The double function of the interpretant in Peirce’s theory of signs

Jimmy Aames

doi:10.1515/sem-2017-0005

Article

The double function of the interpretant in Peirce’s theory of signs

Jimmy Aames

Published/Copyright: October 31, 2018

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Semiotica Volume 2018 Issue 225

Abstract

There seem to be two distinct aspects to the role played by the Interpretant in Peirce’s account of the sign relation. On the one hand, the Interpretant is said to establish the relation between the Sign and Object. That is, the Sign can “stand for” its Object, and thereby actually function as a Sign, only by virtue of its being interpreted as such by an Interpretant. On the other hand, the Interpretant is said to be “determined” by the Sign in such a way that it is thereby mediately determined by the Sign’s Object. How can we understand the relation between these two aspects of the Interpretant? This is the question with which this paper is concerned. I begin by drawing a distinction between what I call the first-order function and second-order function of the Interpretant, and illustrating this distinction using Peirce’s example of comparing the letters p and b in § 9 of the 1867 “On a New List of Categories.” I then show that this same distinction can be discerned in a significant passage in the second section of Peirce’s 1903 “A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic,” as well as in his early definition of the Interpretant in the “New List.” This double function of the Interpretant has been noted in the Peircean literature, specifically by Joseph Ransdell in his 1966 dissertation, and more recently by André De Tienne. However, an important aspect of what I call the second-order function of the Interpretant remains unclarified in Ransdell and De Tienne’s approaches, namely, its relation to the logical operation of hypostatic abstraction. I will show that the Interpretant, in its second-order function, plays a role formally identical in the sign process to the role played by hypostatic abstraction in Peirce’s demonstrations of the Reduction Thesis. This formal identity will afford us with a way of understanding the relation between the two aspects of the Interpretant in terms of hypostatic abstraction.

Keywords: interpretant; hypostatic abstraction; reduction thesis

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to André De Tienne. The ideas in this paper grew out of the many stimulating discussions I had with him. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2017 American Philosophical Association (APA) Eastern Division Meeting, held at Baltimore, MD, under the title “On the Double Function of the Interpretant.” I want to thank the participants of the session for their valuable questions and feedback.

References

Burch, Robert W. 1991. A Peircean reduction thesis: The foundations of topological logic. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Burch, Robert W. 1997. Peirce’s reduction thesis. In Nathan Houser, Don D. Roberts & James Van Evra (eds.), Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, 234–251. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

De Tienne, André. 1996. L’analytique de la représentation chez Peirce: La genèse de la théorie des catégories. Bruxelles: Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis.10.4000/books.pusl.18123Search in Google Scholar

De Tienne, André. 2005. Information in formation: A Peircean approach. Cognitio 6(2). 149–165.Search in Google Scholar

De Tienne, André. 2015. The flow of time and the flow of signs: A basis for Peirce’s cosmosemiotics. American Journal of Semiotics 31(1). 29–53.10.5840/ajs2015311/22Search in Google Scholar

Ishida, Masato. 2009. A philosophical commentary on C. S. Peirce’s “A new list of categories”: Exhibiting logical structure and abiding relevance. PhD Diss., Penn State University. http://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/9857/4344 (accessed 14 January 2017).Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1958. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to The Collected Papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1976. The new elements of mathematics, 4 vols. C. Eisele (ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. [Reference to The New Elements will be designated NEM followed by volume and page number.].Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1982–2009. Writings of Charles S. Peirce, 7 vols. Peirce Edition Project (ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [Reference to the Writings will be designated W followed by volume and page number.].Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1992. Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898. K. L. Ketner (ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Reasoning and the Logic of Things will be designated RLT followed by page number.].Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1998. The Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 2, 1893–1913. Peirce Edition Project. (ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of The Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.].Search in Google Scholar

Ransdell, Joseph M. 1966. Charles Peirce: The idea of representation. PhD Diss., Columbia University. http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/dissabs/ransdell.htm (accessed 13 September 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Short, T. L. 2007. Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498350Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-10-31

Published in Print: 2018-11-06

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0005

Keywords for this article

interpretant; hypostatic abstraction; reduction thesis