Charles S. Peirce and the Linguistic Sign

124 Pages·1985·17.531 MB·English

by  David A. Pharies

CHARLES S. PEIRCE AND THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
FOUNDATIONS OF SEMIOTICS
General Editor
ACHIM ESCHBAC H
(University of Essen)
Advisory Editorial Board
Herbert E. Brekle (Regensburg);Geoffrey L . Bursill-Hall (Burnaby, B.C.)
Eugenio Coseriu (Tübingen);Marcelo Dascal (Tel-Aviv)
Lambertus M. de Rijk (Leiden);Max H. Fisch (Indianapolis)
Rudolf Haller (Graz);Robert E. Innis (Lowell, Mass.)
Norman Kretzmann (Ithaca, N.Y.);W. Keith Percival (Lawrence, Kansas)
Jan Sulowski (Warszawa);Jürgen Trabant (Berlin)
Volume 9
David A. Pharies
Charles S. Peirce and the Linguistic Sign
CHARLES S . PEIRC E
AND TH E LINGUISTIC SIG N
by
David A. Pharies
University of Florida
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPAN Y
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
1985
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Pharies, David A.
Charles S. Peirce and the linguistic sign.
(Foundations of Semiotics, ISSN 0168-2555; v. 9)
Bibliography: p. 103.
Includes index.
1. Peirce, Charles S. (Charles Sanders), 1839-1914 - Contributions in semiotics. 2. Semio-
tics - History - 20th cecturury. Title. II. Series.
P85.P38P46 198 5 149'.94 6 85-1105 3
ISBN 90-272-3279-2 (alk. paper)
© Copyright 1985 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 1
Introduction 4
Chapter One: Th e Sign, Semiosis, and Pragmatism 1 0
Phenomenological Categories 1 0
Semiotic 1 3
The Semiotic Triad 1 3
Sign 1 4
Object 1 5
Interpretant 1 8
Semiosis 1 8
Pragmatic Theory of Meaning 2 0
Pragmatic Theory of Truth 2 3
Pragmatics and Semiotic 2 5
Ideational and Behavioral Theories of Meaning 2 6
Notes to Chapter One 2 8
Chapter Two: Sig n Typology 3 0
Ground of Representation 3 1
Mixed Grounding 3 2
Genuine vs. Degenerate Triads 3 2
Icon 3 4
Index 3 9
Symbol 4 0
Sign Types and Reasoning 4 2
Notes to Chapter Two 4 3
Chapter Three: Lexica l Icons 4 4
The Arbitrariness Principle 4 4
Diagrammatic konicity 4 8
ImaginaiIconicity 5 3
Homonymy and Ic onicity 66
Regression in Lexical konicity 6 6
Notes to Chapter Three 6 8
ChapterFour: Lexica l Indices 7 0
Onomatopoeic Indices 7 0
Diachronic Nature of Indexicality 7 4
Infantile Lexical Indices 7 7
Gestural Indices 8 1
Cross-modal Indices 8 5
Notes to Chapter Four 86
vi TABL E OF CONTENTS
ChapterFive: Sound Symbolism 8 8
Defining Sound Symbolism 8 8
Analytical List of Relevant Phenomena 8 9
Five Approaches to the Data 9 3
Conclusion 10 0
Strategies for Further Investigation 10 1
Notes to Chapter Five 10 2
Selected Bibliography 10 3
Index 11 2
Preface
In retrospect, I see that it was probably inevitable that this study - a blend
of philosophy and semantics - woul d be written by someone who ii neither a
philosopher nor a semanticist. The explanation for this paradox hinges on the
fact that, under normal circumstances, people are willing to make the investment
of time and effort necessary to research and write an original monograph only if
they feel that by doing so they can get answers to some pressing, indeed urgent,
questions. Now, it is unlikely that a philosopher specializing in Peirce would see
any urgent need to apply Peircian doctrines to specifically lexica l signs, since,
first, Peirce himself regarded the semiotic of words to be more or less cut-and-
dried, and second, the usual goal of semioticists is to expand the applicability of
their doctrines to the largest possible range of signs, not to focus in on a specific
subgroup. Neither are semanticists likely candidates for authoring a study of this
sort. They no doubt consider the semantic effects of form-meaning interaction
to be important, but nowhere near as important as the much more basic issues
yet to be resolved in that fledgling discipline. The investment factor als o ex-
plains the failure of most students of general linguistics to take up the gauntlet.
Though they may feel a bit squeamish about the problem of form and meaning
at the lexical level, their discomfort is not sufficiently acute to motivate them to
take the risks inherent in a foray into an unknown territory such as semiotica.
Consequently, most have simply decided to pretend that the problems are not
there-to swee p them under rhe rug.
If neither philosophers, semanticists, nor even general linguists are sufficiently
inconvenienced b y ignoranc e o f linguistic sign theory and typology to make
a seriou s study of it, who is? A brief glance at the writings available on the
subject yields the conclusion that four groups fall into this category. First, there
are a significant number of amateurs (e.g. Delamain 1968). Since the 'word' level
of analysis looms largest in the popular consciousness, it is not surprising that
linguistically sensitiv e layme n occasionall y pu t thei r idea s abou t word s int o
print. Such works tend to be short on theory and long on examples. A second
group who find lexical semiotic hard to ignore are psychologists (e.g. Werner
and Kaplan 1963), who must usually depend on language as an indirect indicator
of the natur e o f mental processes. This group, predictably, tend s t o prefe r
subjective assessment s of semiotic phenomena to the kind of objective analysis
2 DAVIDA.PHARIES
Peirce carried out. Third, there are literary scholars (e.g. Chatman and Levin
1973), whose professional attention to the esthetic uses of language, in particular
to th e poetic use of rhyme , meter, alliteration, repetition, and the like, has
forced them to make specific statements about the relation between form and
meaning. These statements occasionally (e.g. Mukarovsky 1955) attain a high
degree of sophistication, and literary scholars are the only one of these groups
who have turned, if in a superficial way, to Peircian semiotic for information.
The fourth group, of which I am a member, has, in my opinion, the most
pressing motivation of aU for learning about the semiotic of lexical signs. These
are students of historical linguistics in general, and of etymology in particular.
Specialists in linguistic change (especially phonological and morphological) have
long noticed tha t certai n classe s of word s see m t o b e in part exempt fro m
regular patterns of sound change, or perhaps more likely to undergo unusual
analogical shifts. The problem is far worse for the etymologist, since the lexicon
of every language contains some hundreds of semiotically problematic vocables
which must, if the etymological dictionaries are ever to be completed, be ex-
plained somehow A s a student of etymology I have always been struck by the
sheer capriciousness of etymologies in which some sort of unusual form-meaning
relations ar e involve d - a capriciousnes s which stem s I surmise fro m th e
absence of a unifying theory Exactl y what does the Italian etymologist Devoto
(1968: 355b ) mea n fo r exampl e whe n he attribute s Ital. ribobolo 'catch -
phrase'' to 'una serie onomatopeica r. . b . . b'? On what basis did the Spanish
etymologist Coromina s (1955-7 : 4:869b V set u p th e allege d universa l 'ex -
pressive' root ZUTT- 'worthless thing or person' fro m which he derived Spanish
zote 'dul l stupid' ? Imprecision and confusion about the role of form-meaning
relations in word-coinage are maladies that beset etymological work in general
it seems. Beeler (1969-70: 317) for example openl y wonders what the Oxford
Dictionary of English Etymology mean s to imply when it states that smash was
coined through 'imitation' : 'I s it the other riming words listed [smack smite-
dash clash bash crash] that smash was coined to echo o r is it nonlinguistic
features of,the external world which invite imitation?'
This book contains answers to all the crucial questions I had when I set out
to make sense of etymologies like those cited above, and I have already taken
up the task of applying my newly-acquired knowledge to the analysis of sound-
change an d word-formatio n (se e Pharie s 1982 , 1982-3 , and 1984) . I hope
that othe r workers in this same field - a s weel as specialists in all the other
categories Ihave listed -will be able to profit from my somewhat daring decision
PEIRCE AND THE LINGUISTIC SIGN 3
to enlist the help of C.S. Peirce in my attempt to resolve the questions that have
so long plagued us.
I should perhaps stress the fact that my sole purpose in writing this mono-
graph has been to outline a theory of lexical semiotic, and especially of word
typology. It was NOT my intention to produce a compendium of examples of
the various realizations of lexical iconicity and indexicality in the languages of
the world. Too many authors, in my view, have spent too much time collecting
data, and too little time determining what these data exemplify. I am confident
that the principles outlined here are universal, in the sense that they are potential-
ly realizable in any natural language whatever, and I feel that the application of
them to particular languages is a job that specialists will be able to carry out
with little difficulty.
I wish to acknowledge the invaluable aid that has been given to me by several
persons and organizations. Most significant has been the advice and counsel of
my friend Charle s Kahler of the University of Chicago, who guided me deep
enough and long enough into semiotica to enable me to survive there on my own
while writing this book. Crucial assistance was also given by the staff o f the
Institute for Advanced Study of the Communication Processes at the University
of Florida, including Dr. Howard Rothman, who gave permission for the use of
acoustic equipment, an d especially Marylo u Geifer , wh o spen t several hours
assisting me in the production of the spectrograms that appear in Chapter Three.
I would like to thank the University of Florida's Division of Sponsored Research
for financial support, and the Humanities Center for the use of its word-proces-
sor. Finally, I thank the Belknap Press of Harvard University for permission to
quote from the Collected Papers of Charles sanders Peirce
Gainesville, Florida USA
June 1982
Introduction
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) - scientist , logician, philosopher - ca n
be described as one of the most versatile thinkers in American intellectual his-
tory. 1 His interests in SCIENCE covered the entire range of the mathematical-
ly based disciplines, and he was able to make significant contributions in several
of them. While assisting at the Harvard Observatory (1872-5), for example, he
made the astronomical observations he was later (1878) to report in his first and
only book , Photometric Researches. Durin g hi s 30-yea r 2 career a s a staf f
scientist with the United States Coast Survey, he became widely known for his
work in the measuremen t o f gravity an d pendular movement. The study of
LOGIC held a particular fascinatio n fo r Peirce , and the magnitude of his a-
chievements in that field fully justify Paul Weiss' (1965: 12) characterization of
him a s 'America's greatest logician' . Peirce radicall y improve d and extended
Boolean algebra, originated the logic of relations, devised two systems of logical
graphs, and anticipated, in his work on the logical foundations of mathematics,
the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whiiehead. Finally Peirc e applied his
rich background in science and logic to the study of PHILOSOPHY wit h mo-
mentous results Hi s faith in the efficacy of the methods of experimental science
to reveal the true nature of reality in all its manifestations fo r example led him
to reject radically the Cartesian doctrines of intuition and incognizability Th e
inelegance of another of Descartes'doctrines mind-bod y dualism s o repelled his
scientific sensibilitie s that h e expende d considerabl e effor t in,constructin g a
philosophy based on the assumption that reality is unified and continuous On e
of the most salient aspects of this effort is the pragmatic theory of meaning and
truth whic h provides a method of objectifying abstrac t concepts so as to avoid
the circularity of employing undefined terms in definitions Finall y Peirc e the
logician undergirde d hi s philosophical superstructur e wit h a phenomenology
based on his own logic of relations
Although Peirce was known among small circles of the intellectual elite of his
day (witness his long friendship with William James), his lack of contacts in the
academic establishmen t an d consequen t difficultie s i n finding outlets for his
work, a s wel l a s his failure t o produc e a n all-encompassin g magnum opus ,
combined t o relegate him to obscurity during his lifetime. This situation has
been reversed in recent decades, however, with the organization and publication