|
|
|
|
______________________________________________________________________ The "Zeitschrift für
Semiotik"
_________________________________
Raimo Anttila André Delobelle James R. Hurford Jaroslaw Jiránek Rudi Keller Rudi Keller Dynamic object, context and final interpretant Raimo Anttila, University of California, Los Angeles Summary. The author agrees with Keller’s thesis that the development of human sign
systems is based on the category change of their signs from index to icon and from icon to
symbol, where symbols can again be used as higher order indices (metonymies) or icons
(metaphors). Nevertheless he finds a number of points which remain unclear and tries to
give them a Peircean formulation. He emphasizes the role that context plays in sign
interpretation and proposes to integrate context in the sign process by applying
Peirce’s distinction between the immediate and the dynamic object of a sign. In
addition, he shows that Keller’s distinction between meaning and sense corresponds to
Peirce’s distinction between the immediate and the dynamic interpretant of a sign and
asks why Keller’s approach does not provide for an equivalent to Peirce’s final
interpretant. Simultaneity and sucession: the sign process as a change of state André Delobelle, Institute of Higher Education for Social Communication, Brussels Summary. The author contrasts the rapid changes in the physical world with the
permanence of the thinking subject. In the subject’s actions, he distinguishes the
succession of physical events (external aspect) from the simultaneity of motives (internal
aspect). Simultaneity and succession also characterize the stages of a speech act: (a) in
the formulation process the subject chooses the signs to be uttered from simultaneously
given paradigms of virtual signs; (b) in sign utterance the selected signs are produced
successively; (c) in the resulting text the signs are given simultaneously and connected
by syntagmic structures. This analysis gives rise to the postulation of two types of time:
the qualitative, non-deterministic, non-linear time of mental phenomena and the
quantitative, deterministic, linear time of physical phenomena. Phenomena occuring in the
former time type can be used to predict and explain phenomena in the latter, but not vice
versa. Meaning and individual rule concepts James R. Hurford, University of Edinburgh Summary. The author agrees with Keller’s claim that, in human sign systems, icons
become symbols when they are applied frequently and according to rules. However, he
criticizes Keller’s conception of rules as social facts and argues in favor of a rule
concept that can be used within individual psychology. Jaroslaw Jiránek, Prague Summary. The author agrees with Keller’s general approach and emphasizes the
conception of metonymy as meta-index and metaphor as meta-icon. He criticizes the
language-centered treatment of semiotic questions and argues against reducing indices to
symptoms, similarity to identity and connotation to association. Rudi Keller, University of Düsseldorf Summary. The author distinguishes the sense of sign use from the meaning of the signs
used, differentiates between symptomic, iconic, and symbolic sign meaning, and understands
sign meaning as a means for conveying sense. He analyzes the way in which symptoms become
icons and icons become symbols without a planning hand being involved. When processes of
symptom and icon formation are applied to symbols, they turn into metonymies and
metaphors. Metonymies and metaphors are thus second-order symptoms and icons, which can in
turn become symbols.
Conclusion processes in communication Rudi Keller, University of Düsseldorf Summary. In response to the critiques by Hurford, Jiránek, and Anttila, the author repeats his two main theses: 1. Language signs are not static entities undergoing change only by chance. 2. Communication is not a problem of meaning transportation. Keller concedes to Hurford that guessing plays an important role in communication, and specifies the types of guessing involved on the basis of Peirce’s classification of inferences into deduction, induction and abduction. He also approves of Hurford’s claim that the rule concept should be definable within the framework of individual psychology, but at the same time maintains Wittgenstein’s argument against the possibility of a private language. As for Jiránek, Keller defends his use of the concept "symptom" against the broader Peircian concept "index", and concedes the possibility of connotation as an intersubjective phenomenon. With respect to Anttila, Keller emphasizes the intrinsic character of sign change and the difference between a semiosis, which comprises senders, interpreters and dynamic objects, and a sign, which does not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1999-2001, Webmaster Research Center for Semiotics, Institute for Linguistics, Fac. 1, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
