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
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?
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 7:11 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations
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",
i is the "interpretant sign", or "interpretant" for
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,
"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.
> While reading Peirce and related materials, I get a little
> the terminology that different writers use. It seems to me
that there is
> ONLY ONE relation that requires three entries, and it contains the
> Interpretation event comprises:
> - "Sign" which is a distinct physical manifestation,
> - "Referent" the interpretation placed on the sign
> - "Interpretant" agent who interprets sign as referent
in her belief system.
> Do I have the terms right, or do you (and/or others) used
> 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 Cooper
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
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