that the existence [ 2 ] or law [ 3 ] 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. 263. Tenth: An Argument is a sign whose interpretant represents its
object as being an ulterior sign [ 3 ]
through a law [ 3 ], namely, the law that the passage from all
such premisses to such conclusions tends to the truth. Manifestly, then, its
object must be general [ 3 ] ; that is, the Argument must be
a Symbol. As a Symbol it must,
further, be a Legisign. Its Replica is a Dicent
Sinsign . First observation : If we start with the Argument above and we look back the classes combining every time the diagram
encounted we rebuild the entire lattice. Continuing with Peirce's text : 264.
The affinities of the ten classes are exhibited by arranging their designations
in the triangular table here shown, which has heavy boundaries between adjacent
squares that are appropriated to classes alike in only one respect. All other
adjacent squares pertain to classes alike in two respects. Squares not adjacent
pertain to classes alike in one respect only, except that each of the three
squares of the vertices of the triangle pertains to a class differing in all
three respects from the classes to which the squares along the opposite side of
the triangle are appropriated. The lightly printed designations are
superfluous. Second observation : Replacing
every square designed par Peirce by the corresponding algebraical notation,
writing an arrow when the square are adjacents excepted when the relation
(affinity) represented by the arrow is the result of a concatenation of two
existing relations ( in fact we delete the redundancies )we obtain…the lattice : Conclusion : The
extraction of the algebraical lattice of the Peirce's text is realized by means
of interpretation of the affinity between the classes of signs in terms of
morphisms between the corresponding formalized classes. It seems that it is a
progress because the affinities according to Peirce are founded on a purely formal property without
phenomelogical support. In fact the formalization add phenomelogical
interpretation of the affinities. |