Jon,
Thanks, so you teach that the "interpretant" (which
is a noun)
is actually naming an "interpreter" agent? That
contradicts intuition and seems odd.
It seems odd specifically to name an active agent, performing the said
interpretation,
as a noun agent
instead of as a performer of action verb agent,
specifically the "interpreter" if said interpretant wishes to participate
in the said discussion of naming the entire interpretation.
That confuses me no end if Peirceans can’t tie the theory to some
commonly understood reality for me. Is there a more fruitful description
that explains the language used and chosen for that representation?
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 7:11 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations
Rich,
A ''sign relation'' is a set of elementary sign relations,
each of which is an ordered triple of the form (o, s, i).
In each triple, o is the "object", s is the "sign",
and
i is the "interpretant sign", or "interpretant" for
short.
Another way of saying this is that a sign relation L is
a subset of the cartesian product O x S x I of three sets,
called the "object domain" O, the "sign domain" S,
and the
"interpretant (sign) domain" I.
That is the basic structure of a sign relation,
to which may be added many other dimensions of
interest, for instance, determination in time
or relative clarity of signs and interpretants.
As far as an "interpreter", "interpretive agent",
or "process of interpretation" is relevant to the
theory of sign relations, it may be identified with
the whole of some particular sign relation.
Cf. http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/SignRelation.html
Jon Awbrey
> John,
>
> While reading Peirce and related materials, I get a little
uncertain over
> the terminology that different writers use. It seems to me
that there is
> ONLY ONE relation that requires three entries, and it contains the
following
> properties:
>
> Interpretation event comprises:
> - "Sign" which is a distinct physical manifestation,
communicable, object;
> - "Referent" the interpretation placed on the sign
object;
> - "Interpretant" agent who interprets sign as referent
in her belief system.
>
>
> Do I have the terms right, or do you (and/or others) used
different terms
> for those three roles?
>
> Is the relation usually called "Interpretation" by
Peirceans, or is there a
> preferred term for that triple also?
>
> Thanks for clarifying,
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
--
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx