9 Feb
2024
9 Feb
'24
12:57 a.m.
John
I don't see what linguistic understanding of words has to do with the interpretants.
The utterer’s Object [his words] can only carry his reality [phaneron] within the words he
knows. - and as Peirce said - [can’t recall the reference] if the Object is unknown, then,
the words used to describe it are open to interpretation; and if the utterer doesn’t have
the words to describe the phaneron…this is a problem. AND the context for the meaning of
the words is held within the knowledge base [ the Represenamen]. This is also a problem -
what if the utterer has no context for this phaneron???In a constructive intreating -
presumably, the listener shares some of this contextual knowledge base and so, can to a
certain extent, understand the Utterer. If he doesn’t share this knowledge base - then-
the resultant interpretation is quite different from the utterer’s intended meaning.
We all know how such an interaction is open to misunderstanding. And to my knowledge, no
scholar has ever been able to reduce the capacity for misunderstanding these verbal
interactions. That’s because of so many issues: the different knowledge bases held within
the representamens; the multiple meanings of words and the reliance on linguistic context,
word order, intonation …
I don’t see what these issues have to do with the three interpretants.
My view of the interpretants refers to a situation where data/information is moved from
the Object via the Representamen’s knowledge base ---and the Interpretant's function
is to clarify the nature of the input data…from its first internal reaction…moving on to a
reaction to that input…and maybe, sometime…if these interactions are operative within a
community - to the development of a habit-of-dealing with this input. So, an animal will
develop a thick coat of fur to deal with long term cooling temperatures and this behaviour
will be common to all members of the local species.
As for linguistics - I’m not a follower of that discipline- and so, can only refer to
Bakhtin’s ‘dialogic’ emphasis on context enabling linguistic changes.
Edwina
On Feb 8, 2024, at 6:21 PM, John F Sowa
<sowa(a)bestweb.net> wrote:
Edwina,
I was just copying what Short said. If you don't have it, I'll send you the PDF
of his entire book.
All Peirce scholars agree that Peirce had settled on three kinds of interpretants. I
don't deny that. But there is no information about how anybody can determine how the
utterer can express the content of the phaneron as a linguistic sign, and how the listener
can interpret the uttered sign. The critical issue for both of them is the context which
may be much more difficult to determine than the words in the utterance.
In a previous note, I recommended the 70 page article by Keith Devlin, "Confronting
context effects in intelligence analysis". You don't have to read the whole
thing because the early examples show why context is so overwhelmingly important in
determining the interpretant. Just look below for an example from page 9 of
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Confronting+context+effects+in+intelligence+analysis%22+by+Keith+Devlin.&t=opera&ia=web>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228579637_Confronting_context_effe…
Just one example like that undermines everything Peirce wrote about determining the
interpretant. And examples like that can be repeated endlessly. Devlin's article is
one source, but any detailed analysis of language in context will turn up endless numbers
of examples.
John
______________________________________________
From: "Edwina Taborsky" " style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(0, 102, 147); text-decoration: underline; user-select:
auto;"><edwina.taborsky(a)gmail.com> <mailto:<edwina.taborsky@gmail.com
target=>
John, list
I disagree with your view that Peirce never had a coherent theory of the interpretants’.
I find his outlines clear and coherent and are all through his writings- in that it is
logical and obvious that the triad includes not merely a single interpretant but several -
and these several are basic and functional. That is- the notion of not merely one but
three Interpretants is, I feel, basic to the Peircena semiosis....
_________________________________________________________
Example from page 9 of "Confronting context effects in intelligence analysis"
by Keith Devlin. The actual sentences that were spoken are in BOLD. And the context is
in italics. Without the context, it's impossible to determine the interpretant of
the sentence.
HUSBAND: Dana succeeded in putting a penny in a parking meter today without
being picked up.
This afternoon as I was bringing Dana, our four-year-old son, home from the
nursery school, he succeeded in reaching high enough to put a penny in a parking
meter when we parked in a meter zone, whereas before he has always had to be
picked up to reach that high.
WIFE: Did you take him to the record store?
Since he put a penny in a meter that means that you stopped while he was with
you. I know that you stopped at the record store either on the way to get him or
on the way back. Was it on the way back, so that he was with you or did you stop
there on the way to get him and somewhere else on the way back.
HUSBAND: No, to the shoe repair shop.
No, I stopped at the record store on the way to get him and stopped at the shoe
repair shop on the way home when he was with me.
WIFE: What for?
I know of one reason why you might have stopped at the shoe repair shop. Why did
you in fact?
HUSBAND: I got some new shoe laces for my shoes.
As you will remember I broke a shoe lace on one of my brown Oxfords the other
day so I stopped to get some new laces.
WIFE: Your loafers need new heels badly.
Something else you could have gotten that I was thinking of. You could have taken
in your black loafers which need heels badly. You’d better get them taken care of
pretty soon.
A number of things are obvious about this particular exercise. First, the original
conversation is remarkably everyday and mundane, and concerns an extremely
restricted domain of family activity. Second, the degree of detail given in the
subsequent
‘explanations’ or ‘elaborations’ of what each person said seems quite arbitrary.
It is easy to imagine repeating the exercise over again, this time providing still
further
explanation. And then it could be repeated a third time. Then a fourth. And so on,
and so on, and so on. Apart from boredom or frustration, there does not seem to be
any obvious stopping point.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L(a)list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to list(a)list.iupui.edu with
UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by
him and Ben Udell.