SCIENCE and EDUCATION a NEW DIMENSION PHILOLOGY Issue 44

Chinese Semiotic Studies, 2019

"Foundations of the theory of signs," published by Charles W. Morris in 1938, deals with the relations between semiotics and science, and those between semiosis and semiotics, among others. Compared with previous research regarding the aspects of semiotics being meta-science, the three dimensions of semiosis, semiotic as organon of the sciences, etc., this article does push forward the development of linguistics and semiotics since the late 1930s. However, its discussions on semiotics being meta-science, the nature and classification of signs, the three dimensions of semiosis, organism in the sign relations, universals and universality of signs, and thing-language are either not logically rigid or inadequate in content and scope. For a piece of work discussing the theoretical foundations of signs, it does not consider sign transformation, a universal and ubiquitous sign activity, which is not consistent with the keyword "foundations" in its title. A critical analysis of these problems involving the aspects mentioned above may not only enrich the visions of triadic sign relations, semiotics, and translation semiotics, but also inspire future semiotic studies and even other new research related to signs.

2015

Abstract. In the paper an attempt is made to treat the basic concepts of biosemiotics and semiotics of culture in a wide intellectual context. The three leading paradigms of the current intellectual discourse are distinguished, which could be conventionally designated as “classical”, “modern ” and “postmodern”: Peirce’s semiosis stands for the classical, Umwelt for the modern and semiosphere for the postmodern semiotic space. I must start with an apology: although several biological and philo-sophical terms and constructions will be discussed, my paper is related to neither of those fields. One of the reasons is that I am a complete ignoramus in biology and allergic to philosophy. Thus, I will focus on the perspective of cultural semiotics, analysing the mentioned pheno-mena from the aspect which is close to Michel Foucault’s archaeology of knowledge (Foucault 1970, 1972). Before treating Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt, we should briefly consider the intellectual context, where this con...

1976

I. Every sign is "connected with three th ingsl the groundl the objectl and the inter-pretant."1 II. In Morris' analysis of the dimensions of semiotic 2 we find the semanticl pragmatic and syntactic associated respectively with the objectl the interpretant and the "sign verhicle" of a sign. II I. Bense and Wa/ther3 consider the sign as a triadic relation, the mean (Mittel) I the object (Objekt) and the interpretant (I nterpretant) considered as domains opening the perspective to a system-theoretical approach to the sign. lt is quite evident that ground (Peirce) and sign vehicle (Morris) are not identicall but related. The same goes about the mean (Bense). In the first case we had the division into three branches: pure grammarl logic proper and pure rhetoric 4 ; in the secondl the "dimensions of semiotic" (semanticl pragmaticl syntactic); in the third: repertory (Repertoire) I sphere of objects (Bereich) and field of meanings (Bedeu-tung) 5 • A strict semiotical approach should consider both the historical developement (Peirce, 1897; Morris, 1938; Bense et al. 1971.-I did not mention F. de Saussurel who considered the sign from a different perspective) and the systematical. The decision to restriet the analysis of sign from the perspective of the set theory only to repertory * will at least prevent several possible misunderstandings. No matter how .disputable this could bel the sign is represented by a relation such as S = R(M 1 0 1 I) (a) according to Bimse, or by a graphical representation such as fig. 1 accord i ng to Walther. At least in principle the relation R might be consideredl up to a pointl an intersection in the terms of set theory orl rather fuzzy set theory I so that a given sign expresses the relation between a m' ean (m)l an object (o) and an interpreter (i). This can be shown through a pictorial representation (the Venn diagram). Of coursei restricting ourselves to the repertory the sign should be considered as s = (ml 0 1 i) EM x OM x IM (ß) * "Wir haben festgestellt, daß mit der Mengentheorie tatsächlich nur Repertoire-Relationen darstellbar sind, daß aber zur mathematischen Darstellung etwa der 0-Bezüge und I-Bezüge unbe-dingt die mathematische Kategorie-Theorie (MacLane) sowie die Ordinalzahltheorie John von Neumanns besser geeignet, ja notwendig sind ," (according to Max Benses suggestion)

2001

The paper tracks the major changes Peirce brought to the classifications of signs in the Harvard Lectures on Pragmaticism, and the Lowell Lectures, both of 1903. These changes turn on the discovery of the need to include in the theory of signs an account of the thinghood and the eventhood of signs. This discovery becomes the "First Trichotomy" of the classification into three trichotomies and ten classes. It investigates the significance of these changes, both for the scope of sign theory, and for the function sign theory has to play in the mature pragmatism.

In this commentary, I reply to the fourteen papers published in the Sign Systems Studies special issue on Peirce's Theory of Signs, with a view on connecting some of their central themes and theses and in putting some of the key points in those papers into a wider perspective of Peirce's logic and philosophy.

Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2003

2001

The paper tracks the modifications Peirce brought to the classification of signs and its theoretical rational between 1867 and 1885. These changes are: (1) the shift from a grounding in speculative psychology to one in logic; (2) the integration of the three kinds of sign into the work of logic; (3) the consequent modifications brought to the criteria for each of the classes. These changes look forward to the progressive pragmaticisation of semioticand hence, to the elaboration of its role in Pragmatism.

Sign Systems Studies, 2014

The paper discusses the theory of semiosis in the context of Peirce’s philosophy of evolution. Focussing on the thesis that symbols grow by incorporating indices and icons, it proposes answers to the following questions: What does Peirce mean by the “self-development of signs” in nature and culture and by symbols as living things? How do signs grow? Do all signs grow, or do only symbols grow? Does the growth of signs presuppose semiotic agency, and if so, who are the agents in semiosis when signs and sign systems grow? The paper discusses objections raised by culturalists and historical linguists against the assumption that signs can still grow and are still growing in complex cultures, and it draws parallels and points out differences between Peirce’s theory of semiotic growth and the theories of memetics and teleosemiotics.

Chinese Semiotic Studies, 2018

Previous semiotic research classified human signs into linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs, with reference to human language and the writing system as the core members of the sign family. However, this classification cannot cover all the types of translation in the broad sense in terms of sign transformation activities. Therefore, it is necessary to reclassify the signs that make meaning into tangible signs and intangible signs based on the medium of the signs. Whereas tangible signs are attached to the outer medium of the physical world, intangible signs are attached to the inner medium of the human cerebral nervous system. The three types of transformation, which are namely from tangible signs into tangible signs, from tangible signs into intangible signs, and from intangible signs into tangible signs, lay a solid foundation for the categorization of sign activities in translation semiotics. Such a reclassification of signs can not only enrich semiotic theories of sign types, human communication, and sign-text interpretation, but also inspire new research on translation types, the translation process, translators' thinking systems and psychology, and the mechanism of machine translation.

Tartu : Tartu University Press eBooks, 2005

Postmodern methodology in the human sciences and philosophy reverses the Aristotelian laws of thought such that (1) non-contradiction, (2) excluded middle, (3) contradiction, and (4) identity become the ground for analysis. The illustration of the postmodern logic is Peirce's (1) interpretant. (2) symbol, (3) index, and (4) icon. The thesis is illustrated using the work of Merleau-Ponty and Foucault and the le тёте et I 'autre discourse sign where the ratio [Self:Same :: Other:Different] explicates the communicology of Roman Jakobson in the conjunctions and disjunctions, appositions and oppo sitions of discours, parole, langue, and langage.