Abstract
Attempts to explain Peirce’s various classifications of signs have been a preoccupation of many Peirce scholars. Opinions are mixed about the sense, coherence, and fruitfulness of Peirce’s various versions, particularly the latter ones. I argue here that it is not a fruitful enterprise, even if sense could be made of them. Although Peirce makes his motivations for the classification of the sciences fairly explicit, it’s hard to find Peirce’s reasons for sign classification. More importantly, I try to make the case that such classifications are premised on a reductionist framework of semiosis that is contrary to the irreducible triadic character of signs that Peirce otherwise espouses. The reductionism is the result of Peirce’s use of certain models for his sign classifications, in particular, Mendeleev’s periodic table. I suggest that the remedy for the reductionism is to re-emphasize the processual and functional view of semiosis, rather than to focus on particular classes of signs. Corresponding to the three triadic conditions of semiosis, I argue that signs function to inform, represent or refer, and interpret, and that understanding these three function and how they interrelate may prove to be a more fruitful approach to sign analysis than sign classification.
References
Annelis, Irving & Francine Abeles. 2016. The historical sources of tree graphs and the tree method in the work of Peirce and Gentzen. In Francine Abeles & Mark Fuller (eds.), Modern logic 1850–1950, east and west, 35–98. Berlin: Birkhauser.10.1007/978-3-319-24756-4_3Search in Google Scholar
Atkin, Albert. 2005. Peirce on the index and indexical reference. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 41(1). 161–188.Search in Google Scholar
Atkins, Richard. 2010. An entirely different series of categories: Peirce’s material categories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46(1). 94–110.10.2979/tra.2010.46.1.94Search in Google Scholar
Bekesy, Georg. 1957. The ear. Scientific American 197(2). 66–79.10.1038/scientificamerican0857-66Search in Google Scholar
Bergman, Mats. 2009. Peirce’s philosophy of communication. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Borges, Priscilla. 2010. A visual model of Peirce’s 66 classes of signs unravels his late proposal of enlarging semiotic theory. In Lorenzo Magnani, Walter Carnielli & Claudio Pizzi (eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology: Abduction, logic and computational discovery, 221–238. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_12Search in Google Scholar
Colapietro, Vincent. 1989. Peirce’s approach to the self. Albany: SUNY Press.Search in Google Scholar
De Tienne, Andre. 2005. Information in formation: A Peircean approach. Cognitio 6(2). 149–165.Search in Google Scholar
Dipert, Randall. 1996. Reflections on iconicity, representation, and resemblance: Peirce’s theory of signs, Goodman on resemblance, and modern philosophies of language and mind. Synthese 106(3). 373–397.10.1007/BF00413591Search in Google Scholar
Elkins, James. 2003. What does Peirce’s sign theory have to say to art history? Culture, Theory, and Critique 44(1). 5–22.10.1080/1473578032000110440Search in Google Scholar
Farias, P. & J. Queiroz. 2003. On diagrams for Peirce’s 10, 28, and 66 classes of signs. Semiotica 147(1/4). 165–184.10.1515/semi.2003.089Search in Google Scholar
Fisch, Max. 1982. Introduction. In M. Fisch, C. Kloesel, E. Moore & D. Roberts (eds.), The writings of Charles S. Peirce, volume 1: 1857–1866, xv–xxxv. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fisch, Max. 1986. Peirce, semiotic and pragmatism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Greenlee, Douglas. 1973. Peirce’s concept of sign. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.10.1515/9783110886443Search in Google Scholar
Guerri, Claudio. 2016. Nonágono semiótico. Un modelo operative para la investigación cualitativa, 2nd edn. Buenos Aires: Ediciones UNL.Search in Google Scholar
Guerri, Claudio. 2018. Philosophy and symmetry in the semiotic nonagon. Retrieved from http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/vismath/visbook/guerri/index.html.Search in Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. 1962 [1866]. Treatise on physiological optics. New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar
Houser, Nathan. 1992. Introduction. In Nathan Houser & Christian Kloesel (eds.), The essential Peirce, vol. 2. xix–xli. Bloomington, In Indiana University Press.10.2307/j.ctvpwhg1zSearch in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1977. A few remarks on Peirce, pathfinder in the science of language. Modern Language Notes 92(5). 1026–1032.10.1515/9783110855463.248Search in Google Scholar
Jappy, Anthony. 1984. Peirce’s third trichotomy and two cases of sign path analysis. Semiotica 49(1/2). 15–26.10.1515/semi.1984.49.1-2.15Search in Google Scholar
Jappy, Anthony. 1989. Peirce’s sixty-six signs revisited. In Gerard Deledalle (ed.), Semiotics and pragmatics, 143–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.18.13japSearch in Google Scholar
Jappy, Tony. 2017. Peirce’s twenty-eight classes of signs and the philosophy of representation. New York: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781474264860Search in Google Scholar
Kent, Beverley. 1987. Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the classification of the sciences. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kragh, Helge. 2010. Auroral chemistry: The riddle of the green line. Bulletin of the History of Chemistry 35(2). 97–104.Search in Google Scholar
Lieb, Irwin C. 1977 [1953]. On Peirce’s classification of signs. In C. S. Hardwick (ed.). Semiotics and significs: The correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby, 160–166. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liszka, James J. 1996. A general introduction to the semiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liszka, James Jakόb. 2009. Re-thinking the pragmatic theory of meaning. Cognitio 10(1). 61–80.Search in Google Scholar
Liszka, James Jakόb. 2016. How signs convey information. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12(1). 45–66.10.1515/css-2016-0005Search in Google Scholar
Marty, Robert. 1990. L’algèbre des signes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.24Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Ralf. 1994. On the principles of construction and the order of Peirce’s trichotomies of signs. Transactions of Charles S. Peirce Society 30(1). 135–153.Search in Google Scholar
Parmentier, Richard. 1985. Signs’ place in medias res: Peirce’s concept of semiotic mediation. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic mediation: Sociolcultural and psychological perspectives, 23–48. Orlando: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50008-XSearch in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1897. Anonymous review of Mendeleev’s Principles of Chemistry. The Nation 25. 424.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce. vol. 8. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1967. Manuscripts in the Houghton library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. [Reference to Peirce’s manuscripts will be designated MS or L.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1976. The new elements of mathematics. vol. 4. C. Eisele (ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. [Reference to Peirce’s New Elements will be designated NEM followed by volume and page number.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1982–. Writings of Charles S. Peirce. vol. 6. M. Fisch, E. Moore & C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s writings will be designated W followed by volume and page number.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. vol. 2. 1893–1913. Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. & Lady Victoria Welby. 1977. Semiotic and significs. Charles S. Hardwick (ed.). Bloomington: Indianapolis University Press. [Reference to this work will be designated SS followed by page number.].Search in Google Scholar
Queiroz, João. 2012. Peirce’s ten classes of signs: Modeling biosemiotic processes and systems. In Semiotics in the wild: Essays in honor of Kalevi Kull on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, Timo Maran, Kati Lindstrom, Riin Magnus and MOrten Tonnessen (eds.). 55–62. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Queiroz, Joao & Charbel El-Hani. 2007. On Peirce’s notion of information: Remarks on De Tienne’s paper “information in formation.”. Cognitio 8(2). 289–298.Search in Google Scholar
Queiroz, João, Claus Emmeche & El-Hani. Charbel. 2008. A Peircean approach to “information” and its relationship with Bateson’s and Jablonka’s ideas. American Journal of Semiotics 24(1–3). 75–94.10.5840/ajs2008241/36Search in Google Scholar
Ransdell, Joseph. 1992. Teleology and the autonomy of the semiosis process. In Michel Balat & Janice Deledalle-Rhodes (eds.), Signs of humanity, vol. 1. 43–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, Gary. 1970. Peirce’s sixty-six signs? Transactions of Charles Sanders Peirce Society 6(1). 3–16.Search in Google Scholar
Savan, David. 1977. Questions concerning certain classifications claimed for signs. Semiotica 9(3/4). 179–195.10.1515/semi.1977.19.3-4.179Search in Google Scholar
Short, T. L. 2007. Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498350Search in Google Scholar
Spinks, C. W. 1991. Peirce and triadomania: A walk in the semiotic wilderness. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110854114Search in Google Scholar
Weiss, Paul & Arthur Burks. 1945. Peirce’s sixty-six signs. Journal of Philosophy 5. 383–388.10.2307/2019195Search in Google Scholar
Wever, Ernest. 1949. Theory of hearing. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Zannos, Susan. 2005. Dmitri Mendeleyev and the periodic table. Hockessin, DE: Mitchell Lane.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
