Semiotics

2023-01-15 – I.W.

Peirce

Forster, Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism.

Hacking, The Taming of Chance.

Peirce, Peirce on Signs.

Stern, Hegelian Metaphysics.

anthropology

Kockelman, Agent, Person, Subject, Self.

Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

Brandom, Articulating Reasons.

Bakhtine et al., Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.

Colapietro, Pierce’s Approach to the Self.

Parmentier, Signs in Society.

Muniesa, “Market Technologies and the Pragmatics of Prices.”

Kockelman and Bernstein, “Semiotic Technologies, Temporal Reckoning, and the Portability of Meaning. Or.”

Kockelman, The Art of Interpretation in an Age of Computation.

Serres, Schehr, and Serres, The Parasite.

Jakobson, Waugh, and Monville-Burston, On Language.

Kockelman, The Anthropology of Intensity.

Singer, Man’s Glassy Essence.

Ball, “On Dicentization.”

Vasantkumar, “Towards a Commodity Theory of Token Money.”

Mertz, “Semiotic Anthropology.”

Nakassis, “A Linguistic Anthropology of Images.”

Seligman and Weller, How Things Count as the Same.

esthetics and qualia: (rheme) icon tone/token, rheme symbol (type)

Innis, Dimensions of Aesthetic Encounters.

Harkness, “The Pragmatics of Qualia in Practice.”

Ingebretson, “The Tuhao and the Bureaucrat.”

music

Cumming, The Sonic Self.

Watkins, Musical Vitalities.

diagrams: rheme icon type

Emmons, Drawing Imagining Building.

Rotman, Mathematics as Sign.

Stjernfelt, Diagrammatology.

Gangle, Diagrammatic Immanence.

Guattari, The Machinic Unconscious.

psychiatry

Schwartz, “Locating Trauma.”

Guattari, The Machinic Unconscious.

Parish, “Rhematization as Etiology in the Diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.”

biology and evolution

Hoffmeyer and Stjernfelt, “The Great Chain of Semiosis. Investigating the Steps in the Evolution of Semiotic Competence.”

Deacon, The Symbolic Species.

other

Deleuze, Cinema I.

Lazzarato, Signs and Machines.

Lucey, What Proust Heard.

religion

Yelle, Semiotics of Religion.

Janowitz, Acts of Interpretation.

D’Amato, “The Semiotics of Signlessness.”

Rambelli, A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics.

antagonists

pitfalls

  1. there are those who are interested in arguing the nature of signs and not examining their concrete usage—boring!
  2. there are many who wrongly restrict the applicability of the theory of signs (to language, to humans, to animals, etc.)—they should go back to Peirce and purify themselves of nominalism
  3. there are those who are familiar with only a limited portion of Peirce and so stretch a few terms (icon, index, symbol) too widely—they should go back to Peirce
  4. there are those who apply the theory to subjects opposed to what Peirce was primarily interested in, viz. the process of scientific inquiry that aims toward truth, not in everyday culture—i've not yet seen this mistake prove fatal

tables

sign types

————————————+
|I |V |VIII |X |
|rheme |RHEME |RHEME |ARGUMENT |
|icon |ICON |SYMBOL |symbol |
|TONE |TYPE |TYPE |type |
————————————+
    |II |VI |IX |
    |rheme |RHEME |DICENT |
    |ICON |INDEX |SYMBOL |
    |TYPE |TYPE |type |
    —————————
          |III |VII |
          |RHEME |DICENT |
          |INDEX |INDEX |
          |TOKEN |TYPE |
          ——————+
              |IV |
              |DICENT |
              |index |
              |TOKEN |
              ———

different versions

05-10-08a 05-10-08b 05-10-13 06-05-31 06-08-31 08-12-28 R795 combined
S qualisign,sinsign,legisign " ";abstraction,existent,combinant type tone,token,type tinge,"," potisign,actisign,famisign idea,token,type tone,token,type S
O1 vague,singular,general indefinite,"," " " ",designation," descriptive,"ve,copulant ",","ve descriptive,designative,copulative O1
O2 icon,index,symbol !abstract,concrete,collection " " " "ve,"ve,"ve ",",complexive abstractive,concretive,collective O2
S-O2 !icon,index,symbol … " " " " icon,index,symbolic S-O2
I1 feeling,action,sign !vague,singular,general !interrogative,imperative,significative ",",ponitive !hypothetic,categorial,relative " ","c," hypothetic,categoric,relative I1
I2 sympathy,compulsion,reason !feeling,conduct,thought ~",fact,sign ?poetic,stimulant,impressive;feeling,action,habit ~sympathetic/congruentive,shocking/percussive,usual " sympathetic,percussive,usual feeling,action,habit I2
S-I2 !sympathy,compulsion,reason ~",",representation ",",rational !interrogative/suggestive,imperative,indicative suggestive,"," ejaculative,imperative,cognificative suggestive,imperative,indicative S-I2
I3 rheme,proposition,argument … … !strange,common,novel !gratific,actuous/studious,moral/temperative/self-control ",active,self-control ",practical,pragmatistic gratification,action,self-control I3
S-I3 !… rheme,proposition,argument suggestive,assertive," seme,pheme,delome " " rheme,dicent,argument S-I3
O2-S-I3 !… abduction,deduction,induction !monadic,dyadic,triadic !abducent,inducent,deducent;instinct,experience,form instinct,experience,form " abduction,induction,deduction O2-S-I3

ordering

  1. O2
    1. O1
      1. S
        1. S-O2 > S-I2. before I1 and I2? yes/either case: there is symbol+hypothetic+feeling but not relative icon (sounds correct). no/yes case: there is relative+icon but not symbol+hypothetic. no/no case: there is self-control+icon but not symbol+gratification.
        2. I1
          1. I2
            1. S-I2 > S-I3. before or after I3? i.e. does suggestive/imperative/indicative come before or after gratification/action/self-control? yes case: indicative+gratification exists but not suggestive+self-control no case: suggestive+self-control exists but not indicative+gratification
            2. I3
              1. S-I3
                1. S-O2-I3

notes per trichotomy

1st 2nd 3rd div of
abstractive concretive collective O2
descriptive designative copulative O1
tone token type S
icon index symbol S-O2
hypothetic categoric relative I1
feeling action habit I2
suggestive imperative indicative S-I2
gratification action self-control I3
rheme dicent argument S-I3
abduction induction deduction O2-S-I3

S

  1. tone

  2. token

  3. type

O1: immediate object

  • the immediate object is like retrieval instructions for the dynamic object
  • Guidetti, “On Peirce’s Immediate Object.”

  1. descriptive

    • vague; object is subset selected from universe of discourse by means of its qualities
    • ex: "—is red"

  2. designative

    • universe of discourse is singular object
    • "like a Demonstrative pronoun, or a pointing finger, brutely direct[s] the mental eyeballs of the interpreter to the object in question, which in this case cannot be given by independent reasoning"

  3. copulative

    • general; object encompasses members of universe of discourse
    • copulatives "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely express universally the logical sequence of these latter upon something otherwise referred to"

O2

  1. abstractive

  2. concretive

  3. collective

S-O2

  1. icon

  2. index

  3. symbol

I1

  • to Hypotheticals correspond affirmations and denials of real conditioning; to Categoricals, affirmations and denials of inherence; to Relatives, affirmations and denials of existential relations.Peirce and Bellucci, Selected Writings on Semiotics, 1894-1912, 205.

  1. hypothetic

    • a proposition not expressing any identification

  2. categoric

    • the parts of a Categorical…are connected by an identification of a common element or correlate

  3. relative

    • expresses more identifications than one
      • ex: “Every mother loves her child,” “Every human adult falls in love with somebody of the opposite sex.”

I2

  1. feeling

  2. action

  3. habit

S-I2

  1. suggestive

  2. imperative

  3. indicative

I3

  1. gratification

  2. argument

  3. self-control

S-I3

  1. rheme

  2. dicent

  3. argument

O2-S-I3

  1. instinct

  2. experience

  3. form

some thoughts

  • how much does Peirce's idea of sequential determination make sense?
    • a third can determine something of any category because it contains the other categories. if we really wanted to say that e.g. a qualisign was indexical, we| would just need to say that the sign was a token with a strong qualitative component instead.
  • both the "immediate object" and S-O2 trichotomies| seem intermediate between sign and object. are |they really

Jakobson/Kockelman

context/object (referential)
message/sign (poetic)
speaker/signer (emotive) addressee/interpreter (conative)
contact/channel S-I (phatic)
code S-O (metalingual)

duplex categories

M/M reported speech S/S signer-addressed signer X→Y→Z
M/C meta-language S/Ch channel-directed signer X→(Y→Z)
C//C proper names Ch//Ch self-channelling channels X→(X→)
C//M shifters Ch//S source-dependent channels X→X

S/S, S/Ch ≈ Serres' parasite

<2026-07-15 三>

working on the Complete System a little. suppose we take for granted that the sequence goes O2 - S - S-O2. what will the combinations of these actually look like? do they make sense?

1 2 3
O2 abstractive concretive collective
S tone token type
S-O2 icon index symbol
O1 unbound existential universal

O2:1 abstractive

  1. S:1 tone

    1. S-02:1 icon

      a feeling of red

O2:2 concretive

  1. S:1 tone

    1. S-02:1 icon

      the taste (1 tone) of a madeleine evokes (1 icon) memories of specific events (2 concretive)

  2. S:2 token

    1. S-02:1 icon

      an image of Jesus represents the person (2 concretive), although the artist never saw his features.

    2. S-02:2 index

      an empty desk (2 token) marks (2 index) the absence of your sick classmate (2 concretive)

O2:3 collective

  1. S:1 tone

    1. S-02:1 icon

      someone puts on an accent (1 tone) characteristic (1 icon) of French people (3 collective)

  2. S:2 token

    1. S-02:1 icon

      a cartoon (2 token) caricatures (1 icon) "hipsters" (3 collective)

    2. S-02:2 index

      the scuffing (2 token) on the metro wall conveys (2 index) the mean height of urbanites (3 collective) resting a foot against it as they wait for their trains

  3. S:3 type

    1. S-02:1 icon

      the structure (3 type) of a kinship chart analogically dissects (1 icon) a typical clan (3 collective)

    2. S-02:2 index

      crowns (3 type) stands by metonymy (2 index) for kings (3 collective)

    3. S-02:3 symbol

      the word "crow" (3 type) represents (3 symbol) crows (3 collective)

S-02 × O1

O1 should follow S-02. proof: think about it.

  1. S-02:1 icon

    1. 01:1 descriptive

      a diagram depicts (1 icon) how a machine (1 descriptive) could function

  2. S-02:2 index

    1. 01:1 descriptive

      tracks on the ground indicate (2 index) that a deer (1 descriptive) has passed

    2. 01:2 designative

      the emperor's seal proves (2 index) that he (2 designative) has approved the message

  3. S-02:3 symbol

    1. 01:1 descriptive

      "a red thing" (i reserve the choice of which)

    2. 01:2 designative

      "the red thing" (there is a particular one)

    3. 01:3 copulative

      "red things" (in all cases)

<2026-07-17 五>

interpretant stuff

1 2 3
unbound existential universal O1
locutionary term proposition argument S-I3
illocutionary clamatory imperrogative asserted I1
causality presented urged submitted S-I2
perlocutionary feeling fact belief/habit I2
inferential abducent inducent deducent O2-I3
gratification action self-control I3
  1. does the O1 triad work? not if these should all be propositions.
  2. illocutionary vs locutionary
    1. can a sign in the indicative mood be a term or proposition? YES? indicative term: "_ is red"; imperative term: "_, scram" maybe indicative "propositions" must actually all be arguments
    2. can a sign in the suggestive mood be a proposition or argument? YES?
    3. okay the illocutionary triad simply can't work. "Socrates is mortal" should be an indicative sentence by any ordinary definition, yet if the triad is positioned this far down, then all indicative signs must have collective objects, etc.
  3. locutionary vs illocutionary vs causality
    1. term (S-I3:1)
      1. clamatory (I1:1) presented (S-I2:1): a cry of shock
    2. proposition (S-I3:2)
      1. clamatory (I1:1) presented (S-I2:1): unasserted propositional content
      2. imperrogative (I1:2) presented (S-I2:1): a question
      3. imperrogative (I1:2) urged (S-I2:2): a command
    3. argument (S-I3:3)
      1. clamatory (I1:1) presented (S-I2:1): unasserted argument
      2. imperrogative (I1:2) presented (S-I2:1): argument ending in a question
      3. imperrogative (I1:2) urged (S-I2:2): argument ending in a command—applying a law or a rule of behavior?
      4. asserted (I1:3) presented (S-I2:1): a melody?
      5. asserted (I1:3) urged (S-I2:2): an argument with only implicit premises, i.e. an assertion
      6. asserted (I1:3) submitted (S-I2:3): an argument given with explicit premises
  4. locutionary vs causality

    1. causality (S-I2) is explicitly subsequent to locutionary (S-I3)

      1st, an argument only may be submitted to its interpretant, as something the reasonableness of which will be acknowledged. 2nd[,] an argument or dicent may be urged upon the interpretant by an act of insistence. 3rd[,] Argument or dicent may and a rheme can only be, presented to the interpretant for contemplation.Bellucci, Pierce’s speculative grammar, 300–301.

  5. causality vs perlocutionary
    1. can a sign that achieves its effect by rational means result in a feeling or fact? YES? you elicit feeling or action by rational argument
    2. can a sign that achieves its effect by sympathetic means result in a fact or belief/habit? NO, that sounds odd, like "evoking" someone into action or belief

testing moods

  • indicative
    • "Ugliness is badness."
      • token (S:3) proposition (O2-S-I3:2)
      • objects are both abstractive (O2:1) and descriptive (O1:1)
    • "The ugly are bad. You are ugly. Therefore you are bad."
      • token (S:3) argument (O2-S-I3:3)
      • objects are both collective (O2:3) and copulant (O1:3; all X…)
  • imperative
    • minimal: "Scram!" (implicitly: you are to scram)
    • complex: "If the king of the Jews is born, let all boys aged two and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem be killed. He is. Therefore, do it"
      • token (S:3) argument (O2-S-I3:3)
      • contains a collective (O2:3) object described copulatively (all X meeting Y conditions)

it would be desirable for a taxonomy of signs to shed light on… <2026-07-21 二>

creating rules <2026-07-22 三>

bibliography

Bakhtine, Mikhaïl, Vern W. McGee, Caryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 8. Austin: University of Texas press, 1986.
Ball, Christopher. “On Dicentization.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 24, no. 2 (2014): 151–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12046.
Bellucci, Francesco. Peirce’s speculative grammar: logic as semiotics. Routledge studies in American philosophy 11. New York (N.Y.): Routledge, 2018.
Brandom, Robert. Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. 3. print. Cambridge, Mass. London: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Colapietro, Vincent Michael. Pierce’s Approach to the Self: A Semiotic Perspective on Human Subjectivity. SUNY Series in Philosophy. Albany, NY: State university of New York press, 1989.
Cumming, Naomi. The Sonic Self: Musical Subjectivity and Signification. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000.
D’Amato, Mario. “The Semiotics of Signlessness: A Buddhist Doctrine of Signs” 2003, no. 147 (November 18, 2003): 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2003.090.
Deacon, Terrence W. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. 1st ed. Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar: W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated, 1998.
Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema I: The Movement-Image. Bloomsbury Revelations Ser. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, 2013.
Emmons, Paul. Drawing Imagining Building: Embodiment in Architectural Design Practices. New York: Routledge, 2019.
Forster, Paul. Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2011.
Gangle, Rocco. Diagrammatic Immanence: Category Theory and Philosophy. Edinburgh University Press, 2015.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday Anchor Books. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959. http://books.google.com/books?id=HSpHAAAAMAAJ.
Guattari, Félix. The Machinic Unconscious. Semiotext(e), 2010.
Guidetti, Giacomo. “On Peirce’s Immediate Object.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 57, no. 3 (2021): 299–318. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48679889.
Hacking, Ian. The Taming of Chance. 12. print. Ideas in Context 17. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.
Harkness, Nicholas. “The Pragmatics of Qualia in Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology 44 (October 21, 2015): 573–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030032.
Hoffmeyer, Jesper, and Frederik Stjernfelt. “The Great Chain of Semiosis. Investigating the Steps in the Evolution of Semiotic Competence.” Biosemiotics 9, no. 1 (April 1, 2016): 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9247-y.
Ingebretson, Britta. “The Tuhao and the Bureaucrat: The Qualia of ‘Quality’ in Rural China.” Signs and Society 5, no. 2 (2017): 243–68. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/signs-and-society/article/tuhao-and-the-bureaucrat-the-qualia-of-quality-in-rural-china/AF1B0465DD3F734B6408E38309B42B1A.
Innis, Robert E. Dimensions of Aesthetic Encounters: Perception, Interpretation, and the Signs of Art. SUNY Series in American Philosophy and Cultural Thought Ser. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2022.
Jakobson, Roman, Linda R. Waugh, and Monique Monville-Burston. On Language. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard university press, 1990.
Janowitz, Naomi. Acts of Interpretation: Ancient Religious Semiotic Ideologies and Their Modern Echoes. Religion and Reason, Volume 66. Berlin Boston (Mass.): De Gruyter, 2022.
Kockelman, Paul. Agent, Person, Subject, Self: A Theory of Ontology, Interaction, and Infrastructure. OUP USA, 2012.
———. The Anthropology of Intensity: Language, Culture, and Environment. New Departures in Anthropology. Cambridge ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
———. The Art of Interpretation in an Age of Computation. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Kockelman, Paul, and Anya Bernstein. “Semiotic Technologies, Temporal Reckoning, and the Portability of Meaning. Or: Modern Modes of Temporality – Just How Abstract Are They?” Anthropological Theory 12, no. 3 (September 2012): 320–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499612463308.
Lazzarato, Maurizio. Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents 1.0. MIT Press, 2014.
Lucey, Michael. What Proust Heard: Novels and the Ethnography of Talk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022.
Mertz, Elizabeth. “Semiotic Anthropology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 36, no. 1 (2007): 337–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094417.
Muniesa, Fabian. “Market Technologies and the Pragmatics of Prices.” Economy and Society 36, no. 3 (August 2007): 377–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701428340.
Nakassis, Constantine V. “A Linguistic Anthropology of Images.” Annual Review of Anthropology 52 (October 23, 2023): 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-092147.
Parish, Ayden. “Rhematization as Etiology in the Diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Colorado Research in Linguistics 24, no. 1 (June 4, 2019). https://doi.org/10.33011/cril.24.1.6.
Parmentier, Richard J. Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington [Ind.] Indianapolis [Ind.]: Indiana university press, 1994.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic. University of North Carolina Press, 1991.
Peirce, Charles Sanders, and Francesco Bellucci. Selected Writings on Semiotics, 1894-1912. Walter de Gruyter, 2020.
Rambelli, Fabio. A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics: Signs, Ontology, and Salvation in Japanese Esoteric Buddhism. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
Rotman, Brian. Mathematics as Sign: Writing, Imagining, Counting. Writing Science. Stanford (Calif.): Stanford university press, 2000.
Schwartz, Murray M. “Locating Trauma: A Commentary on Ruth Leys’s "Trauma: A Genealogy".” Edited by Ruth Leys. American Imago 59, no. 3 (2002): 367–84. https://doi.org/10/bn2x2b.
Seligman, Adam B., and Robert P. Weller. How Things Count as the Same: Memory, Mimesis, and Metaphor. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Serres, Michel, Lawrence R. Schehr, and Michel Serres. The Parasite. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1982.
Singer, Milton B. Man’s Glassy Essence: Explorations in Semiotic Anthropology. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana university press, 1984.
Stern, Robert. Hegelian Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2009.
Stjernfelt, Frederik, ed. Diagrammatology: An Investigation On The Borderlines Of Phenomenology, Ontology, And Semiotics. Vol. 336. Synthese Library. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5652-9.
Vasantkumar, Chris. “Towards a Commodity Theory of Token Money: On ‘Gold Standard Thinking in a Fiat Currency World’.” Journal of Cultural Economy 12, no. 4 (July 4, 2019): 317–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2019.1614086.
Watkins, Holly. Musical Vitalities: Ventures in a Biotic Aesthetics of Music. University of Chicago Press, 2018.
Yelle, Robert A. Semiotics of Religion: Signs of the Sacred in History. Advances in Semiotics. London ; New York: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2012.