Peirce - 76 Definitii Ale Semnului

Home Page Special Resources

[NOTE: This file is 112k, which is quite long.Let it load completely before using it.]

76 Definitions of The Sign by C. S. Peircecollected and analyzed by

Robert MartyDepartment of Mathematics

University of PerpignanPerpignan, France

With an Appendix of12 Further Definitions or Equivalents

proposed byAlfred Lang

Dept of PsychologyUniversity of BernBern, Switzerland

NOTE: This is a copy, with slight changes in formatting, of a document the originalof which is to be found at Robert Marty's website, as part of a larger project onPeircean semiotics which Professor Marty has underway there. The presentmaterial is available at Marty's website in French and Spanish as well as English.Quotations from the present document should be verified against the version atthe website: we will try to keep them in agreement by updating one whenever theother is modified, if it involves a scholarly correction, but this is not guaranteed ata given time. It should also be understood that these have not yet been proofreadhere at Arisbe against the originals in Peirce. Also included below is Marty's global analysis of these definitions, and, inaddition, some further definitions supplied by Alfred Lang from his own researchinto Peirce. The latter originally appear on a separate webpage in Marty's websitebut are reproduced here on this same page below, rather than made accessible byan external link, to help insure accessibility in case of bad network connections.The possibility of transcriptional error should be borne in mind here, too, asmentioned above. [Ed. Note, J. Ransdell, 7/1/97]

Abbreviations:MS = ManuscriptsCP = Collected Papers of Charles PeirceNEM = New Elements of MathematicsSS = Semiotics and Significs: Letters to Lady Welby

DATED TEXTS (dates according to R. Robin)

1 - 1865 - MS 802 - Teleogical logic .

Peirce's Arisbe: R. Marty's 76 DEFINITIONS OF THE SIGN BY C.S. ... file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MV%20HOME/My%20Doc...

1 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

Representation is anything which is or is represented to stand for another and by whichthat other may be stood for by something which may stand for the representation.

Thing is that for which a representation stand prescinded from all that can serve toestablish a relation with any possible relation.

Form is that respect in which a representation stands for a thing prescinded from all thatcan serve as the basis of a representation, therefore from its connection with the thing.

2 - 1867 - C.P. 1-554 - On a new list of categories .

[...] every comparison requires, besides the related thing, the ground, and the correlate,also a (mediating representation which) (represents the relate to be a representation ofthe same correlate) (which this mediating representation itself represents). Such amediating representation may be termed an (interpretant), who says that a foreigner saysthe same thing which he himself says.

3 - 1868 - C.P. 5-283 - Consequences of four incapacities .

[...] Now a sign has, as such, three references : first, it is a sign to some thought whichinterprets it; second, it is a sign for some object to which in that thought it is equivalent,third, it is a sign, in some respect or quality, which brings it into connection with itsobject. Let us ask what the three correlates are to which a thought-sign refers.

4 - 1873 - MS 380 - Of logic as a study of signs .

A sign is something which stands for another thing to a mind. To it existence as suchthree things are requisite. On the first place, it must have characters which shall enable usto distinguish it from other objects. In the second place, it must be affected in some wayby the object which it signified or at least something about it must vary as a consequenceof a real causation with some variation of its object.

5 - 1873 - C.P. 7-356 - Logic. Chapter 5 .

Let us examine some of the characters of signs in general. A sign must in the first placehave some qualities in itself which serve to distinguish it, a word must have a peculiarsound different from the sound of another word; but it makes no difference what thesound is, so long as it is something distinguishable. In the next place, a sign must have areal physical connection with the thing it signifies so as to be affected by that thing. Aweather-cock, which is a sign of the direction of the wind, must really turn with the wind.This word in this connection is an indirect one; but unless there be some way or otherwhich shall connect words with the things they signifie, and shall ensure theircorrespondance with them, they have no value as signs of those things. Whatever hasthese two characters is fit to become a sign. It is at least a symptom, but it is not actuallya sign unless it is used as such; that is unless it is interpreted to thought and addressesitself to some mind. As thought is itself a sign we may express this by saying that the signmust be interpreted as another sign. [...]

6 - v. 1873,- MS 389 - On representations .

A representation is an object which stands for another so that an experience of theformer affords us a knowledge of the latter. There are three essential conditions to whichevery representation must conform. It must in the first place like any other object havequalities independent of its meaning. It is only through a knowledge of these that weacquire any information concerning the object it represents.[...] In the second place,


2 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

representation must have a real causal connection to its object. [...] In the third place,every representation addresses itself to a mind. It is only in as far as it does it that it is arepresentation. The idea of the representation itself excites in the mind another idea andin order that it may do this it is necessary that some principle of association between thetwo ideas should already be established in that mind. [...]

7 - 1885 - 3-360 - On the algebra of logic .

A sign is in a conjoint relation tothe thing denoted and to the mind. If this triple relation isnot of a degenerate species, the sign is related to its object only in consequence of amental association, and depend upon a habit. Such signs are always abstract and general,because because habits are general rules to which the organism has become subjected.They are, for the most part, conventional or arbitrary. They include all general words, themain body of speech, and any mode of conveying a judgement. For the sake of brevity Iwill call them tokens.

8 - 1896 - C.P. 1-480 - The logic of mathematics .

[...] Indeed, representation necessary involves a genuine triad. For it involves a sign, orrepresentamen, of some kind, inward or outward, mediating between an object and aninterpreting thought. [...]

9 - v. 1897_- C.P. 2-228 - Division of signs .

A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in somerespect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person anequivalent sign or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call theinterpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for thatobject, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimescalled the ground of the representamen. [...]

10 - v 1899 - C.P. 1-564 - Notes on "A new list of categories" .

[...] A very broad and important class of triadics characters [consist of] representations.A representation is that character of a thing by virtue of which, for the production of acertain mental effect, it may stand in place of another thing. The thing having thischaracter I term a representamen, the mental effect, or thought, its interpretant, the thingfor which it stands, its object.

11 -l901- C.P. 5-569 -CP 5-569. Truth and falsity and error .

[...] A sign is only a sign in actu by virtue of its receiving an interpretation, that is, byvirtue of its determining another sign of the same object. This is as true of mentaljudgments as it is of external signs.[...]

12 - 1902 - C.P. 2.303 - Dictionary Baldwin - "Sign" .

Anything which determines something else (its interpretant) to refer to an object to whichitself refers (its object) in the same way, the interpretant becoming in turn a sign, and soon an infinitum.

No doubt, intelligent consciousness must enter into the series. If the series of successiveinterpretants comes to an end, the sign is thereby rendered imperfect, at least. If, aninterpretant idea having been determined in an individual consciousness it determines nooutward sign, but that consciousness becomes annihilated, or otherwise loses all memoryor other significant effect of the sign, it becomes absolutely undiscoverable that there


3 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

ever was such an idea in that consciousness; and in that case it is difficult to see how itcould have any meaning to say that that consciousness ever had the idea, since the sayingso would be an interpretant of that idea.

13 - 1902-2.92 - Partial synopsis of a proposed work in logic .

[...] Genuine mediation is the character of a Sign. A sign is anything which is related to aSecond thing, its Object, in respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing,its Interpretant, into relation to the same Object, and that in such a way as to bring aFourth into relation to that Object in the same form, ad infinitum. If the series is brokenoff, the Sign, in so far, falls short of the perfect significant character. It is not necessarythat the Interpretant should actually exist. A being in futuro will suffice.

14 - 1902 - NEM IV pp. 20 - 2. Parts of Carnegie Applications .

On the definition of Logic.

Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. A definition of a sign will be given whichnot more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place with aparticle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is something, A,which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the samesort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stand to C. Itis from this definition, together with a definition of "formal", thah I deducemathematically the principles of logic. [...]

15 - v. 1902 - C.P. 2-274- Syllabus .

A sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to aSecond, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant,to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stand itself to the sameObject. The triadic relation is genuine, that is its three members are bound together by itin a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations. That is the reason theInterpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object, but muststand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does. Nor can the triadic relationin which the third stands be merely similar to that in which the First stands, for this wouldmake the relation of the THird to the First a degenerate Secondness merely. The Thirdmust indeed stand in such a relation, and thus be capable of determining a Third of itsown; but besides that, it must have a second triadic relation in which the Representamen,or rather the relation there of to its Object, shall be its own (the Thrid's) Object, and mustbe capable of determining a Third to this relation. All ths must be equally be true of theThird's Third and so on endlessly; and this, and more, is involved in the familiar idea of aSign; and the term Representamen is here used, nothing more is implied. A Sign is aRepresentamen with a mental Interpretant.

Possibly there may be Representamens that are not Signs. Thus, if a sunflower, in turningtowards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, ofreproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely way toward the sun, and of doing sowith the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of thesun. But thought is the chief, if not the only, mode of representation.

16 - v. 1902 - MS 599 -Reason's rules .

A Sign does not function as a sign unless it be understood as a sign. It is impossible, in thepresent state of knowledge, to say, at once fully precisely and with a satisfactoryapproach to certitude, what is to understand of a sign. ..., it does not seem thatconciousness can be considered as essential to the understanding of a sign. But what is


4 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

indispensable is that there should, actually or virtually, bring about a determination of asign of the same object of which it is itself a sign. This interpreting sign, like every sign,only functions of a sign so for as it again is interpreted, that is, actually or virtually,determines a sign of the same object of which it is itself a sign. Thus there is a virtualendless series of signs when a sign is understood; and a sign neveer understood canhardly be said to be a sign.

17 - 1903 - C.P. 1=53B- - Lowell Lectures: Lecture III, vol. 21, 3d Draught .

Every sign stands for an object independent of itself; but it can only be a sign of thatobject in so far as that object is itself of the nature of a sign or thought. For the sign doesnot affect the object but is affected by it; so that the object must be able to conveythought, that is, must be of the nature of thought or a sign. [...]

18 - 1903 - C.P. 1-346 - Lowel Lectures: vol. I, 3d Draught .

[...] Now a sign is something, A, which denotes some fact or object, B, to someinterpretant thought, C.

19 - 1903 - C.P. 1-540 - Lowell Lectures: Lecture III, vol. 21, 3d Draught.

[...] In the first place, as to my terminology I confine the word representation to theoperation of a sign or its relation to the object for the interpreter of the representation.The concrete subject that represents I call a sign or representamen. I use these twowords, sign and representamen, differently. By a sign I mean anything which conveysany definite notion of an object in any way, as such conveyers of thought are familiarlyknown tous. Now I start with this familiar idea and make the best analysis I can of whatis essential to a sign, and I define a representamen as being whatever that analysis appliesto. [...]

20 - 1903 - C.P. 1-541 - Lowell Lectures: Lecture III, vol. 21, 3d Draught .

My definition of a representamen is as follow:

A REPRESENTAMEN is a subject of a triadic relation TO a second, called its OBJECT,FOR a third, called is INTERPRETANT, this triadic relation being such that theREPRESENTAMEN determines its interpretant to stand in the same triadic relation tothe same object for some interpretant.

21 - 1903 - C.P. 5-138 - Lowell Lectures: Lecture V .

The mode of being of a representamen is such that it is capable of repetition.[...] Thisrepetitory character of the

representamen involves as a consequence that it is essential to a representamen that itshould contribute to the determination of another representamen distinct from itself. [...] Icall a representamen which is determined by another representamen, an interpretant ofthe latter. Every representamen is related or is capable of being related to a reactingthing, its object, and every representamen embodies, in some sense, some quality, whichmay be called its signification, what in the case of a common name J.S. Mill call itsconnotation, a particularly objectionable expression.

22 - 1903 - C.P. 2_242 - Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations, as far asthey are determined .

A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being


5 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant, bywhich triadic relation the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate ofthe same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. A Sign isa representamen of which some interpetant is a cognition of a mind. Signs are the onlyrepresentamens that have been much studied.

23 - v. 1903 - Dichotomic Mathematics .

[...] As we know a sign, it is something which represents the real Truth, in some aspect ofit, to somebody; that is, determines a knowledge of that Truth. This knowledge is itself ofthe nature of a sign. In its more perfect forms, it involves consciousness, or arepresentation in the conscious sign of itself to itself, somewhat as a map covering acountry may represent itself. But knowledge is nothing, quite nothing but a counterfeitunless it would under some circumstances, determine conduct. It must have real effects.In fact any outward sign must, not merely as a thing, but as a sign produce physicaleffects in order to be communicated. [...]

24 - v. 1903 - MS 9. Foundations of Mathematics .

[...] A sign is intended to correspond to a real thing, or fact, or to something relativelyreal; and this object of the sign may be the very sign itself, as when a map is preciselysuperposed upon that which it maps. [...] A sign is also intended to determine, in a mindor elsewhere, a sign of the same object; and this interpretant of the sign may be the verysign itself; but as a general rule it will be different. [...]

25 - v. 1903 - MS 11. Foundations of Mathematics .

A sign is supposed to have an object or meaning, and also to determine an interpretantsign of the same object. It is convenient to speak as if the sign originated with an uttererand determined its interpretant in the mind of an interpreter.

26 - 1903 - MS 462. Lowell Lectures, 2nd Draught of 3rd lecture .

[...] Conversely, every thought proper involves the idea of a triadic relation. For everythought proper involves the idea of a sign. Now a sign is a thing related to an object anddetermining in the interpreter an interpreting sign of the same object. It involves therelation between sign, interpreting sign, and object. There is a threefold distinctionbetween signs, which is not in the least psuchological in its nature, but is purely logical,and is of the atmost importance in logic.

27 - v. 1903 - MS 491. Logical Tracts (note) .

I call that which represents, a representamen. A Representation is that relation of therepresentamen to its object which consists in it determining a third (the interpretantrepresentamen) to be in the same relation to that object.

28 - 1904 - C.P. 8-832 - Letter to Lady Welby dated "1904 Oct.12 .

[...] In its genuine form, thirdness is the triadic relation existing between a sign, its object,and the interpreting thought, itself a sign, considered as constituting the mode of being ofa sign. A sign mediates between the interpretant sign and its object. Taking sign in itsbroadest sense, its interpretant is not necessarily a sign. [...]

A sign therefore is an object which is in relation to its object on the one hand and to aninterpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the interpretant into a relation to theobject, corresponding to its own relation to the object. I might say similar to its own for a


6 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

correspondence consist in a similarity; but perhaps correspondence is narrower.

29- 1905 - MS 939 - Notes on Portions of Hume's "Treatise of1 Human Nature" .

[...] It is difficult to define a sign in general. It is something which is in such a relation toan object that it determines, or might determine, another sign of the same object. This istrue but considered as a definition it would involve a vicious circle, since it does not saywhat is meant by the interpretant being a "sign" of the same object. However, this muchis clear ; that a sign has essentially two correlates, its object and its possible Interpretantsign. Of these three, Sign, Object, Interpretant, the sign as being the very thing underconsideration is Monadic, the object is Dyadic, and the Interpretant is Triadic. Wetherefore look to see, whether there be not two Objects, the object as it is in itself (theMonadic Object), and the object as the sign represents it to be (the Dyadic Object). Thereare also three Interpretants; namely, 1, the Interpretant considered as an independentsign of the Object, 2, the Interpretant as it is as a fact determined by the Sign to be, and3 the Interpretant as it is intended by, or is represented in, the Sign to be. [...]

30 - 1905 - SS. pp. 192-193 - Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) presumably July 1905 .

So then anything (generally in a mathematical sense) is a priman (not a priman elementgenerally) and we might define a sign as follows:

A "sign" is anything, A, which,

(1) in addition to other characters of its own,

(2) stands in a dyadic relation , to a purely active correlate, B,

(3) and is also in a triadic relation to B for a purely passive correlate, C, this triadicrelation being such as to determine C to be in a dyadic relation, , to B, the relation corresponding in a recognized way to the relation .

In the which statement the sense in which the words active and passive are used is that ina given relationship considering the various characters of all or some of the correlateswith the exclusion of those only which involve all the correlates and are immediatelyimplied in the statement of the relationship, none of those which involve onlynon-passive correlates will by immediately essential necessity vary with any variation ofthose involving only passive correlates; while no variation of characters involving onlynon-active elements will by immediately essential necessity involve a variation of anycharacter involving only active elements. And it may be added that by active-passive ismeant active and passive if the entire collection of correlates excluding the correlatesunder consideration be divided into two parts and one part and the other be alternatelyexcluded from consideration; while purely active or passive means active or passivewithout being active-passive.

31 - 1905 - S.S. pp. 193 -Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) presumably July 1905 .

This definition avoids the niceties for the sake of emphasizing the principal factors of asign. Nevertheless, some explanations may be desirable. But first for the terminology. Iuse "sign" in the widest sense of the definition. It is a wonderful case of an almostpopular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition.[...]

I formerly preferred the word representamen. But there was no need of this horrid longword. [...]


7 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

My notion in preferring "representamen" was that it would seem more natural to apply itto representatives in legislatures, to deputies of various kinds, etc... I admit still that itaids the comprehension of the definition to compare it carefully with such cases. But theycertainly depart from the definition, in that this requires that the action of the sign as suchshall not affect the object represented. A legislative representative is, on the contrary,expected in his functions to improve the condition of this constituents; and any kind ofattorney, even if he has no discretion, is expected to affect the condition of his principal.The truth is I went wrong from not having a formal definition all drawn up. This sort ofthing is inevitable in the early stages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition isattempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. [...]

I thought of a representamen as taking the place of the thing; but a sign is not asubstitute. Ernst Mach has also fallen into that snare.

32 - v. 1905 - MS 283. p.125, 129, 131. The basis of Pragmaticism .

[...] A sign is plainly a species of medium of communication and medium ofcommunication is a species of medium, and a medium is a species of third.[...]

A medium of communication is something, A, which being acted upon by something else,N, in its turn acts upon something, I, in a manner involving its determination by N, so thatI shall thereby, through A and only through A, be acted upon by N. [...] A Sign, on theother hand, just in so far as it fulfill the function of a sign, and none other, perfectlyconforms to the definition of a medium of communication. It is determined by the object,but in no other respect than goes to enable it to act upon the interpreting quasi mind ; andthe more perfectly it fulfill its function as a sign, the less effect it has upon thatquasi-mind other than that of determining it as if the object itself had acted upon it. [...]

It seems best to regard a sign as a determination of a quasi-mind; for if we regard it as anoutward object, and as addressing itself to a human mind, that mind must first apprehendit as an object in itself, and only after that consider it in its significance; and the like musthappen if the sign addresses itself to any quasi-mind. It must begin by forming adetermination of that quasi-mind, and nothing will be lost by regarding that determinationas the sign.

33 - 1906 - S.S. 196 - Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) dated "1906 March 9" .

I use the word "Sign" in the widest sense for any medium for the communication orextension of a Form (or feature). Being medium, it is determined by something, called itsObject, and determines something, called its Interpretant or Interpretand. But somedistinctions have to be borne in mind in order rightly to understand what is meant by theObject and by the Interpretant. In order that a Form may be extended or communicated,it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject independently of thecommunication; and it is necessary that there should be another subject in which thesame form is embodied only in consequence of the communication. The Form, (and theForm is the Object of the Sign), as it really determines the former Subject, is quiteindependent of the sign; yet we may and indeed must say that the object of a sign can benothing but what that sign represents it to be. Therefore, in order to reconcile theseapparently conflicting Truths, it is indispensible to distinguish the immediate object fromthe dynamical object.

The same form of distinction extends to the interpretant; but as applied to theinterpretant, it is complicated by the circumstance that the sign not only determines theinterpretant to represent (or to take the form of) the object, but also determines the


8 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

interpretant to represent the sign. Indeed in what we may, from one point of view, regardas the principal kind of signs, there is one distinct part appropriated to representing theobject, and another to representing how this very sign itself represents that object. Theclass of signs I refer to are the dicisigns. In "John is in love with Helen" the objectsignified is the pair, John and Helen. But the "is in love with" signifies the form this signrepresents itself to represent John and Helen's Form to be. That this is so, is shown by theprecise equivalence between any verb in the indicative and the same made the object of"I tell you". "Jesus wept" = "I tell you that Jesus wept".

34 - 1906 - C.P. 4-531 - Apology for pragmaticism .

First, an analysis of the essence of a sign, (stretching that word to its widest limits, asanything witch, being determined by an object, determines an interpretation todetermination, through it, by the same object), leads to a proof that every sign isdetermined by its object, either first, by partaking in the characters of the object, when Icall the sign an Icon; secondly, by being really and in its individual existence connectedwith the individual object, when I call the sign an Index; thirdly, by more or lessapproximate certainty that it will be interpreted as denoting the object, in consequence ofa habit (which term I use as including a natural disposition), when I call the sign aSymbol.

35 - v, 1906 - C.P. 5-473 - Pragmatism .

[...] That thing which causes a sign as such is called the object (according to the usage ofspeech, the "real", but more accurately, the existent object) represented by the sign : thesign is determined to some species of correspondence with that object.[...]

For the proper significate outcome of a sign, I propose the name, the interpretant of thesign. [...]

Whether the interpretant be necessarily a triadic result is a question of words, that is, ofhow we limit the extension of the term "sign"; but it seems to me convenient to make thetriadic production of the interpretant essential to a "sign", calling the wider concept like aJacquard loom, for example, a "quasi-sign". [...]

36 - v. 1906 - MS 292. Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism .

A sign may be defined as something (not necessarily existent) which is so determined bya second something called its Object that it will tend in its turn to determine a thirdsomething called its Interpretant in such a way that in respect to the accomplishment ofsome end consisting in an effect made upon the interpretant the action of sign is (more orless) equivalent to what that of the object might have been had the circumstances beendifferent.

37 - 1907 -MS 321. Pragmatism, pp. 15-16 .

[...] How any sign, of whatsoever kind, mediates between an Object to some sort ofconformity with which it is moulded, and by which it is thus determined, and an effectwhich the sign is intended to bring about and which it represents to be the outcome of theobject influence upon it. It is of the first importance in such studies as these that the twocorrelates of the sign should be clearly distinguished : the Object by which the sign isdetermined and the Meaning, or as I usually call it, the Interpretant, which is determinedby the sign, and through it by the object. The meaning may itself be a sign, a concept, forexemple, as may also the object. But everyboby who looks out of his eyes well knowsthat thoughts bring about tremendous physical effects, that are not, as such, signs.Feelings, too, may be excited by signs without thereby and theorein being themselves


9 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

signs. We observe that the very same object may be several entirely different signs ; or insome way in other sign. [...] There are meanings that are feelings, meanings that areexistent things or facts, and meanings that are concepts. [...]

38 - 1907 - MS 612. Chapter I - Common Ground (Logic) .

[...] By a Sign, I mean anything that is, on the one hand, in some way determined by anobject and, on the other hand, which determines some awareness, and this in suchmanner that the awareness is thus determined by that object. [...]

39 - 1907 - MS 277. The Prescott Book .

Of the distinction between the Objects, or better the "Originals" and the Interpretant of aSign.

By "Sign" is meant any Ens which is determined by a single object or set of Objectscalled its Originals, all other than the Sign itself, and in its turn is capable of determiningin a Mind something called its Interpretant, and that in such a way that the Mind isthereby mediately determined to some mode of conformity to the original or Set oforiginals. This is particularly intended to define (very imperfectly as yet) a complete Sign.But a complete sign has or may have Parts which partake of the nature of their whole;but often in a truncated fashion.

A Sign is in regard to its Interpretant in one or other of three grades of completeness,which may be called the Barely Overt, the Overter, and the Overtest. The Barely Overtof which a Name is an example does not expressly distinguish its original from itsinterpretant; nor its reference to either from the sign itself. The Overter sign of which anassertion is an exemple,... [phrase inacheve] Thus the Sign has a double function

1/ to affect a mind which understands its "Grammar" or method of signification, whichsignification is its substance significate or Interpretant.

2/ to indicate how to identify the conditions under which .... significate has the mode ofbeing it is represented having [text unfinshed].

40 - v.1907 - MS 318, Pragmatism.

[...] Now any sign, of whatsoever kind, professes to mediate between an object, on theone hand, that to which it applies, and which is thus in a sense the cause of the sign, and,on the other hand, a Meaning, or to use a preferable technical term, an Interpretant, thatwhich the sign expresses, the result which it produces in its capacity as sign. [...]

b - [...] Now any sign, of whatever kind, mediates between an object to some sort ofconformity with which it is moulded, and which thus determines it, and an effect which itis intended to produce, and which it represents to be the outcome of the object. Thesetwo correlates of the sign have to be carefully distinguished. The former is called theobject of the sign; the latter is the "meaning", or, as I usually term it, the "interpretant" ofthe sign. [...]

c - [...] Now the essential nature of a sign is that it mediates between its object which issupposed to determine it and to be, in some sense, the cause of it, and its meaning, or, asI prefer to say, in order to avoid certains ambiguities, its Interpretant which is determinedby the sign, and is, in a sense, the effect of it; and which the sign represents to flow as aninfluences, from the object. [...]

d - [...] ...to which it is, therefore, conceived to be moulded, and by which to be


10 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

determined, and an effect; on the other hand, which the sign is intended to bring about,representing it to be the outcome of the object influence upon it. I need not say that thisinfluence is usually indirect and not of the nature of a force. [...]

e - [...] A sign is whatever there may be whose intent is to mediate between an utterer ofit and an interpreter of it, both being repositories of thought, or quasi-minds, byconveying a meaning from the former to the latter. We may say that the sign is mouldedto the meaning in the quasi-mind that utters it, where it was, virtually at least (i.e. if not infact, yet the moulding of the sign took place as if it had been there) already an ingredientof thought.

But thought being itself a sign the meaning must have been conveyed to that quasi-mind,from some anterior utterer of the thought, of which the utterer of the moulded sign hadbeen the interpreter. The meaning of the moulded sign being conveyed to its interpreter,became the meaning of a thought in that quasi-mind; and as these conveyed in athought-sign required an interpreter, the interpreter of the moulded sign becoming theutterer of this new thought-sign".

f - I am now prepared to risk an attempt at defining a sign, -since in scientific inquiry, asin other enterprises, the maxim holds : nothing hazard, nothing gain. I will say that a signis anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and aninterpretant; since it is both determined by the object relatively to the interpretant, anddetermining the interpretant in reference to the object, in such wise as to cause theinterpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this "sign".

The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the onebeing antecedent, the other consequent of the sign. Moreover, the sign being defined interms of these correlative correlates, it is confidently to be expected that object andinterpretant should precisely correspond, each to the other. In point of fact, we do findthat the immediate object and emotional interpretant correspond, both beingapprehensions, or are "subjective"; both, too, pertain to all signs without exception. Thereal object and energetic interpretant also correspond, both being real facts or things. Butto our surprise, we find that the logical interpretant does not correspond with any kind ofobject. This defect of correspondance between object and interpretant must be rooted inthe essential difference there is between the nature of an object and that of aninterpretant; which difference is that former antecedes while the latter succeeds. Thelogical interpretant must, therefore, be in a relatively future tense.

46 - 1908 -_NEM III/2 p. 886 - Letter to P.E.B. Jourdain dated "1908 Dec 5" .

[...] My idea of a sign has been so generalized that I have at length despaired of makinganybody comprehend it, so that for the sake of being understood, I now limit it, so as todefine a sign as anything which is on the one hand so determined (or specialized) by anobject and on the other hand so determines the mind of an interpreter of it that the latteris thereby determined mediately, or indirectly, by that real object that determines thesign. Even this may well be thought an excessively generalized definition. Thedetermination of the Interpreter's mind I term the Interpretant of the sign. [...]

47 - 1908 - S.S. .p. 80 - Letter to Lady Welby dated "1908 Dec.23" .

It is clearly indispensable to start with an accurate and broad analysis of the nature of aSign. I define a sign as an thing which is so determined by something else, called itsObject, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its interpretant,that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of "upon aperson" is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception


11 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

understood. [...]

48 - 1909 - C.P. 8-177 ou NEM III/2 p. 839 - Letter to William James dated "1909Feb.26" .

A sign is a Cognizable that, on the one hand, is so determined (i.e. Specialized, bestimmt), by something other than itself, called its object (or, in some cases, as if the Sign be thesentence "Cain killed Abel", in which Cain and Abel are equally Partial Objects, it maybe more convenient to say that that which determines the Sign is the Complexus, orTotality, of Partial Objects. And in every case the object is accurately the Universe ofwhich the special object is member, or part), while, on the other hand, it so determinessome actual or potential Mind, the determination whereof I term the Interpretant createdby the sign, that that interpreting mind is therein determined mediately by the Object.

49 - 1909 - NEM III/2 p. 840-1 - Letter to William James dated "1909 Feb.26" .

A sign is a Cognizable that, on the one hand, is so determined (i.e. Specialized, bestimmt), by something other than itself, called its object (or, in some cases, as if the Sign be thesentence "Cain killed Abel", in which Cain and Abel are equally Partial Objects, it maybe more convenient to say that that which determines the Sign is the Complexus, orTotality, of Partial Objects. And in every case the object is accurately the Universe ofwhich the special object is member, or part), while, on the other hand, it so determinessome actual or potential Mind, the determination whereof I term the Interpretant createdby the sign, that that interpreting mind is therein determined mediately by the Object.

50 - 1909 - MS 278 : [Unidentified fragments] .

l909 Oct.28

Another endeavour to analyze a Sign.

A Sign is anything which represents something else (so far as it is complete) and if itrepresents itself it is as a part of another sign which represents something other thanitself, and it represents itself in other circumstances, in other connections. A man maytalk and he is a sign of that he relates, he may tell about himself as he was at anothertime. He cannot tell exactly what he is doing at that very moment. Yes, he may confesshe is lying, but he must be a false sign, then. A sign, then, would seem to profess torepresent something else.

Either a sign is to be defined as something which truly represents something or else assomething which professes to represent something.

51 - 1909 - NEM III/2 p.867 - Letter to William James dated "1909 Dec 25".

[...] I start by defining what I mean by a sign. It is something determined by somethingelse its object and itself influencing some person in such a way that that person becomesthereby mediately influenced or determined in some respect by that Object.[...]

52 - v. 1909 - C.P. 6-347 -Some Amazing Mazes, Fourth Curiosity.

[...] Suffice it to say that a sign endeavours to represent, in part at least, an Object, whichis therefore in a sense the cause, or determinant, of the sign even if the sign represents itsobject falsely. But to say that it represents its object implies that it affects a mind, and soaffects it as, in some respect, to determine in that mind something that is mediately due tothe Object.


12 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

That determination of which the immediate cause, or determinant, is the sign, and ofwhich the mediate cause is the Object may be termed the Interpretant [...]

53 - v. 1909 - C.P. 6-344 - Some Amazing Mazes, Fourth Curiosity .

Signs, the only thing swith which a human being can, without derogation, consent to haveany transaction, being a sign himself, are triadic; since a sign denotes a subject, andsignifies a form of fact, which latter it brings into connexion with the former. [...]

54 - 1910 - MS 654 : Essays (Essays 1st Pref.)

Bya sign I mean anything whatever, real or fictive, which is capable of a sensible form, isapplicable to something other than itself, that is already known, and that is capable ofbeing so interpreted in another sign which I call its interpretant as to communicatesomething that may not have been previously known about its object there is thus atriadic relation between an sign, an Object, and an Interpretant.

55 - 1910 - C.P. 2-230 - Meaning .

The word sign will be used to denote an Object perceptible, or only imaginable, or evenunimaginable in one sense -for the word "fast", which is a sign, is not imaginable, since itis not this word itself that can be set down on paper or pronounced, but only an instanceof it, and since it is the very same word when it is written as it is when it is pronounced,but is one word when it means "rapidly" and quite another when it means "immovable",and a third when it refers to abstinence. But in order that anything should be a Sign, itmust "represent" , as we say, something else, called its Object, although the conditionthat a sign must be other than its Object is perhaps arbitrary, since, if we insist upon it wemust at least make an exception in the case of a sign that is a part of a sign. [...] A signmay have more than one Object.

Thus, the sentence "Cain killed Abel", which is a sign, refers at least as much to Abel asto Cain, even if it be not regarded as it should, as having "a killing" as a third object. Butthe set of objects may be regarded as making up one complex Object. In what followsand often elsewhere signs will be treated as having but one object each for the sake ofdividing difficulties of the study. If a Sign is other than its object, there must exist, eitherin thought or in expression, some explanation or argument or other context, showing how-upon what system or for what reason the sign represents the Object or set of Objects thatit does. Now the sign and the Explanation together make up another sign, and since theexplanation will be a Sign, it will probably require an additional explanation, which takentogether with the already enlarged Sign will make up a still larger sign; and proceeding inthe same way, we shall, or should, ultimately reach a sign of itself, containing its ownexplanation and those of all its significant parts; and according to this explanation eachsuch part has some other part as its Object. According to this every sign has, actually orvirtually, what we may call a Precept of explanation according to which it is to beunderstood as a sort of emanation, so to speak, of its Object.

56 - 1911 - MS 849 :

A logical Criticism of some articles of Religious Faith .

The word sign, as it will here be used, denotes any object of thought which excites anykind of mental action, whether voluntary or not, concerning something otherwiserecognized. [...] Every sign denotes something, and the anything it denotes is termed anobject of it. [... ] I term the idea or mental action that a sign exites and which it causes theinterpreter to attribute to the Object or Objects of it, its interpretant. [...] For a Sign


13 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

cannot denote an object not otherwise known to its interpreter, for the obvious reasonthat if he does not already know the Object at all, he cannot possess these ideas by meansof which alone his attention can be narrowed to the very object denoted. Every object ofexperience excites an idea of some sort; but if that idea is not associated sufficiently andin the right way so with some previous experience so as to narrow the attention, it willnot be a sign.

A Sign necessarily has for its Object some fragment of history, that is, of history of ideas.It must excite some idea. That idea may go wholly to narrowing the attention, as in suchsign as "man", "virtue", "manner".

57 - v. 1911 - MS 675

A Sketch of logical critic .

[...] In the first place, a "Representamen", like a word, -indeed, most words arerepresentamens-, is not a single thing, but is of the nature of a mental habit, it consists inthe fact that, something would be. The twenty odd "the" on ordinary page are all one andthe same word, - that is, they are so many instances of a single word. Here are twoinstances of Representamens: "--killed--", "a man". The first of several characters whichare each of them either essential to a sign being truly an instance of a Representamen orelse necessary properties of such an object, is that it should have power to draw theattention of any mind that is fit to "interpret" it to two or more "Objects" of it. [ The firstof the above examples of instances of representamens has four objects ; the second hastwo.] The second such character is that at least two of the objects must be other than therepresentamen. A closer examination than I have made would I am sure lead to a fullerdescription of the character. The third is the property that the interpreter of therepresentamen must have some collateral experiential acquaintance, direct or indirect,with each object of the Representamen before he can perform his function [...]

58 - v. 1911 - MS 676 : A Sketch of logical critics .

[...] If by a "sign" we mean anything of whatsoever nature that is apt to produce a specialmental effect upon a mind in which certain associations have been produced -and Iinvariably use the word "association" as the original associationists did, for a mentalhabit, and never for the act or effect of associational suggestion when we must admit thata musical air and a command given to a soldier by his officer are signs, although it wouldseem that a logician is hardly otherwise concerned with such emotional and imperativesigns, than that, as long as nobody else concerns himself with the analysis of the action ofsuch signs, the logician is obliged to assume that office in order by the did of its contrastwith the action of cognitional signs to perfect the definition of this latter. [...]

59 - 1911 - MS 854 - Notes on logical critique of the essential Articles of religiousFaith (20.11.1911) .

Nature of a Sign . Its object is all that the sign recognize; since the sign cannot beunderstood until the Object is already identically known, though it may be indefinite. Itso, it need only be known in its indefiniteness. The interpretant is the mental action onthe Object that the sign excites.

For instance the word dog -meaning some dog, implies the knowledge that there is somedog, but it remains indefinite. The Interpretant is the somewhat indefinite idea of thecharacters that the "some dog" referred to has. And we have to distinguish between theReal Object and the Object as implied in the sign. The latter is some one of the dogsknown already by direct experience or some one of the dogs which we more or less


14 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

believe to exist.

The word dog does not excite any other notion than of the characters that ..... to possess.

The "Object" dog causes us to think of is such a dog as the person addressed has anynotion of. But the real Object includes alternatively other dogs which are not known tothe party addressed as yet but which he may come to know .

As to the characters we know it has four legs, is a carnivorous animal, etc.. and here wemust distinguish then

- first the essential characters which the word implies -the essential interpretant.

- second the idea it actually does excite in the particular interpreter.

- third the characters it was intended specially to excite -perhaps only a part of theessential characters perhaps others not essential and which the word now excites thoughno such thing has hitherto been known.

In order to understand a Sign better we must consider that what it excites some sort ofmental action about is in its Real Being either a history or a Part of a history and one partof it may be a Sign of another part.

Some Dog is a ....

Excites the idea of a Dog....is sign of a Dog and its Interpretant is forced by theinterpreter own belief in the truth of the sign to regard its being a dog to admit that it ispossible a ratter.

The sign may appeal to the Interpreter himself to assert that the Matter of Fact denoteddoes call for the....of certain character... or the Sign may exert a Force to cause theInterpreter to attach some Idea to the Object of the Sign.

60 - MS 670 :

A Sign, then, is anythin whatsoever -whether an Actual or a May-be or a Would-be,-which affects a mind, its Interpreter, and draw that interpreter's attention to some Objectwhether Actual, May-be or Would-be) which has already come within the sphere of hisexperience; and beside this purely selective action of a sign, it has a power of exciting themind (whether directly by the image or the sound or indirectly) to some kind of feeling,or to effort of some kind or to thought; [...]

NON DATED TEXTS

61- C.P. 1-339 - unidentified fragment1.

The easiest of those which are of philosophical interest is the idea of a sign, orrepresentation. A sign stands for something to the idea which it produces, or modifies. Or,it is a vehicle conveying into the mind something from without. That for which it stands iscalled its object; that which it conveys, its meaning; and the idea to which it gives rise, itsinterpretant. The object of representation can be nothing but a representation of whichthe first representation is the interpretant. But an endless series of representations, eachrepresenting the one behind it, may be conceived to have an absolute object at its limit.


15 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

The meaning of a representation can be nothing but a representation. In fact, it is nothingbut the representation itself conceived as stripped of irrelevant clothing. But this clothingnever can be completely stripped off; it is only changed for something more diaphanous.So there is an infinite regression here. Finally, the interpretant is nothing but anotherrepresentation to which the torch of truth is handed along; and as representation, it has itsinterpretant again. Lo, another infinite series.

62 - NEM IV - p. XXI - From MS.142.

A sign is a thing which is the representative, or deputy, of another thing for the purposeof affecting a mind [...]

63 - NEM IV - P. 239 - Kaina stocheia.

Any sign, B, which a sign, A, is fitted so to determine, without violation of its A's,purpose, that is, in accordance with the "Truth", even though it, B, denotes but a part ofthe objects of the sign, A, and signifies but a part of its, A's characters, I call aninterpretant of A.

64 - MS 381 -On the nature of Signs .

A sign is an object which stands for another to some mind. I propose to describe thecharacters of a sign. In the first place like any other thing it must have qualities whichbelong to it whether it be regarded as a sign or not thus a printed word is black, has acertain number of letters and those letters have certain shapes. Such characters of a sign Icall its material quality. In the next place a sign must have some real connection with thething it signifies so that when the object is present or is so as the sign signifies it to be thesign shall so signify it and otherwise not. [...] In the first place it is necessary for a sign tobe a sign that it should be regarded as a sign for it is only a sign to that mind which soconsiders and if it is not a sign to any mind it is not a sign at all. It must be known to themind first in its material qualities but also in its pure demonstrative application. That mindmust conceive it to be connected with its object so that it is possible to reason from thesign to the thing. [...]

65 - MS 793 : [On Signs] .

But at this point certain distinctions are called for. That which is communicated from theobject through the Sign to the interpretant is a Form; that is to say, it is nothing like anexistent, but is a power, is the fact that something would happen under certain conditions.This form is really embodied in the object, meaning that the conditional relation whichconstitutes the form is true of the form or it is in the Object. In the Sign it is embodiedonly in a representative sense, meaning that whether by virtue of some real modificationof the Sign, or otherwise, the Sign becomes endowed with the power of communicating itto an interpretant. It may be in the interpretant directly, as it is in the Object, or it may bein the Interpretant dynamically, as behaviour of the Interpretant (this happens when amilitary officer uses the sign "Halt !" or "Forward march !" and his men simply obey him,perhaps automatically) or it may be in the Interpretant likewise only representatively. Inexistential graphs the Interpretant is affected in the last way; but for the present, it is bestto consider only the common characters of all signs.

66 - MS 793 - [On Signs] .

A Sign is an thing, A, which

(1) in addition to others characters of its own,


16 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

(2) stands in a dyadic relation to a purely active correlate, B, and is also

(3) in a triadic relation to B for a purely passive correlate, C, this triadic relation beingsuch as to determine C to be in a relation, , to B, the relation corresponding in arecognized way to the relation , its dyadic relation to A would belong to it just the sameeven if A did not exist.

For instance, ...... the sign, the sentence "Let'songster of `Heliopolis' be our designation ofthe phenix" we may variously regard as B, either the phenix or the writer's determination,etc.. In any case howewer what is essential to the relation between the sentence and B isthe writer's determination of mind to have the phenix called the songster of Heliopolis.This determination would be so shaped howewer whether expressed in this sentence ornot. And the subsequent statement the sense in which certain correlates of a givenrelationship are said to be àctive' or `passive' is that considering the different charactersof all the correlates excepting only these that are immediately implied in the statement ofthe relationship none which involves only non-passives correlates will by immediateessential necessity vary with a variation of those involving only passive correlates; whileno variation of which involve only non-active correlates will by immediate essentialnecessity carry with them variation of those which involve only active correlates; whileby àctive-passive' is meant active in respect to some correlates and passive in respect toothers ........àctive or passive' meaning........ active and ......without being active passive.

67 - MS 793 -[On Signs]1.

[...] which is communicated from the Object through the Sign to the Interpretant is aForm. It is not a singular thing; for if a Singular thing were first in the Object andafterward in the Interpretant outside the Object, it must thereby cease to be in the Object.The form that is communicated does not necessarily cease to be in one thing when itcomes to be in a different thing, because its being is the being of a predicate. The Beingof a Form consist in the truth of a conditional proposition. Under given circumstancessomething would be true. The Form is in the Object, one may say, entitatively, meaningthat that conditional relation, or following of consequent upon reason, which constitutesthe Form is literally true of the Object. In the Sign the Form may .... be embodiedentitatively, but it must be embodied representatively, that is, in respect to the Formcommunicated, the Sign produce upon the interpretant an effect similar to that which theObject would under favorable circumstances.

68 - MS 793[On Signs] .

For the purpose of this inquiry a Sign may be defined as a Medium for thecommunication of a Form. It is not logically necessary that any thing possessingconsciousness, that is, feeling or the peculiar commun quality of all our feeling should beconcerned. But it is necessary that there should be two, if not three, quasi-minds,meaning things capable of varied determinations as to forms of the kind communicated.

As a medium the Sign is essentially in a triadic relation, to its Object which determines itand to its Interpretant which it determines. In its relation to the Object, the sign ispassive, that is to say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by on effectupon the sign, the Object remaining unaffected. On the other hand, in its relation to theInterpretant the sign is active determining the interpretant without bein itself therebyaffected.

69 - MS 793 -[On Signs, quatre versions d'une certaine page 11] .


17 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

a - A Sign would be a Priman Secundan to something termed its Object and if anythingwere to be in a certain relation to the sign called being Interpretant to it, the Sign activelydetermines the Interpretant to be itself in a relation to the same Object, corresponding toits own.

b - b - A "Sign" is a genuinely genuine Tertian. It would generally be Priman in somecharacters, called its "Material Characters". But in addition, it is essentially (if onlyformally) Second to something termed its "Real Object", which is purely active in theSecundanity, being immediately unmodified by this secundanity; and these characters ofthe Real Object which are essential to the identity of the Sign constitute an ens rationiscalled the "Immediate Object". Moreover, the Sign is conceivably adapted to being Thirdto its Immediate Object for an ens rationis constituted thereby in the same (generic)relation to that Object in which the Sign itself stands to the same ; and this Third istermed the "Intended Interpretant", but the ... [unfinished]

c - A Sign would be in some respects Priman, and its determination as Priman are calledits Material characters. But in addition it is Second to what is termed its Real Object,which is altogether active, and immediately unmodified by this Secundanity, and in so faras the Sign is second to it, it is termed the immediate Object. The Sign is conceivablyadapted to being third to its Immediate Object for something in so far termed its IntendedInterpretant; and the Sign only functions as such so far as the Intended Interpretant isSecond to it for an Actual Interpretant which thus becomes adapted become a sign of theImmediate [there is a question mark above this word] Object for a further intendedInterpretant, and in so far as the Interpretant is such Third it is termed ReflexInterpretant.

d - A "Sign" would be in some respects Priman, and its determinations as such are calledits "Material characters". But in addition, it is Second to something termed its "RealObject", which is purely active being immediately unmodified by this Secundanity; and inso for as the sign is Second to it, it is termed the "Immediate Object" thereof. The Sign isconceivably adapted bo being Third to its Immediate Object for something which shouldthereby be brought into the generically same dyadic relation to that Object in which theSign itself stands to that Object, and this Third is called the "Intended Interpretant"; butthe Sign functions as such only in so far as the Intended Interpretant is Second to it and isThird to it for an existent termed the "Actual Interpretant", the modes of... [unfinished]

73 - MS 801 : Logic: Regarded as a Study of the general nature of Signs (Logic) .

By a sign I mean any thing which is in any way, direct or indirect, so influenced by anything (which I term its object) and which in turn influence a mind that this mind isthereby influenced by the Object; and I term that which is called forth in the mind theInterpretant of the sign. This explanation will suffice for the present; but distinctions willhave to be drawn are long.

74 - MS 810 :[On the formal Principles of Deductive Logic] .

A mental representation is something which puts the mind into relation to an object. Arepresentation generally (I am here defining my use of the term) is something whichbrings one thing into relation with another. The conception of third is here involved, andtherefore, also, the conceptions of second or other and of first or an. A representation isin fact nothing but a something which has a third through an other. We may thereforeconsider an object :

1. as a something, with inward determinations;


18 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

2. as related to an other;

3. as bringing a second into relation to a third.

75 - MS 914 : [ Firstness, Secondness, Thirness, and the Reductibility of Fourthness] .

The most characteristic form of thirdness is that of a sign; and it is shown that everycognition is of the nature of a sign. Every sign has an object, which may be regardedeither as it is immediately represented in the sign to be, and as it is in its own firstness. Itis equally essential to the function of a sign that it should determine an Interpretant, or asecond correlate related to the object of the sign as the sign is itself related to that object;and this interpretant may be regarded as the sign represents it to be, as it is in its puresecondness to the object, and as it is in its own firstness.

76 - MS 1345.

On the Classification of the Sciences .

A Representamen can be considered from three formal points of view, namely, first, asthe substance of the representation, or the vehicle of the Meaning which is common tothe three representamen of the triad, second, as the quasi-agent in the representation,conformity to which makes its Truth, that is, as the Natural Object, and third, as thequasi-patient in the representation, or that which modification in the representation makeits Intelligence, and this may be called the Interpretant. Thus, in looking at a map, themap itself is the vehicle, the country represented is the Natural Object, and the ideaexcited in the mind is the Interpretant.

Furthermore, every representamen may be considered as a reagent, its intellectualcharacter being neglected; and both representamen and reagent may be considered asquales, their relative character being neglected. This we do, for example, when we saythat the word man has three letters.

ANALYSIS OF THE 76 DEFINITIONS OF THE SIGN

by Robert Marty

ABSTRACT: We show that one can clearly distinguish two successive conceptions.The first (before 1905) which we qualify as "global triadic" and the second, moreprecise than the first, that we qualify as "analytic triadic" .

The 76 texts on the sign spread from1865 to 1911 (for 60 of them that are dated or whosedates are estimated). A brief study of the dispersion of the dated texts shows that morethan 80% of them were produced after 1902, that is to say when Peirce was in his sixties.The production reaches a climax in l903, the year of the Lowell conferences. In addition,if one assesses them by their content, most of the non dated texts, and notably the eightdefinitions grouped in MS 793 are from the same period. Our purpose not being to studythe evolution of Peirce's thinking in general, we will be interested only in the differentconceptions of the sign that he proposes if, nevertheless, one can speak first of theirdifferences before underlining their unity. Is it necessary to remind ourselves that thefundamental unity of these conceptions is confirmed by the constant reaffirmation of thetriadic character of the sign? By describing the Peircean sign as triadic we simplyhighlight the presence in all implicit or explicit definition of the sign according to Peirce,three constitutive elements (but the datum of these three elements does not exhaust thePeircean concept of the sign since the relationship that links them together is lacking).


19 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

Peirce has varied the denomination of these three elements for reasons that he hassometimes clarified. We should not forget that he is the author of a very rigorous moralterminological (C.P.2-219 to 2 - 226). To designate the object of direct experiencenecessarily at the origin of all semiotic phenomena, Peirce uses the words"representation", "representamen" and especially "sign". He uses the term"representation" to this end only in texts n1(1865), 6(1873) et 74 (n.d.), the otherutilizations of the term designating the act or the fact of representing, as found in texts10, 19, 27, 50, 52. In the text n61, this word is given as a synonym for "sign ". There isthus no reason to retain this term.

On the other hand, it is interesting to examine very closely the different uses anddistinctions between sign and representamen that Peirce first considers as synonymous(n 9,1897) before making a distinction (n19, l903) and finally deciding to abandon"representamen" (n31, l905) since he explains that the popular usage of the word "sign"is very close to the exact sense of the scientific definition. In saying this, he makes thedecision to put aside the formal distinction clearly established in l903 (n 22, l903). Wefind the fundamental reason for abandoning this distinction in the statement, so oftenrepeated by Peirce, that it was impossible to observe a single representamen that was nota sign. This conclusion is at odds with a number of authors, but in agreement, it seems tome, with Peirce (since from l905 he no longer uses the word representamen in anydefinitions except towards 1911 in the text n57. However, the date attributed to this textbeing an estimation, it is possible to put it in doubt, and as in any event Peirce uses it inthis text in a restricted sense, equivalent to legisign, there is no need to preserve this "horrible word " and "sign" should be quite suitable. There would have perhaps been someinterest, on the other hand, in preserving representamen so as to concretize the differentconceptualizations of semiotic phenomena as between the Saussuro-hjelmsleviantradition and the Peircean tradition. But the adoption of this viewpoint would be a sort ofrenunciation of the debates on the profound nature of these phenomena according tothese two traditions ; the passive acceptance of the fact that both traditions shoulddevelop independently would thus deprive us of the clarity that the opening of conflictscan bring about in the semiotic field.

To designate the object of the sign, Peirce employs on nearly every occasion the word"object" accompanied with considerations that render it, explicitly or implicitly, thatwhich is connected to this object of direct experience that is the sign. Sometimes Peircedesignates it by the expression "some thing " and even in the text n23 the sign is said torepresent an aspect of the "True" (the "Truth", the true universe), another representamenin the text n21, and a subject in the n53. Moreover, the object is often qualified: Real,Natural or Original in addition to the distinction between immediate object and dynamicobjects.

Despite these remarks, there is no problem in denominating as "Object" this other objectwhose presence to the mind produced by the perception of the sign is characteristic ofsemiotic phenomena. It is clear that a third element is needed because it is essential insemiotic phenomena to define an element capable of explaining the necessary connectionof the two objects that are potentially present to the mind (the perceived sign, as such,and the object to which it is connected). For if the sign, an object of direct experience, isdistinguishable because it evokes another object different from itself, because it enables asupplementary perceptive choice (at least) it constitutes, by this very fact, an associationbetween these two objects. That the sign is one of the two objects does not changeanything in the matter; it both exists for itself and exists for another. But this associationcan be conceived only in the mind and by the mind to which the two objects are present.In a sign in actu this association is truly a matter of fact; it is a psychic fact that the mindthat constructs two different perceptual judgements on the same percept is in a special


20 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

state, different from that which it is in, in the case of ordinary phenomena, that is to sayin the simple presentation of an object, due to the fact of this dual presence (it is thethesis that I develop in my work in French "The Algebra of signs" (1990, JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia). One can say that this special state of mind gives atthis very instant a real existence to this association, even in the most "natural " cases.Friday's footprint in the sand stands for a human presence only because of the associationin Robinson's mind, even if its production and therefore its existence are totallyindependent of his mind. In every sign there intervenes therefore the determination of amind, distinct from the two objects, which is therefore an element necessarily implied inthe factuality of the sign and without which one cannot hope to describe semioticphenomena correctly. The subject is therefore implied in a certain manner in thisapproach. It is necessary therefore to attach a third element to the Sign and to the Object.Peirce gives it the name of Interpretant. Now, let us examine the various denominationsby which he himself grasped this necessity. Note immediately that the last sentence of thetextn6 (1873) covers exactly the argument we have just developed: "The idea of therepresentation itself excites in the mind another idea and in order that it may do this it isnecessary that some principle of association between the two ideas should already beestablished in that mind". One finds again this idea in the text n64 (n.d) :

That mind must conceive it to be connected with its object so that it is possible to reasonfrom the sign to the thing.

and in the text n 58 (v.1911), the Interpretant is

"a special mental effect upon a mind in which certain associations have beenproduced".

A systematic list of the words that Peirce uses to give content to the concept of theinterpretant shows that he attributes the following characteristics, according to what he issaying at that moment and to the maturation of his thinking: - it is a thought orinterpretant thought in texts n,8, l0, 18, 28.

- - it is an effect created or determined or modelled by the sign on a person, a mind or aquasi -mind in textsn9, 12, 14, 16, 21, 32, 33,39, 40 (b,c,d, e),46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56,58,61, 73, 75.

-- it is a determination of a mind or quasi -mind or an influence on a person or a mind,this determination or influence being realised through the sign, the object by being themediate cause in texts n34, 37, 40(a,b,c,e,f,) 52.

- It is a Third that according to the case is a third correlate of a triadic relationship or a"Tertian", (that is to say a member of the Third universe, a Thirdness) in texts n13,15,20, 22, 36, 69(b,c,d,e). Moreover, in n30 iit is described as a "passive" correlate and inn76 it is a quasi - patient.

- it is a meaning, or cognition, or a result which it produces in textsn35,37, 38, 40(a,b).

- it is a sign of the same object in 11, 12, 16, 24,25, 26, 27, 29, 54.

One sees that these characteristics (by excluding the last that is of a radically differentnature), can be classified in two groups:

- Those that refer to a sign in actu, that describe therefore this third element of thesemiotic phenomenon in its particularity and that are practically reducible to an effect ona person or again to a determination of a mind, in the here and now of the perception.


21 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

- Those that refer to an abstract sign which come from the logical analysis of thephenomenon and form part of a formal construction, in which the interpretant isdescribed as a correlate of a triadic relationship.

Peirce had a great deal of difficulty getting people to accept this conception, quite banaltoday, of a formal model of the sign. In his letter to Lady Welby dated 23 December l908he complains about his difficulties by writing : "I have added 'on a person' so as to throwa cake to Cerberus, because I despair of making people understand my own conceptionwhich is larger. " In conclusion then, peircean conceptions of the sign lead us to retainthree fundamental elements as theoretical universals resulting from the logical analysis ofsemiotic phenomena,:

- the Sign S, an object of direct experience ("external"or "internal"object").

- the Object O, present in the semiotic phenomenon because it is connected with the sign.

- the Interpretant I, present because it is a mental element which ensures this connection.

The reader will have noticed that these groups and subgroups of definitions possesscommon elements since the characteristics fundamental to them are not exclusive of eachother. However by observing the placings of texts constituting the subgroups and byreminding ourselves that numbers l to 60 are classified by chronological order, thisdistribution shows a significant change, if not of doctrine, at least of his approach to thisconnection of the Sign to its Object. It suffices indeed to observe the pre-eminence fromn29 (l905) of the characterization of this connection in terms of determination of S by Oto arrive at the conclusion that Peirce has decided to take into account, round about l905,the dissymetric character of this relationship, which he has expressed by writing that if, ina sign, O acts on S, the reverse is not necessarily true. The consequence of this changewill be the abandoning of the central position granted to the triad in the global approachto the sign. Indeed, to define a priori the sign as triadic implies that diadic relationshipsbetween two elements that are induced by the triadic relationship are symmetrical.Therefore if one wants to preserve the dissymmetry of this relationship, it is necessaryeither to abandon the idea of basing the sign on the notion of triad, or to add correctives(which would be difficult), or to change the perspective, which does not imply therenunciation of the triadicity but simply causes it to intervene at another level. We willsee later, that a third approach, based on the notion of communication, will tend to unifythe two precedent perspectives.

With regard to the connection between Sign and Interpretant, it is invariably conceived,each time than it is evoked, as a relationship of determination (when it is evoked in aformal model), an effect on interpreter or a determination of the mind of an interpreter(when it concerns the description of a sign in actu). In text n49 (l909) lthe Interpretant iseven called "a creature of the sign ", a conception which is problematic if one thinks ofthe necessity, many time underlined by Peirce, that an association is a prerequisite in themind in order that a sign might function as such, which obviously excludes the possibilitythat the sign could create the Interpretant ex-nihilo. It is what Peirce resumed in this textby specifying that the Interpretant is created by the Sign "in its capacity to support itsdetermination by the Object". In one of his most formal approaches in which the triadicrelationship is his point of departure, (C.P.2-233 and s.q.q., Division of Triadic Relations)Peirce defines the Representamen ( see n22, v.l903) as the first correlate of an authentictriadic relationship. In other words he considers that this first correlate determines thethird correlate. Thus, at that moment, he approaches the sign through its triadicity towhich he adds a corrective: the determination of the interpretant by the sign, theconnections signs-object and object-interpretant being induced by the triadic relationship,


22 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

the sign itself being a particular representamen , namely a representamen that determinesa particular interpretant that is the "act of cognition of a mind".

By taking into account the dissymmetry of the relationship Object-Sign he has therefore,as we have noticed, abandoned the triadicity as founder principle and has resorted to anew notion, linked to the higthlighting of successive determinations (of the Sign by theObject and the Interpretant by the Sign) in the analysis of the sign in actu, the notion ofmediation. It concerns a resumption of this notion already present in 1867 (" mediaterepresentation "in text n8) and in l902 (" the authentic mediation is the character of asign"in text n13).In l904, triadicity and mediation appear in the same text (n28).However one can observe that in the majority of texts after l905 that mention the twodeterminations cited above, one of words "mediation"or"medium "or the verb"tomediate"is present (texts n: 33, 37, 39, 40 (a,b,c,e,f) 46, 47, 48, 49,51, 52). It concerns anew theoretical approach (because the term" triad"does not figure in any of these texts)that is based this time on the determination of the Interpretant by the Object through thesign. This conception is partially clarified and formalized in text n 30 (l905) in which thetriad is still present: the Sign is presented there as a passive correlate in its relationship tothe Object, which relationship is incorporated in a triadic relationship in such a mannerthat the Interpretant is put in a diadic relationship with the Object, induced by this triadicrelationship. What does not figure in this definition assuredly the most formalized of all,(and that one finds in text n66 in the undated manuscript n793) is precisely thedetermination of the Interpretant by the Sign.

It is in text n32 that the change appears fully with the notion of "medium ofcommunication ". The next text (n33) is more precise: a sign is"a medium for thecommunication or the extension of a form (or figure)". One finds this idea of form in n53 and 54 (19l0). It would seem that Peirce has attempted to explain the fact that thedetermination of the Sign by the Object was such that it produced the indirectdetermination of the Interpretant by the Object taking into account that a certain"form"was present in each of the three elements of the sign, as soon as the sign wasestablished, and that the process of establishment of the sign consisted in communicating(or conveying) this form from the Object to the Interpreter through the Sign. This stepdoes not exclude triadicity insofar as it is precisely the presence of this "form"that, wethink, allows us to link triadically the three elements of the semiotic phenomenon (bybeing incorporated in each of them). It would be the ground evoked by Peirce in 2-228(text n9, v.1897). One sees therefore that the two main theoretical approachs that wehave just elucidated in this group of texts, are not exclusive. In conclusion we willdistinguish therefore, without opposing them, two Peircean conceptions of the sign: - aconception that, for convenience, we will call "global triadic " derived from an analysisof semiotic phenomena which considers as essential the fact that the three elementstherein are necessarily linked by a triadic relationship. - a conception that we will call"analytic triadic" derived from a finer analysis in terms of the determination of someelements by others (of the sign by the object and the interpretant by the sign), theinterplay of these two determinations leading to the establishment of a triadic relationshipbetween the three elements necessarily present in semiotic phenomena (it is the presenceof the conveyed Form in the course of these successive determination that creates thetriadic relationship). To grasp this second conception better it is necessary to clarify whatPeirce understands by "determination" in the precise case of the sign, or, in view of thedifficulty of the task, to try to discern this notion better. Because the explanations givenby Peirce as to the sense in which he uses the words "active" and "passive"in texts n30and 66 appear to us to be no longer operative. To the extent that we have been able tounderstand his thinking, it seems to us that Peirce considers that there is characterdetermination of one correlate by those of another, the correlate B being active withreference to the correlate A, if all characters of this latter which are involved in the


23 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

semiotic phenomenon are implied by the characters of B. Friday's footprint in the sandperfectly illustrates this notion since it is just what it is, that is to say possessed ofcharacters that make it a sign, because the foot that has produced it has communicatedthem without being modified itself, and it is thus a purely active correlate. The imprintitself is a purely passive correlate for opposite reasons . However if now one photographsthis imprint, it is going to produce an image on the film which owes all its characters tothe imprint itself. In relation to this photographic image the imprint will be therefore anactive correlate and it is clear that, for Peirce, the interpretant C is a purely passivecorrelate determined by the imprint, this interpretant, triadic in nature, being such that itincorporates, as an induced diadic relationship, the diadic relationship establishedbetween Friday's foot and its imprint. However the example that we quote is particular, itis a scholastic example. Nevertheless it is, we think, by generalizing the case of signs ofthis type ( index) that Peirce obtained the definition n 30.In others texts he has usedterms that allow us to higthlight somewhat this conception:

- in texts n37 and 40a, the sign is said to be "modeled to a sort of conformity with itsobject".

- in 40c the Object is, in a certain sense, the cause of the sign which represents theinfluence of this object, and that this influence is "indirect and is not of the nature of aforce" (40 d).

-in 46 and 48 the sign is said to be specialized (that Peirce strengthens by calling it inGerman "bestimmt") and in 47 and 48 he writes that the determination of the Sign by theObject is such that consequently it determines the Interpretant, what means that if theSign is passive in relation to the Object and active when related to the Interpretant, itowes this last possibility to the action of the Object, as a pool ball becomes capable ofmoving another after having itself been knocked by another one. Moreover, in text n65,Peirce makes it clear that when the Form which comes from the Object is incorporated inthe Sign the former becomes "endowed with the power to communicate it to anInterpretant".

- but it is certainly in text n 40 f, that Peirce clearly presents as an attempt to define thesign, that his conception of determination in semiotic phenomena is best expressed whilebeing probably the most difficult to formalize: the sign, he writes, is both " determined bythe object with respect to the interpretant and it determines the interpretant in referenceto the object, in such a manner that the interpretant is determined by the object as acause through the mediation of this sign". One sees that the determinations of elementsone by other (of the Sign by the Object, the Interpretant by the Sign) are constructeddependant on the third, for lack of which, the semiotic phenomenon would be reduced tothe compositionof two independent successive determinations, in contradiction with theconsistant doctrine of Peirce. It is by taking into account the whole of Peirce'scontributions, of which it is unnecessary to underline the wealth, the power but also thedifficulty, that we have taken the risk (since we are agreement with Peirce -cf 40 f - thatin scientific matters, as in other enterprises the maxim:"no risk, no profit" is valid ") ofputting forward a formal definition of the sign that is operative and also mathematicallyformalizable, to reach as far as possible towards authentically scientific semiotics (cf "The Algebra of Signs " an essay in scientific semiotics according to Charles SandersPeirce)

APPENDIX

12 Further Sign Definitions or Equivalent proposed by


24 din 28 09.10.2009 11:05

Alfred LangPsychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland ([email protected])

======================================

All texts proposed by Alfred Lang are not, stricto sensu,definitions of the sign; however they present aspects thatrelate closely to them. They confirm in all cases analyzesthat I have proposed to the continuation of 76definitions.[R. Marty][1] W1:307f. 1865 (An Unpsychological view of logic [...])

There are three aspects under which every phenomenon may be considered and whichmay be regarded also as three elements of the phenomenon. Every phenomenon is in thefirst place an image; so that it may be considered to be or to contain a representation. Inthe second place, the phenomenon may be objectified, or looked upon as a reality; in thisway it is said to be or

Peirce - 76 Definitii Ale Semnului

Documents

Transcript of Peirce - 76 Definitii Ale Semnului