Archimedes sits down in the tub Ground Interpretant Eureka I have calculated my volume Sign The water rises B y resemblance By contiguity Icon Index Object Mass Displaced Volume ID: 594770
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Object" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Object
(Archimedes sits down in the tub)
Ground
Interpretant
(“Eureka! I have calculated my volume!”)
Sign
(The water rises)
B
y resemblance
By contiguity
Icon
IndexSlide2
Object:
Mass, Displaced Volume
Ground
Interpretant
:
“It’s pure gold!”
Sign:
D = M/V
By convention
Symbol
ReplicaSlide3
Object:
Sentence: “Density equals mass over volume.”
Ground
Interpretant
:
The meaning of the sentence.
Signs:
Language, writing, math formulae
By convention
Symbol
ReplicaSlide4
Symbol
Index
IconSlide5
Iconicity /
Firstness: Qualitative Possibility
Indexicality / Secondness: Reactive Objects
Symbolism /
Thirdness: Triadic Phenomena (rules, laws, mediations, and representations)Slide6
In
Peircean semiosis, how does signification move from the image above to its many possible meanings (dinner, a bird, a chicken, a modern-day dinosaur, the male of the species, a symbol of feistiness)Slide7
Some Implications and Questions
A sign is determined by the “boundaries” the perceiver puts around the object, not by any “elemental” quality. It can be anything: a letter, a word, a sentence, a photograph, or something in a photograph.At the level of symbolic semiosis, how does Peirce’s system differ from Saussure’s? Does
this make Peirce and Saussure complementary?Symbols never exist in isolation.The movement from firsts to thirds implies an infinite number of qualitative gradations in awareness, from the dimly perceived and unarticulate
(yet powerfully felt) to the clearly perceived and well (but never fully) articulated (and powerfully comprehended)Icons, indexes, and symbols are differentiated not only in terms of the ground that relates the object and sign, but in the quality of the interpretant that is derived. How is the interpretation of icons different qualitatively from the interpretation of symbols?
Is semiosis linear, or web-like?Are there forms of signification that for human beings seldom or never become fully symbolic and consciously articulated?